Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
The new Washington
Post Weather website
Jump to CWG's
Latest Full Forecast
Outside now? Radar, temps
and more: Weather Wall
Follow us on Twitter (@capitalweather) and become a fan on Facebook
Posted at 11:00 AM ET, 04/ 7/2008

Freedman: The Price of Al Gore's Climate Battle

By Andrew Freedman

To a climate change contrarian, Al Gore is a one-man axis of evil. By publicizing the dangers of global climate change, and now launching one of the most expensive and far-reaching issue advocacy campaigns of at least the past several years, Gore has helped to vault climate change to the front burner of the environmental agenda. He's also continuing to draw fire from those who aren't sold on the idea that human activities are the primary contributor to modern global climate change.

Because of his position as the unofficial spokesperson for climate change science, Gore is in a delicate position. He is an advocate, yet has become synonymous with climate change science, and also with public fears about climate change. This mixture adds up to an attractive single target for anyone with an interest in casting doubt on the scientific evidence that points to the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. Gore's political advocacy presents a danger that climate change science will continue taking hits along with the former politician.

It also means that when Gore says something misguided about climate change, as he did on national television on March 30, or fails to walk the walk of the climate change activist that he makes himself out to be, critics are likely to conflate his mistakes to encompass the entire field of climate change science (which actually encompasses many scientific disciplines).

In an appearance on CBS News' "60 Minutes" on March 30, Gore said that climate change contrarians are a dwindling group, and are now akin to "the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat."

While it is likely true that the numbers of contrarians has dwindled along with some of their influence on policy, likening all contrarians to crackpots was unfair. Most scientists who take issue with the scientific consensus on global climate change are not motivated by a belief in conspiracy theories, but rather by a conviction that the real story of what is causing climate change has not yet come to light and/or that risks of human-caused climate change are overstated. In addition to being belittling, Gore's comments were a tactical mistake, considering the ammunition it provided to his opposition.

The opponents of mainstream climate science are aiming to take Gore down at all costs and then use Gore to discredit climate change science in general. This is no better demonstrated than in a recently posted tirade from AccuWeather senior meteorologist Joe Bastardi on the Global Warming blog. Bastardi frames the issue of human caused climate change as nothing more than a scare tactic that Gore himself devised, rather than something that was discovered through more than 100 years of scientific inquiry. He seizes on Gore's admittedly fast and loose use of sensational imagery in "An Inconvenient Truth", neglecting the well-established science underpinning the film.

"I am absolutely astounded that someone who refuses to publicly debate anyone on this matter and has no training in the field narrated a movie where frames of nuclear explosions were interspersed in a subliminal way in scenes of droughts and flood, among other major gaffes, can say these things and then have them accepted... by anyone,"

After hitting Gore with that sucker punch, Bastardi then takes a crack at demonstrating that Gore, and, by association, climate change science have gotten a free pass, and have not been subjected to a rigorous enough debate, when in fact the opposite is true.

"What gets me most is he goes on unchallenged one-on-one on this," Bastardi wrote of Gore. "Never in all my years of competition have I seen someone elevated to a level that he is, in any thing, without any face-to-face competition to establish credibility."

Gore is a just a messenger of climate science. He doesn't need to debate anyone. As a meteorologist of Mr. Bastardi's standing would know, climate science has been, and continues to be, analyzed and re-analyzed within the scientific literature, which has rigorous peer review standards for publication. As any scientist can attest, the process of publishing papers in scientific journals, and then defending the findings in such research, is not for the weak-minded. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, requires multiple stages of review by experts in numerous fields, and political representatives of the world's governments must approve one key section of the report line-by-line. In fact, it's possible that there has not been a scientific issue that has ever been studied as closely, by as many scientists and from as many diverse disciplines, as climate change has.

If Bastardi and others believe that they are the ones who are truly following the scientific method, then they should conduct and publish that research, subjected to the peer review of other scientists, rather than firing off rants that offer little to no scientific evidence.

But it seems Bastardi would rather subscribe to wild speculation by meteorologists who are unschooled in global climate dynamics, people like San Diego weatherman and Weather Channel founder John Coleman. Their feud with Gore is part of a general tussle between climate change researchers, some of whom are armed with sophisticated computer models, and meteorologists who deal in the day-to-day weather and have their own computer models. Within this context, attacking Gore is a way to score points over the climate scientists.

"We are talking issues that ORIGINATE WITH THE WEATHER, but have far reaching tentacles," Bastardi wrote.

Coleman even suggested suing Gore in order for climate change science to be exposed in a court of law.

It's a sad day when a professional in a scientific field has more trust in a court of law to determine scientific merit than a jury of their peers in the scientific community. Judges and juries simply don't have the knowledge necessary to determine the accuracy of complicated scientific matters.

I suspect that for Coleman and Bastardi, that's not the real goal, so much as it is to take Gore down from his lofty perch. Of course, no one should feel sorry for Gore, who put himself squarely in the line of fire. But should the reputation of climate science be the victim?

By Andrew Freedman  | April 7, 2008; 11:00 AM ET
Categories:  Climate Change, Freedman, News & Notes, Policy, Science  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: NatCast: Dreary on the Diamond
Next: CommuteCast: Cloudy Chill Continues


Well done Andrew. You've hit the nail on the hammer with this editorial.

Posted by: anonymous | April 7, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Very insightful article, Andrew. Thanks!

Posted by: Nell | April 7, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore will find a tough time ahead due to the current global downturn in temperature as well as the lack of any net global warming in the past ten years:

Even if it is temporary, it was not predicted by the various global climate (not weather!) models.

Posted by: anonymous | April 7, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Gore is a loose cannon who thrives on sensationalism. But if he is brought down, another well known figure stands ready to assume the rein's of power.

The founder of CNN made some rather asinine comments last week during a PBS interview. During a Charlie Rose/Ted Turner dialogue, Mr. Turner said, "We'll be 8 degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state, like Somalia or Sudan and living conditions will be intolerable."

Even Al Gore couldn't top that!!

Posted by: Augusta Jim | April 7, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Fantastic job's about time someone hit Coleman and Bastardi not to mention the quite unprofessional way in which the latter has gone about attacking the former Vice President irrespective of the merits of his position. Thanks!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Mr Freedman,

Your comment, 'The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, requires multiple stages of review by experts in numerous fields, and political representatives of the world's governments must approve one key section of the report line-by-line. In fact, it's possible that there has not been a scientific issue that has ever been studied as closely, by as many scientists and from as many diverse disciplines, as climate change has', shows you may need to more fully research current information concerning the the IPCC review process. The following links provides evidence which is contrary to the above statement you made.

Posted by: Gordon Andelin | April 7, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The IPCC does NOT go through multiple levels of review. It has literally been taken over by enviro-activists, and publications are not pre-approved by the so-called 2,000. And I believe that, like in Britain, it will only be in a court of law where the truth of Gore's lies shall prevail. Scientists wanting grant money to discredit the 'consensus' can't get it, and the MSM is only too happy to print the most salacious headlines. AFter all, they need readers too. How long do we have to wait before it's shown that, like the tectonic plate movements, bad science seems to always prevail until it's proven beyond doubt they were wrong.

Posted by: John King | April 7, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Nice work on the selective reporting of global temperatures. Like not showing that a president is in a wheel chair.

Here is a better one.
It shows that the 5-year average is still on an upward trend.

8 out of the last 10 years have been warmer than the 10...wait..100 years before them!

Yeah, nothing to see here.

Posted by: daenku32 | April 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Gordon: I looked at the link you provided, and found some useful info there. However, I don't think it provides enough evidence to support the assertion that the IPCC review process is not as thorough as I made it out to be. My writing was based on many conversations over the past few years with IPCC contributors, and with scholars who study the process of scientific assessments. Of course, the IPCC process is not perfect, and Steve McIntyre and others clearly believe it is sorely lacking because of a failure to incorporate more skeptical views.

How would you improve the process to make it more inclusive of different scientific views on climate change?

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | April 7, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse


Quite frankly I find your piece to be insulting. You criticize Bastardi for selective fact picking yet that is exactly what you doing. As if what you written is accurate reflection of his position. I always find it amusing when model readers criticize people like Joe B..

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I am not a climatologist, but I do know someting about the development of mathematical models for complex, non-linear systems. The abilities of such models to make accurate predictions (including short, medium, and long term forecasts) have to be demonstrated before too much faith is placed in them. The Earth's climate is so hideoously complex - impacted in so many unpredictable ways by so many factors (many of which cannot be wasily measured). Frankly it seems almost ridiculous on the face of it to say that one of the few climate factors we can actually measure reasonably accurately over a decent period ot time (temperature) is being driven by the one external force (man-made CO2 emissions) we can estimate and influence to some extent(at least in theory). It's a little bit like ancient cultures believing in the need for sacrifices or rituals to guarantee rain for their crops.

Posted by: JM | April 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse


You're right. Here's a comparative data from the UKMet's Hadley Centre. You can really see how temperatures have soared over the last 5-10 years globally:

Nope. No downward trend here. Al Gore will have no problems with this dataset.

Posted by: Matt | April 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Is there and member of the 'Gang that can provide an article stating the "other side" of the argument that goes against global warming? Mr. Freedman's articles are always great reads, and I think he is very knowledgeable about topics he writes about, but there is another side to this. I think it would be very helpful to all of us readers who aren't "up-to-date" with both sides of the story. Maybe some one here has already written a past article addressing that side? I just don't remember reading one since I became a regular to this blog. Thanks!

Posted by: Will in Fairfax | April 7, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

you got the title right...however, if you really want to understand the price of al gore's scam, perhaps you could research and publish who is spending $300 million on AGW ads, what do they stand to benefit from it and what are their connections to the supposed peer reviewed IPCC and AGW climate scientists...i bet its not to save the world from global perhaps you could also research where climatologists get their funding and how......until you research and publish your own peer review of the players involved, your arguments as to the validity of climate science are go around wildly speculating that climate scientists somehow have a clue about predicting earths temperature to within one degree fifty years from now, after time and time failing to get the next year right in contrast to Joe Bastardi's more accurate forecasts, underscores your misunderstanding of earths complex physical environment...your faith that the title "climatologist" allows someone to look into a subjectively inputted computer generated crystal ball and have all the right answers doesnt get very far when all the facts are peer reviewed...facts climate scientists want to keep hidden from peer the research, andrew, AGW is an infomercial to pilfer money and al gore is the bus driver...

Posted by: sammy k | April 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

To Will in Fairfax: Here is a link to a huge collection of information expressing views of 'the other side'. Take your time and give it some thought. It is entirely different than what the MSM presents.

Posted by: Gordon Andelin | April 7, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

You will have to go elsewhere to get a balanced story.This site promotes the certainty of global warming being human-caused both unabashedly and unashamedly.

Posted by: science teacher | April 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I recommend this site:

Not your standard media fare there.

Posted by: Matt | April 7, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Well written Andrew, but I have to say that the so stressed "peer review" process
isn't doing the job as advertised.
It took two Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to out review those fantastic reviewers over at the IPCC.
None of these brillant minds realized that the so called Hockey Stick Graph was fabricated to look the way it did in Gore's movie. Remember the scissor lift scene?
That graph is bogus and the IPCC quietly
brushed it out of their next report.
In a file marked: "confidential" the truth was found. The makers of that graph
(Team Michael Mann) had deliberately left the Medieval Warming period and the little ice age out of the data set.
So much for the confidence we should have for the all mighty IPCC and that world famous "peer reviewed" science.
It's a disgrace.
And Al Gore?
Yesterday he claimed during one of his teaching sessions in Montreal that Global Warming was to blame for The Aral Sea to have dried up.
It could not have been farther from the truth.
The truth is that the Aral Sea was pumped dry by dumb Communist planners in the former Sopviet Union who had a vision of planting and growing Cotton in a place where there had never been any.
Cotton is notoriously thirsty, they sucked the Aral Sea dry. This was a human caused ecological disaster. Nothing whatsoever to do with Global Warming.
"Tipper and I visited the site and could not believe our eyes"
What a BS.

Posted by: Fred | April 7, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Sammy K: See a previous column I wrote for an explanation of the differences between weather prediction and climate. You might find it gives some perspective to the issue:
Also, I think you've confused the process of peer review that is used for publishing scientific papers with the peer review of people (experts and non-experts) reading and commenting on each other's work online, such as what we've been doing here.

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | April 7, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse


Thanks for taking the time to have a look at the provided link. In answer to the your question: It's not so much that the IPCC incorporate 'sceptical'views. The issue is that the peer review process of the IPCC doesn't use impartial reviewers, many are associates of the lead authors. Hardly seems impartial to my way of thinking. The link info says to me that the 2000 to 2500 scientist consensus is a fallacy based on the problems with their peer review process and that bureaucrats have the final say in what is presented the public.

Posted by: Gordon Andelin | April 7, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Andrew, the link you just posted doesn't work. Kind of like those long-lead climate models. Just kidding.

Posted by: Matt | April 7, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

We, the current day humans, are so full of ourselves. We control the climate? We can fix the climate?

Sounds like a microwave burrito to me.

A microwave burrito that undoes the principles of natural selection.

When the catastrophe hits what will man EVER do????? ADAPT. Like he has always done. Through Ice Ages and Global Warming cycles.

Posted by: PK | April 7, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Gordon, thanks for clarifying your views on the IPCC. You have a good point in that if reviewers are handpicked by the lead authors, they wouldn't exactly be impartial. I'll inquire with an IPCC lead author and see what the response is.

Sorry for the broken link. Try this .

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | April 7, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for your thoughtful column, Andrew. It is a shame that you had to write it. Critics of Vice President Gore's efforts to educate the world about climate change are living in a world free from the burden of reality.

Climate change is real and it is having a negative impact on the planet Earth. Luckily the critics of climate change science, critics of Vice President Gore, and critics of climate change columnists like you, won't have to deal with the longterm effects of human-created global warming during their lifetime. Their grandchildren and great grandchildren, however, will suffer their from their ancestor's denial.

Even the EPA under the stewardship of the Bush Administration has noted that global warming will lead to negative health effects for humans - especially children and the elderly. Of course, at the same time the EPA reminds us that global warming will reduce deaths due to exposure to cold. So at least we have that going for us.

While Vice President Gore isn't perfect, his efforts to educate the world about the issue of climate change are to be applauded. And I hope that the next President makes addressing climate change, and American reliance on fossil fuels, the centerpiece of their administration's efforts.

Posted by: Robert M | April 7, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to all with the responses to my post.

Gordon Andelin- I can't find the link to click on in your post. Any chance you could repost?

Also, is there any member of the 'Gang who disagrees with Mr. Freedman? Or is it all of the same mindset? Thanks!

Posted by: Will in Fairfax | April 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Great he speaks the truth

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I think Andrew made some great points, particularly one that I hope those who advocate tackling climate change now will heed: Al Gore is doing their cause more harm than good. It is quite obvious he is seeking to promote himself as much as his cause.

My only other comment is that I think Andrew might have missed the one issue I think a lot of people are missing. The science is certainly compelling that the earth is warming. The science is also compelling that human-produced CO2 emissions are contributing. What is not compelling the science is the EXTENT to which that human-produced CO2 is contributing. And that is key - we all agree that combating climate change is goign to be wildly expensive, and the increased costs (particularly in energy prices) will impact the poor the most. So before we as a nation (and as a world community go down that road), we need to know if the expense will actually produce results. We can't know that until we answer the extent to which humans are actually contributing.

Again, we know we are contributing - we just don't know how much. Unfortunately, these kinds of shades of grey don't play well in our cable news society. You are either "for" or "against." No middle ground.

Posted by: Southside FFX | April 7, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Southside FFX: Actually there is not agreement that combating climate change is going to be, as you say, "wildly expensive," when compared with the costs of inaction. Many studies show that combating the problem will actually cost less than pursuing a business as usual approach.

Will in Fairfax: My column represents my views only, and not any editorial view of the Capital Weather Gang. One of my editors will respond to your questions in a subsequent comment.

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | April 7, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

"Gore's political advocacy presents a danger that climate change science will continue taking hits along with the former politician."

Andrew, I don't see any evidence that Gore's activities have hurt climate science. For that matter, I don't see Gore himself being hurt. Sure, both he and the science get attacked, but you need to provide some evidence that those attacks are becoming more effective because of Gore's presence. You haven't. If you were going to, the example of obvious loons like Bastardi and Coleman makes for poor material to build such a case.

Posted by: Steve Bloom | April 7, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

To Will in Fairfax: Here is a link to a huge collection of information expressing views of 'the other side'. Take your time and give it some thought. It is entirely different than what the MSM presents. Will...sorry I failed to add the link. Here it is.

Posted by: Gordon Andelin | April 7, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I used to think Al Gore made a perfectly competent Vice President. I now believe he'd make a perfectly competent shoe salesman. Consider: The glaciers came down, the glaciers went away, and neither the advance nor the retreat had anything to do with the number of campfires ancient man was lighting on the Wisconsin. It's a chapter in the planet's physical story unfolding, folks, that's all.

Posted by: tinkerbelle | April 7, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Will in Fairfax: We have a couple contributors who cover the climate change issue and both hold a position that is consistent with published scientific assessments (e.g., IPCC, National Academies) and numerous scientific institutions (AMS, AGU, AAAS, etc.)

Generally speaking, Capital Weather Gang as an entity has no official position on the climate change issue (as opposed to its individual contributors, who are welcome to express their personal views). Also, note, that while posts related to climate change often generate the most heated discussion and are an important element of our content, it is the day-to-day D.C. area weather -- and how it impacts the lives of Washingtonians -- that is our primary focus.

Posted by: Dan, Capital Weather Gang | April 7, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Gore's own self interest (the company that he has set up to trade carbon credits) underscores his support of the global warming hoax. The "creator of the internet" sure knows how to manipulate the feeble-minded. He gives PT Barnum a run for the money.

Posted by: NCMike | April 7, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Andrew you are deluded beyond belief. The numbers Gore used in his propaganda piece where based upon the wildy errant stats.



The hypothesis of the day is that human-caused CO2 emissions will result in dangerous global warming.

Asks whether dangerous warming is actually occurring. Temperature measurements using ground-based thermometers, balloon-mounted radiosondes and satellite-mounted microwave sensing units all agree that no warming has occurred since 1998; indeed, once account is taken of the urban heat island effect on ground thermometers, little warming can be demonstrated since 1980 despite a 55 ppm (17%) increase in atmospheric CO2.since then.

Asks whether temperature changes that have occurred since the mid-20th century lie outside the range of previous natural variation in either magnitude or rate. The answer is uniformly "no" as tested against datasets that span time scales of hundreds, thousands, tens and hundreds of thousands, and millions of years.

Asks whether changes in the presumed cause (CO2 increase) occur before changes in the presumed effect (temperature increase). Data from Antarctic ice cores show unequivocally that the answer to this question also is "no", i.e. the presumed effect predates the presumed cause.

Asks whether a close correlation exists between the monotonic increase seen in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th century and the global temperature curve. The answer is that the two curves are uncorrelated, with the steepest increase in CO2 occurring between 1940 and 1980 at precisely the same time that global temperature cooled for several decades.

Notes that theoretical calculations and modeling predict that greenhouse-forced warming should increase near the poles and also with height gained in the tropical troposphere, and asks whether this "fingerprint" pattern is replicated by modern temperature observations. The answer is that observations demonstrate precisely the opposite, with cooling in Antarctica and more warming at the tropical surface than occurs above in the troposphere.


But by all means, don't try thinking about this, just jump on the Al Gore bandwagon.

Posted by: Phil | April 7, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

The truth is now a sucker punch? Quite incisive illumination into how the Left "thinks".

Of course Gore doesn't debate anyone. Just as the homeless street preacher doesn't debate anything either. He just continues to shout and shout.

If scientists actually had the data, they would be able to drown out their self-appointed loudmouth. Unfortunately, they don't have the data so they let him yammer on because they share his beliefs and prejudices.

Posted by: JB | April 7, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

..."There is a strong statistical correlation between increased atmospheric carbon levels and increased surface temperature...." This is not a scientific factual statement. If anyone possesses such facts, he should post them here. Attaching and insulting non-global warming alarmists doesn't contribute anything worthwhile to this discussion.
...All of this global warming hysteria results in much taxpayer money spent on endless research and computer program projects. To what avail? What is being accomplished by scaring the public? What do these global warming alarmists expect the public to do about all of their endless hypothetical global warming disasters?
.....Why is every article on Carbon Dioxide (CO2) caused Global Warming based on FEAR and/or DIRE predictions of very bad future events? The reason is that there is no scientific history, facts and/or evidence linking Carbon Dioxide as the cause of Global Warming. The FEAR factor must be and is used as a substitute.
.....The earth currently may be in a warming period as a logical consequence the demise of the relatively recent 500 year Little Ice Age. That 500 year cold period was very bad; where many millions died from starvation, disease and plagues. One should be very thankful that it did not last at least another 100 years; but that, at least, would have negated the current hysteria about global warming!

Posted by: hwm982xx | April 7, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Good post. Re brainwashing of kids re global warming: have you ever heard of the Vaclac Klaus Climate Joke Awards blog? Google it to find it or go here:

Also, Andrew, ever heard of my idea of polar cities for future survivors of global warming? Google polar cities to see or more. NY Times reported on it last Saturday, Andrew Revkin blog. Wonder if you can report on Polar Cities Project in the Post or on this blog one day and let readers disgust, pro or con. meant Discuss.

Danny Bloom
Tufts 1971

Posted by: Danny Bloom | April 7, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Correction link

Posted by: Danny Bloom | April 7, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

I read/heard (not sure where) that al gore's movie was banned in the UK for being deliberately misleading
any truth to this?

Posted by: brian Columbia | April 7, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Any man who could invent the internet and follow it up by inventing global warming certainly is an individual to be reconed with! To top it off, he won a nobel peace prize for his efforts, as did Arafat.

Posted by: doceraufmu | April 7, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Brian Columbia - Gore's movie was to be shown in schools - then someone went to court - then the court decided that there were problems with the movie BUT DID NOT BAN IT, rather the court just required that some sort of disclaimer accompany the showings, if I remember right. Which, in my mind, is not sufficient. Gore's movie is clearly incorrect on sevreal points. Gore himself has publicly excused himself for admitted falsifications by stating that he believes it is appropriate to present false information if your goal is urgent enough - he believes that it is right to "scare you" into doing what is right, in effect.

Posted by: Gregor | April 7, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

"Well-established science?" Like completely forgetting to mention that the "correlation of CO2 to global warming" works in reverse, and by almost 400 years? And not to mention that closer correlation, by far, is seen with solar activity than with CO2 levels?

Consensus is completely irrelevant to science. Look at the DATA.

Posted by: EurekaBrowncoat | April 7, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Climate change? It appears that they are beginning to short "global warming". In the 70's when I was in college the outcry was global cooling. However, the most noble of causes was to save the helium supply whose source was limited to a few wells in West Texas. Helium was so important to the scientific endeavor that a ban on helium filled balloons was urged before we lost our sole supply. It is now 35 years later and you can still buy party packs at Wal Mart to make your own helium-filled balloons. At last it appears our noble cause rose inertly into the stratosphere of academic indulgence. It was also hard to find funding for saving the helium since the refrain "Remember the Hindenburg" didn't resonate as well as "rising sea levels" - but the Goodyear boys were interested.

Posted by: Alfred E. Neuman | April 7, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political farce and a scientific disgrace. To not acknowledge that fact is to implicitly support its statements as factual and accurate, neither of which is true.

Posted by: timstevens | April 7, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

PS officially pencil me in a global warming (or is that global climate change ?!?) denier.

Posted by: timstevens | April 7, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

IF you accept that man made CO2 has increased enough to change the surface temperature due to the green house affect. And, if ordinary air is made up of a percentage of nitrogen, oxyegen, carbon dioxide and other trace noble gases, where is the corresponding data that shows the percentage of each gas has changed from your text book days? Are we now 75% nitrogen, 23% CO2 etc?

Posted by: Mario in CA | April 7, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse


You say "Gore is a just a messenger of climate science. He doesn't need to debate anyone."

Al Gore won the Nobel prize. He is not a messenger. He is the LEADER of a movement. Did he win the Nobel Prize by simply "narrating" a science fiction movie? No.

Gore in a statement said "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate 'crisis' is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

A "crisis?"

People, especially leaders, debate in order to better present their side of an arguement. As a politician, he is a master-debater. What's the problem Andrew? I agree, the science IS changing, yet his "message" remains the same. According to you, debating his point-of-view is out of line. Bring it on Al. Let's hear a debate. You are a politician with an agenda.

Posted by: RICH | April 7, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse


Climate models are wrong. Water Vapors outweighs the effects of Co2 in Green house effect by 10 to 1 and nobody knows how to model clouds in any of the climate models...this alone should tell an engineer(myself),or anyone else, that the climate model programs are full of -----.

If the climate model programs were accurate, they could go back in time and verify the actual empirical results over past time. There is not a one that can do this. This means that they have not even verified the accuracy of their climate model programs before unleashing this climate terror hype on the world. Every Engineer knows that when you write a program, you must test it on samples of data to make sure that you are getting the correct crunching of the numbers and formulae.
When you weigh these facts you must come to the conclusion that Global Warming is a concept based on faith, hype and fear. These are generally called religions.

Anything we can do would only put off the expected increase (which isn't much) by 4 years.
This would cost many billions of dollars a year and produce no significant results. And save no lives.
More people die from the cold than the heat, there is a net positive to the human species from warming
as has been seen in warmings of the past. This warming is not nearly as warm as the world has been in the past, yet the media hypes it as the warmest ever. Lies not based on fact.

Much better to invest the money in pursuits that save lives, and lots of them, like fighting Malaria and Hunger, AIDs etc.

Oh yeah...that 20 to 35 foot ocean rise, that Mr Gore has been scaring people with.....the new, more correct, numbers say on the order of 13 inches in 100 years.

If you have not read;

Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 years --S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media -- Patrick J. Michaels

Cool It -- Bjorn Lomborg

Shattered Consensus..The True State of Global Warming -- Patrick J. Michaels

Then you are not getting the facts...just the hype.

But a good try anyway.
Maybe you can try again after some research on both sides.............

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 7, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse


You are obviously a person who concerns yourself with words and their meaning. As a wordsmith, I'm sure you carefully choose your words for everything you write. And since you've dropped the word "consensus" into your article as if it is a forgone conclusion regarding the position of most scientists, can you please refer me to the study or emperical data that proves there is a consensus? As far as I have ever seen, the only consensus is among the scientists that Al Gore talks to. In any case, you have to know how many scientists there are to determine whether more than half agree, and I've never seen even a modest attempt to establish this as a fact by any reputable scientist. McCarthyism indeed.

Most scientists I know think that the evidence is still inconclusive on the causal relationship between global warming and human activity. This would also explain why most people I know are tired of scientists who say "the sky is falling" because they need research grants, while others feel the need to put their hands on the their wallets when the politicians engage in this kind of hyperbole.

It won't be long before new genetic research will lead to the elimination of methane from the effluence of cows that will reduce the effect of "greenhouse gasses" many times more than anything else we can control like vehicle emissions. In fact, the effect of methane is so much worse than CO2 that many scientists question whether man can actually influence the global temperature without the help of cows. As funny as this may sound, I understand that it is truth, no matter how inconvenient. It should make you wonder why Al Gore doesn't tell everyone to stop eating beef. It's not like he's going to run for President again, so he doesn't need to farm lobby to like him anymore.

In the same vein, I think it's extremely entertaining to know that the sun's radiation output has been increasing by 0.5% per decade since the late 1970s, and everyone feels the need to blame global warming on human activities despite evidence to the contrary.

Given the history of the planet, I have little patience for people who suck up the tripe that Al Gore and his ilk are pushing. It's not enough to say that he's an idiot--although he did invent the Internet (o.k., I even know better on that one, too). But it is disturbing to me that we are getting ready to consider spending billions of dollars of public money to save the world from this unproven menace. Interestingly, the United States with its apparently antiquated EPA has done a better job reducing the rate of increase of CO2 emissions since the Kyoto Accord than those countries that signed on to it (except Germany, of course, and they started with old Soviet factories that were decommissioned during that time).

It just goes to show that you don't have to ask companies twice to reduce their energy consumption and run more efficiently to save money. Businesses with the requisite resources will do that without passing any new laws, without being asked, and they will do it because it helps the bottom line.

And can someone please tell me who invented the "green" movement? They were idiots too, because green things require CO2 to grow, and most plants thrive on higher concentrations of CO2.

In the end, there's no substitute for good stewardship, and leaving the planet better than you found it. But I don't have to subscribe to Al Gore's fear mongering and hyperbole, and I don't have to accept the unproven scientific "consensus" to believe and act on the idea that we should responsiblly control our emissions. It's why I go to the bathroom when I have to fart at dinner, and it's why we should all work to reduce our energy consumption, even if there is no causal relationship between global warming and human activity.

Posted by: J.C. Utter | April 7, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Gore is a pagan knucklehead - as are his followers on this global warming nonsense.

Posted by: Andy | April 7, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

But I do have to hand it to Mr Gore.....he is doing a good job of sequestering Carbon these days...........

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 7, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

What surprises me about this column is that the author says this, in the middle of a section about his (unsupported) claims that the global warming research is reviewed probably better than any scientific issue ever has...

" political representatives of the world's governments must approve one key section of the report line-by-line"

is Mr. Freeman blind? He just wrote, that science is now credible, in part, BECAUSE bureaucrats are approving science line by line!

If anything, this shows just how corrupt the entire work of the IPCC is. The lengthy approval process is handled buy political representatives. Science does NOT get included in the reports unless "the state"(s) approves of the content.

That should send chills up the spine of anyone that loves the legacy, now in danger, of true science.

I think before another step is taken, before another dollar is spent, the entire IPCC process must be opened up, especially full transcripts of the entire review process, if not a full video record.

If this is an important issue to the world, then the doors should not be closed to the world.

That should send

Posted by: Mike | April 7, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

all the discussion should be about how much warming is attributed to each factor. We can monitor the symptoms, but nobody can quantify the causes. Here is one of them:

Posted by: peter Kral | April 7, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Global climate models (GCMs) are at their heart computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. That is, they use computer arithmetic to solve equations that approximate the equations that describe the physical phenomena of fluid flows (primarily the atmosphere and ocean). In the case of GCMs this involves (in a simplified sense, and with a smidge of redundancy) fluid (mass) flows, energy flows, phase changes, and chemical reactions. Accurate solutions depend upon :

1.) Understanding all the physical inputs that effect the output, which in this case in something called global temperature.
2.) Creating valid (testable) mathematical models of the relationship of these inputs to the output (temperature).
3.) Creating approximations of these mathematical models that can be solved arithmetically on the computer.
4.) Using computers with sufficient arithmetic accuracy to solve these equations.
5.) Existence of an accurate dataset against which the computer solutions can be checked for validity, and to "bound" the solution. (In other words, to establish the temperature - or more accurately, the global temperature field - at given date and time. The computer model starts from this point and calculates its way forward into time. Lots of other boundary conditions have to be known at the outset as well.)

I have worked as an engineer for over 25 years, much of that involved in the use of CFD models to predict flows far simpler than the global climate. This experience tells me that there is no way that predictions can be made with the accuracy claimed for global climate models. Modeling all these physics and chemistry is extraordinarily difficult, and solving the resulting model computationally remains daunting. Please note that my experience doesn't tell me that there isn't manmade global climate change, but that the tools and data used to support the claim that there is are incapable of doing so. The dataset is a particular concern, because accurate and complete temperature readings have been available for well less the 100 years. To base our understanding of global climate change on this dataset would be like saying "I understand the valley in which I live, therefore I understand the mountain range in which I live"

In order to gain a better understanding of GCM, I referenced the the IPCC report, Section 8, "Climate Models and Their Evaluation." This section is of interest to me because it is an area in which I have some - although not exhaustive - expertise, and thus am qualified to have an opinion.

Now it turns out that there is not one GCM, but well over a dozen. They counter-predict in many situations. (in other words, when one says "up" the other says "down".) They don't all model the same physics. Page 591 is an interesting read, and should give the cognizant reader considerable doubt about predictions made with the current set of GCMs. The final statement on page 593 is perhaps the most illuminating, quoted here:

"The analysis of processes contributing to climate feedbacks in models and recent studies based on large ensembles of models suggest that in the future it may be possible to use observations to narrow the current spread in model projections of climate change."

"...the current spread of model projections of climate change?"

These are the words of the IPCC report itself, not some hysterical oil company stooges. This closing statement of the "executive summary" discussion of GCMs, the predictive tool upon which IPCC climate change predictions depend, should dramatically dampen any belief that current science is in any way capable of predicting global warming or cooling with the accuracy claimed.

Posted by: markb57 | April 7, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

I covered Gore's 60 Minutes interview on my global warming skeptics news site, Skeptics Global Warming and I was at a complete loss as to why Gore would put his foot by belittling the very people he's spending $300 million to convince of impending doom. Spokesman for the cause or not, Gore should shoe some respect and dignity to his fellow man.

Posted by: Skeptic | April 8, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Thank you J. C. - you took many words right from my fingers before I typed them. Yes, that word 'Green' that they use - what a crock of BS that is. Plants do love a lot more CO2 and they generally like a warmer and wetter climate which we would get with global warming even if that were actually happening which it has not in the last 10 years.

I'm a mechanical engineer, (excuse any spelling errors!), and I recall the first thing that I did years ago when I first heard of this doomsday prophecy was to ask myself, "Are these lunatics actually trying to convince me that the minescule amount, ~.1%, that we add to an already low concentration of CO2, under 400 PPM, is going to do WHAT?"

So, over the years, I found out things like that termites alone emit more greenhouse gas than us, learned that top atmospheric physicists like Richard Lindzen don't believe this crap, discovered that CO2 was 5 to 10 times higher millions of years ago when plants abounded in a paradise that was at times as cool as it is now despite that CO2, read a part in the recent IPCC report that states directly that they are really not very certain at all about the exact physical relationship effects between water vapor and heat transport as well as that their whole schtick is based way more on math correlation not physics, learned of the medieval warm period when it was as warm or warmer than now but with far less CO2 than now, learned that ice core samples prove that global warming preceeds CO2 concentration by hundreds of years which makes sense given a warmer planet will have more respiring life and warmer ocean must give up stored CO2, learned that MANY temperature reporting stations used by NOAA are corrupted by urban heat island effect but their data is used anyway with FUDGE FACTORS that they ~think~ are justified instead of just throwing that data out as any normal scientist would at least consider doing, and, lastly, found out that global warming STOPPED for the last ten years while CO2 has just continued to rise thus proving outright that the Gore's prediction failed and is really just a crock of BS.

... So, going back to my initial question, I realized NOOOO! What an idiot I am! They aren't trying to convince ME or anyone like me at all! They only need to convince a STUPID UNSCIENTIFIC MAJORITY FOR THEIR POLITICAL AIM.

Once I realized that I googled AL GORE + MAURICE STRONG and it all makes complete sense to me now...

Posted by: Mike M. | April 8, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

This well-written and profound article belongs in a high school newspaper. There go 5 minutes of my life, wasted.

Posted by: anonymous | April 8, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Gore is a crackpot. His mind is closed on this issue. To conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming (if it is indeed real), exists due significantly because of human activity, tells me all I need to know about Albert Gore.

Posted by: Gregg | April 8, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

With the La Nina shift in our winter weather many more people are starting to question AGW. The models didn't predict it(La Nina). until it was well underway. They didn't predict it would last, but it did.

Winter is not over in the Northern Hemisphere, even though it is into April, and there is still snow in the forcast. How long will this hold back the growing season on the great plains? World Grain supplies are very low and it will take a bumper crop season to push the world supply upwards again. If poor weather gives us a low yeild then the climate realists will point to other causes than CO2, because, as they will point out, CO2 helps plants grow and we just keep adding more and more.
The warmist will of course blame it on global warming/climate change even when the evidence points to much more powerful climate drivers than our pathetic contribution.

Posted by: k. Blaker | April 8, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

The sky is falling because of global warming! LOL

Posted by: Paul White | April 8, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

"But it seems Bastardi would rather subscribe to wild speculation by meteorologists who are unschooled in global climate dynamics, people like San Diego weatherman and Weather Channel founder John Coleman"

So Al Gore IS schooled in global climate Dynamics ??
Pardon me, but your slip is showing...

Also, can someone tell me how a cop can monitor the speed of Automobiles and never look at the cars ?
His radar gun cannot tell him how many cars are going by, but in his infinite wisdom he can "accurately" (sic) forcast traffic VOLUME with a speed indicator..
Such is the case for GW theorists...they say they can monitor the co2 and predict temps, but never look at the "source"
( Solar Energy ?)
"Come now Watson...lets not look at facts"

Lastly, One of the greatist minds of the past hundred years was Albert Einstein, and yet to this day, it is his "Theory of Relativity" that we have because it is still debated....what happened to Al Gores" Theory of Global Warming?
I guess it is so obvious to THE cop, that we do not need to go to court ?

Posted by: Rich | April 8, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Why do you buy Gore and the IPCC report? Their predictions from 10 years ago have been totally debunked, but that's not covered by the MSM. The IPCC cherry-picked facts & stats to mesh in way to support their latest fab storyline. Many of those same scientists have disavowed the IPCC, as they know their work was taken out of context and politicized.
And, you're wrong about a dwindling number of scientists who are skeptical of man-made global warming and especially the doomsday alarmism. As the so-called "facts" continue to be exposed for the politicized & baseless predictions that they are, the house of cards will continue to fall apart. Unfortunately, common sense won't come soon enough before loony carbon-trading schemes make a bunch of third-party middlemen rich, such as Gore. And not before needless taxes and regulations get implemented that further hurt our economy.

Posted by: wiley | April 8, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Experts? Who, precisely, are these "experts?" Experts on what? Knowledgable, yes. Practicioners of what we so loosely refer to as the "scientific method," yes. But..."experts?"

Sorry, gang; I don't believe in "experts." Rome was filled with experts; likewise, the Third Reich. Our own State Department. Jesus, Marx, Freud --- hell, even tony, Beverly Hills sous chefs are considered by some to be "experts." On SOMETHING.

Expert Lawyers hire Trial Experts to create Custom Juries and bring in Expert Witnesses to further buttress their own Expertise in producing desired outcomes. Expert scientists produce laboriously wrought hoaxes in the name of ... Scientific Research. Yeah, right. Try coffee. No, maybe you shouldn't.

Gimme a break ...

As Shakespeare duly noted, "... First, kill all the Experts..."

Meanwhile, Al will continue getting the media adulation he so wantonly craves and take his place in the Great American Pantheon of Celebrity.

...ho hum...

Incidentally, are the snow plows still operating in Ohio?

Posted by: James Conley | April 8, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Rich: Let me be more clear on Gore's responsibility to debate his views. A lot of his critics tend to want to bait him by poking holes in certain studies (IPCC etc.). However, he didn't write those studies, he's only trying to publicize their results. It would be best to leave it to the authors of those reports to defend them. However, Gore is responsible for his stances on what to do about climate change, and it's reasonable to expect him to debate the merits of those proposals. Perhaps this is too nuanced of a view, but I think the distinction between debating the science and debating the policy prescriptions based on the science needs to be made especially clear in his case.

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | April 8, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

This is a BIG conflict of interest for the Goracle --Just found it...

Maurice Strong, Al Gore
Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it
By Judi McLeod

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

To hear the saving-the-earth singsong of this dynamic duo, even the feather light petals of cherry blossoms in Washington leave a bigger carbon footprint.

It's a strange global warming partnership that Strong and Gore have, but it's one that's working.

Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the Unites States. That's because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world's next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is big cheese in the world of climate change, and is one of the main architects of the coming-your-way-soon Kyoto Protocol.

Gore is the glitzy, media approved front man in the partnership, the flashing neon lights on the global stage warning the masses of the end of Earth, as we know it, and Hollywood's poster boy for greening the silver screen.

The skeptics of man-made global warming believe that Gore and Strong have made climate change "the new religion". Climate change is not the first religion both parties have tried to make stick. Along with former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Strong, currently president of the Earth Council, has been boasting of replacing the Ten Commandments with the Earth Charter, a golden rule guide for how the masses should treat the environment.

Gore, who has given sermons at the United Nations sponsored Cathedral of St. John the Divine Church in New York City, is a promoter of the religion known as Gaia.

The two environmental gurus also share a belief in radical Malthusian population reduction. According to them, too many people, particularly in the U.S. are polluting the planet, emitting excessive Freon through their refrigerators and jacking up the air conditioning.

But the conduct of Al Gore and Maurice Strong in the capitalist world is one for the books. It's a side of them that may have remained unknown had it not been for the investigative talent of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of An Inconvenient Truth traveled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

"Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day. First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm's registered lobbyist, and Gore's former top Senate aide," wrote EIR.

"Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers' cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

"With Al Gore's Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal's stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When, in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers--including Maurice Strong--sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996--a Sunday--the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

"On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share.By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice Strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong's role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, the Korean man found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

In that year, Gore, still U.S. vice president, was making news for "taking the initiative in creating the Internet."

The leaders of the man-made global warming movement, you might say, get around.

Meanwhile Jumbo's still in global warming's living room, but the duo with the tiniest carbon footprints on earth continue to just tiptoe past him.

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 8, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Global Warming, Global Shwarming. Eh.

1) The surface temperature data used for supporting the Global Warming hypothesis is suspect. The surface temperature measuring station's sites used had been compromised by man made heat sources - asphalt parking lots, exhaust from heat exchangers, etc. The skew upward in day time maximum high temperatures measured at these stations because of the heat sources encourchments corrolates directly with their, the heat sources, installation.

2) The earth has gone through countless Global Warming and Cooling periods long before and after "Man's" presence.

3) There is ample historical data on regional cooling and warming periods.

An acquantance from England provided me with a nearly 1,000 plus year historical data on extream cooling and warming periods in the Bristish Ilses region. Winters when the Thames River and the sea between Dover and Calais, Franch froze over. Dry years when the Thames became only a trickle.

Greenland was "Green" from about 750 to 950. The Vikings grew wheat, barley, and grapes. By 950 the region had cooled down so much that none of those crops could be grown. It is still that way today.

The long and the short of it is "Man's" existance is insignificant and short of total thermal nuclear war, there really isn't much "Man" can really do to alter the Global Climate. Even after a global catastropic nuclear war, 100,000 plus years latter, after the radiation had dispated, life would re-emerge on Earth from some where. "Man" would be long gone, for ever, perhaps. But, the Earth and some form(s) of life would go on just the same.

Posted by: WD | April 8, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

The author confuses computer models with scientific proof.

Models are useful, but they are not proof of anything. You can build a model, and I can replicate it, but that doesn't mean there is a one-to-one correspondence to the physical world.

Further, climate change is a fact: The world, and humans, have experienced countless glacial advances and retreats. The current hysteria posits that warming = catastrophe. Warming is perhaps an economic issue and perhaps a military issue, but economics is not a science in the sense of, say, chemistry.

Put another way, would a warmer world be better or worse than the current world? No one can say one way or the other with any certainty. My hunch is that a warmer world would be a much more productive world. Neither science nor Al Gore has the answer to that question.

I do know that Americans retire to Arizona and Florida, not Alaska or the Yukon. That should be a hint. Another hint: When ice recedes, plants can grow. Look no further than once heavily glaciated Ohio for proof.

Posted by: JohnF | April 8, 2008 2:08 AM | Report abuse

It is now "do you believe" in Global Warming, and if you are not a "believer" you are a heretic. Who expected the Spanish inquisition?

Posted by: Jon | April 8, 2008 2:31 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Freedman, From the tone of your essay, I take it you give credence to Mr. Gore's incredible pile of unfounded, steaming -------. I cannot help but be amazed that a rational, thinking person would take any grain of Gore's nonsense and swallow it. You realize that some of the top scientific minds in this field-- who actually have credentials in this field --consider manmade global warming to be so much unfounded, steaming -----? Who would you lend the greater credence to, Dr. Richard Linden, the Sloan professor of atmospheric science at MIT, or Al Gore, a politician whose real accomplishments-- real or imagined --would fit on one side of a bubble gum wrapper?

I am really weary of reading article after article that attributes some kind of scientific intellect to this has been politician. This is truly one of the most incredible cons of recent times, and I continue to be flabbergasted that people like the author of this article seem unable to see more than 2 inches beyond their noses and recognize nonsense when it's staring them in the face.

Posted by: marvl | April 8, 2008 2:32 AM | Report abuse

If you put soda in a saucepan and heat it, it releases CO2. The ability of water of hold CO2 decreases rapidly with temperature. When extra heat from the sun heats all 8 planets, and the Earth get warmer, the oceans get warmer and release a large quantity of CO2. But now that the Earth is cooling, the oceans can reabsorb some of that CO2. See

Posted by: Russ Lemon | April 8, 2008 3:03 AM | Report abuse


There seems to be some suppressed man-love for Algore here. The man is the Supreme Leader of the Global Warming Hoax. $300 million more to get the word out?!? Or is it to outshout the opposition? A Nobel Peace prize and an Oscar did not get it enough press? The sky is not falling...


Posted by: Whipsnard Q Bimblemann, III, Esq. | April 8, 2008 4:03 AM | Report abuse

The 26 page IPCC "Report for Policymakers" is something we Physicists would call SWAG science. (Scientific Wild A++ Guessing) That, unfortunately is what has to describe a lot of climatology because of the chaotic and unpredicable nature of the atmosphere. Something the layman, including Al Gore, doesn't seem to understand so when you start making climatological predictions you're really on very shaky ground. Making costly and punitive policies based on them is just dumb. There's no doubt that the earth's average temperature (whatever that is) has risen and it's logical that there is a human component to that but anyone who believes that it is primarily human caused should remember that P. T. Barnum said people like that were born every minute.
Because you've got to remember that 15000 years ago the US was all ice down to the Mason-Dixon line and it took more global warming (total BTUs) to melt all that than we have today and there were no SUV's then.

Posted by: Grundoon | April 8, 2008 5:07 AM | Report abuse


Global WARMING has now become Global climate CHANGE.
This way it doesen't matter if temps go up or down, as they always have.
Big Brother AL is always right.


Posted by: NatureLover | April 8, 2008 5:39 AM | Report abuse

Most important fact to know about the academicians and bureaucrats creating the "science" that drives the hysteria : most of them would not have jobs and funding without manmade global warming. Funny that the media cries "foul" whenever someone other than a government tries to get some data published, but they refuse to consider the enormity of this simple fact.

Posted by: Rock Climber | April 8, 2008 6:48 AM | Report abuse

Since the global temperature peaked in 1998 according to recent observations, could the model projections be wrong? The following questions have been raised with a number of GW alarmist, including Al Gore and the Royal Society without a response. Perhaps someone has answers?
-has any projection used by the IPCC or other GW advocates forecasted, predicted or otherwise foreseen a cooling period or a little ice age in the future?
Question 2
-could any of the current computer models with their climate theories, complex assumptions, complex climate models and positive feedback loops forecast, predict, or foresee a cooling period or litttle ice age in the future?
Question 3
-since a rather steady state CO2 content had little or no effect on the earth's cyclical climate for 10,000 years and the recent warming trend has moderated since 1998 while the atmospheric CO2 increased are the repeated iterations of the computer models falsifying the role of CO2 in the earth's climate? Repeated iterations of the Mandelbrot set equation drives the results to infinity or zero. it is possible that the GW computer simulations drive the result to ever higher temperatures just by how the assumptions on the CO2 effect are designed, weighted and looped, isn't it ?
# Patrick49

Posted by: E.Patrick Mosman | April 8, 2008 7:06 AM | Report abuse

Remember acid rain scare. Notice no reported no analysis of all the rain we have been having nor the record snow fall should be loaded with carbon one would think.

Posted by: Publicus | April 8, 2008 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Oprah also declared man-made global warming a settled issue beyond debate.

Isnt that enough?

Posted by: TRW88 | April 8, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, requires multiple stages of review by experts in numerous fields, AND POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WORLD'S GOVERNMENTS MUST APPROVE ONE KEY SECTION OF THE REPORT LINE-BY-LINE".

What about that statement lends credibility to the premise that politics is not the driving force behind this evangelical-style movement???!

Consider the following:

"The IPCC is not, as some believe, a group of scientists, but a panel set up by the United Nations comprising representatives from about 140 governments to consider what we currently know about climate change. The panel decides whether an assessment is needed, and then engages scientists to conduct it."

Professor Martin Parry
Co-chair, IPCC Working Group II

This article is a perfect example of how this whole debate has gotten so distorted - yet another liberal arts major slavishly writing down what he's told by an agenda-driven lawyer/politician/activist, without a hint of due diligence or understanding of the actual issue.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

What a load of crap. This piece of proGore fluff should be flushed.

Posted by: mike kuyel | April 8, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Of course, why would anyone listen to Joe Bastardi on the Weather Channle when Al Gore is holding forth on a sensationalist news program??!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Mr.Freedman, if you truly believe"It's a sad day when a professional in a scientific field has more trust in a court of law to determine scientific merit than a jury of their peers in the scientific community. Judges and juries simply don't have the knowledge necessary to determine the accuracy of complicated scientific matters."then why are environmentalists, liberal governors and other GW advocates always in court to prevent the drilling for our natural resource crude oil, building of oil refineries or coal fired generating plants or demanding that the EPA control CO2 emissions? Perhaps the British court's ruling that Al Gore's movie contained eleven inaccuracies, was a propaganda film and could not be shown in the schools without pointing out the inaccurate parts was upsetting to the Al Gore's groupies.

Posted by: E.Patrick Mosman | April 8, 2008 7:31 AM | Report abuse

@Jon: "It is now "do you believe" in Global Warming, and if you are not a "believer" you are a heretic. Who expected the Spanish inquisition?"

Jon: NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

(with due deference to the Pythons)

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Lets see, climate has been changing for 4.5 BILLION years, most of which time man has not been here. It will CONTINUE to change right up until the Sun goes nova and takes the Earth with it.

When Gore can explain how man is ALSO causing the warming of Mars and even Pluto (which BTW has already started on its long swing AWAY from the Sun) then maybe he'd be listened to.

Posted by: Gregg | April 8, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

In the 70s, we were told of the coming crisis of global cooling, how by 2000 we'd be in a new ice age. Then in the late 80s it was the hole in the ozone layer that would do us in, worse than the Soviets ever could. Now we're going to live like Somalians because we won't be able to grow food, therefore we should start fueling cars with corn instead of eating it.

Posted by: historyrepeats | April 8, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

I am hoping that the LAWSUIT is successful.
Brainwashing is exactly what is happening in my children's schools.
As a parent I have to constantly work at undoing what my kids schools try to mash into their heads.
It would be different if they would allow the other side to be told in the classrooms. I think the liberal teachers are just afraid it will actually make more sense to the kids.

The flourescent light bulbs are a perfect example of the absolute NONSENSE that these enviromental people will push on the public.
Wake up people!! Get your information from somewhere other that the mainstream media.

Posted by: Kathy | April 8, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Forget actual climate change. Global warming is a massive marketing/advertising campaign. They've managed to convince the world that the sky is falling. What is the purpose of advertising? Usually to make money... so we have carbon credits, films, awards, Nobel Prizes, charities... There have been numerous rewards for the Global Warming pushers. They're laughing all the way to the bank.

It doesn't matter if you think the world is warming or not, or even if you like or dislike Al Gore. Can you deny that he's made boatloads of political capital and financial capital?

Posted by: Bill | April 8, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse


Excellent piece about the spin, but it's beyond spin. Don't take my word for it. Here's what Al Gore told and interviewer from Grist Magazine May 9, 2006 in the UK.

"Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix? "

"A: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

"Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions."

The phrase "over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is" means Gore intended knowingly to alter the facts.

Lie now; talk later.

Posted by: Arch | April 8, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

In response to the above: I recall reading a history article about the early colonists. When they arrived at Jamestown in early 1600's, the natives were planting two harvests each year. They planted in March and as they gathered in June, they replanted for an August harvest. It had to have been a much warmer and/or longer growing season 400 years ago for this to be possible. Our growing season is much shorter now than I remember from 40 years ago. I'd like to see some history as well as science on the subject.

Posted by: Judy | April 8, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Global Warming is a hoaz,a religion to the
leftist who promote it.They are anti-America
and anti-capitalists.These are the same people who warned us of a coming ice age in the 70's.

Posted by: kp | April 8, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse


You denigrate individuals who have extensive training in the field to only criticize Al Gore's presentation. Al Gore was a fraud, is a fraud and will always be a fraud. I attended (he eventually dropped out) the same school he did, he has NO meaningful scientific training (as neither do you). For you to ignore his blatant profiteering is unforgivable. As for your broad assertion that the debate is shrinking, that's false as well. I would, however, suggest, you need to get out among the living because you'd find that your theory isn't quite as accepted as you think it is. The number of dissenters is growing by the day. Even former proponents of CO2 warming are admitting the information and systems are seriously flawed or are being manipulated. The jig is up. You, sir, are one of the reasons why I will never subscribe to the Washington Post.

PS: If I were you, I would google Bakken Shale Fields. Once this hits the MSM. No one will ever take Gore seriously again.

Posted by: Vincent Walker | April 8, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

The author uses a fawning movie review to prove the "well-established science" of the global warming scare? Follow the link for yourself -- it's an analysis of the movie, not the science. In fact, here is a line from the "well-established science" article:

For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right

WOW! I'm convinced. Very lame.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

The comments of Phil, above highlight my attitude on anthropomorphic global warming. The science is so hugely complicated, with so many variables, that I, personally, have no hope of ever comprehending the science of climate change. I personally cannot evaluate the truth of claims made in the IPCC reports or in the papers published by the skeptics of manmade global warming.

I can, however, evaluate to some extent the veracity of the advocates of the competing points of view. While the Al-Gore-sky-is-falling crowd blindly rely on polically-motivated UN produced reports, combined with predictions of catastrophe if we disbelieve them and their "cures", they simply ignore more recent science that contradicts their "facts".

The skeptics justifiably question the motives of the true believers, the science underpinning their beliefs, and the so-called cures for the problem.

A lot of sober, careful, and sincere scientists who ARE experts in their respectives fields question every aspect of MMGW. I believe them more than VP Gore and his friends.

Posted by: Chuck in Austin | April 8, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Is there and member of the 'Gang that can provide an article stating the "other side" of the argument that goes against global warming? Mr. Freedman's articles are always great reads, and I think he is very knowledgeable about topics he writes about, but there is another side to this. I think it would be very helpful to all of us readers who aren't "up-to-date" with both sides of the story. Maybe some one here has already written a past article addressing that side? I just don't remember reading one since I became a regular to this blog. Thanks!

============================================== links to scientific articles, news stories, economic studies, polemics, historical articles, PR releases, editorials, feature commentaries, and blog entries both for and against climate change. The main column on the left includes arguments and evidence generally in support of the IPCC position on the reality of signficant anthropogenic global warming. The right-hand column includes material skeptical of the IPCC position and the notion that anthropogenic global warming represents a genuine threat to humanity.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Now that "global warming" has morphed into "climate change" in the light of the global "cooling" we now learn is actually underway the assorted hucksters and left wingnuts who have attached themselves to this political project are holding on for dear life.Having lost the argument that capitalism is economically ( and historically) regressive they now try to argue that it is environmentally dangerous and, of course, the debate is "closed".Lets all commit to the Kyoto accords because CO2 emissions are environmentally toxic unless produced by China, India or, indeed any nation in the Third World, who, as we know, produce only nice CO2 emissions.
Al Gore is a mediocre politician who, were it not for the environmental gig he polished up in his 40 room home, would have actually had to find a real job.Everything he says has to be seen in that context.
Just a few "inconvenient truths" about the whole climate change cult.

Posted by: Norman | April 8, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Gore is the target because the media has made him so. I blame the media for it's very one-sided advocacy position, when much of the science runs counter to the claims being made via the Goracle. By the time Inconvenient Truth hit the movies, much of the claims had already been discreditied. But the media chooses to assume the public can't think and doesn't need any counter information. Using the same data used by Gore, the ice cores show that CO2 does not lead to temperature rises, but follows. Statistical analysis of correlation shows a strong relationship between solar activity and decadal ocean current, but show no real one for CO2. The reference to the IPCC forgot to mention that the politicians write the summary and then demand the scientists make their paper coincide with the summary. Now that's convenient truth! The public is not stupid, just ignorant of the facts and debate, thanks in large part to the media.

Posted by: Jim Thompson | April 8, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I believe that the way Al Gore has discouraged debate in the area of Global Warming is a dangerous trend in science. If someone has a scientific point of view that differs with you the easiest way to stop them from making their point is to say "we have more scientists that agree" unfortunatley, Al Gore more or less has politics on his side, not science. Polls have shown consistantly that there is not a concensus and debate is needed. But science without debate is not science.

Polititions love global warming because it gives them and excuse to tax more. Corporations that claim to be fighting climate change are robbing people left and right.

I don`t know how anyone can make a documentary that is so full of scientific errors and innacuracies and get a free pass like that. It is disgusting and makes me concerned that our educational system is falling apart. There is no such thing as a documentary anymore, only political commercials and propoganda.

Posted by: Joel Matton | April 8, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

A weatherman in the media has the greatest job on the planet.

He can be wrong and still keep his job.

Nobody ever holds them accountable, ever. Has one ever been sued for liability? No.

Gore is just taking advantage of an inconvenient truth.

Posted by: rktkr | April 8, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed to see people rush to judge and even hate. Maybe Al Gore is wrong, and maybe he's right. At worst he's wrong, and we fall for it. Either way, I don't want the world to be business as usual. I don't want to see gas prices go up anymore because we're so quick to crush any conservation or eco friendly "tree hugging" conversation. Sure let's let the oil companies set the pace of our energy needs. No way! I don't know about you, but when I have to fill up my tank with gas, I get pissed. Not at Al Gore, not at the "Tree Huggers" and not even the Dems. I get mad at myself, I get mad at people like yourselves who probably drive HUGE SUV's. People who are so content with going about their lives like business as usual. There are other people in this world doing far worse things then trying to save it. Get off Al's back. . . . sheesh . .
Gotta run . . . I'm late for work and I still need to go fill up my suburban with gas. :)

Posted by: Mando | April 8, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Sullivan ignores the two most salient facts. 1) The MSM has overwhelmingly reported Gore's side of the issue as fact, while casting the other side exactly as Gore has. The media needs "peer review!" 2) Mr. Sullivan does not analyze the role of money on both sides of the issue. Whether government grants for towing the line or corporate money to influence a finding, both sides have been corrupted, and Gore not only continues have a huge footprint, but he derives income from these ventures. He has no credibility, and most research (models)are corrupted by money. This makes it harder to find the truth and have it believed by a majority.

Posted by: Pabbi | April 8, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Observations of many planets in our solar system show slightly rising temps. The polar ice cap on Mars is receding. What do the have in common with earth? The sun. But now old sole may be entering one of its solar minimums. There are currently no observed sun spots on its surface. This eveidence of decreased activity. We may be entering a period of solar minimum. The last time this occurred, earth had a little ice age that lasted 500 years. Check Mr. Ken Tapping of our National Research Council. He oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun.
Man's contribution to global warming may be minimal,and not worth the giant financial dislocations which would be incurred to fight it. Gore is a dangerously uninformed politician.

Posted by: Jerry from Brevard | April 8, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I like this comment "But should the reputation of climate science be the victim?"

If climate science is worried about its reputation perhaps its practitioners should spend more time presenting unbiased research, and less time trying to create mass hysteria and personally attacking anyone who disagrees with them.

Posted by: fearsells | April 8, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

We need to educate our youth to truth, not the nonsense of the global warming crowd. To the liberal leftists, this is their new religion, climate change. There is lots of good scientific data proving otherwise, if the media would do their jobs. Meanwhile we are parents and citizens have to help ourselves and our children learn the truth and combat the lies. Those that do not love America, hope the global warming "tax" will limit our global influence. Free trade, free speech and freedom of religion have made this nation great. We should not be exporting lies.

Posted by: A Jensen, California | April 8, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Global Warming may be true, but it won't end the world.

Man will adapt.

For the years man has been walking this earth the planet has warmed and cooled greatly many times over.

Are we not arrogant now to decide we know the precise perfect temperature of our surroundings?

More people die from cold weather than hot weather and warmer weather allows more crops to be grown closer to the polls where Russia and Canada have large masses of land.

For thousands of years shorelines have grown and receded, how can we be so arrogant now to act like we know the precise location each shoreline should take forever forward.
And so arrogant to buy a house on a forever shifting piece of real estate and expect it to stop changing now that all of your life savings are spent to build it.

How many will starve and die as we try to limit growth and economic development?

Much less than a warmer planet will take imho

Posted by: A Caps Fan | April 8, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Al Gore believes - and I believe he sincerely feels he is doing the right thing. I also believe he is completely wrong - but is doing a great job at convincing the huge number of people in this country who are marginally educated that he is right. People who have no concept of the age of the earth, of prior ige ages, of chemistry, physics, etc... are faced with an onslaught of media people telling them that we are causing global warming. The Washington Post and other newspapers have a choice to simply buy in to the hype or to show some responsibility and report the truth!! Yes the IPCC and many people think we have man-made global warming, does that make it true?? Find out!! You're a major newspaper!!! Try a little research!!!

Posted by: Whitney | April 8, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

The author of this article is particularly hard on John Coleman, who as he writes it, is just a weatherman and has no scientific background to justify his claims that "man-made" global warming is a fraud. I don't know Mr. Coleman's credentials in this area, but why are you not as critical of Al Gore's lack of scientific credentials?

Posted by: Stephen Mata | April 8, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I don't normally take the time to post a comment to news articles, but you come across as a reasonable person, Mr. Freedman. I hope my impression of you, admittedly based solely upon this individual article, is accurate. Otherwise I am probably wasting my time.

Before I start, I would like to compliment J. C. Utter on his/her comment. Well said.

For starters, it is criticly important that you understand the relationship between CO2 and temperature. According to the ice core data, the increase in CO2 has LAGGED the increase in temperature by 800 years! This is an important fact, and I want to restate it just to ensure that everyone understands it.

According to the ice core data, first the temperature increased, then 800 years later, the concentration of CO2 increased. But you would not know that from watching Mr. Gore's film. Quite the contrary. If you watch "An Incovenient Truth" you leave the film believing that CO2 has always caused an increase in temperature. That is simply not true. There is no historical evidence of ANY type to support that.

But don't take my word for it, take the word of the scientists at real climate (a source you yourself used in this piece).
--- begin quote ---
"At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming."
--- end quote ---

Did you catch that last sentence, "... CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could NOT HAVE CAUSED the first 1/6 of the warming"?

Was that obvious to you when you finished watching "An Inconvenient Truth"? I suspect not. And isn't that the opposite of what Mr. Gore and the AGW community want you to believe? They want you to believe that CO2 will definitely lead to higher temperatures. No if, ands, or buts. But that sentence clearly states that CO2 could NOT have caused the warming (during those first 800 years).

The source for the above quote is -
Paragraphs 1-4, inclusive.

Mr. Freedman, you wrote, "He seizes on Gore's admittedly fast and loose use of sensational imagery in "An Inconvenient Truth", neglecting the well-established science underpinning the film." The words "well-established science" are a hyperlink to an article at real climate. I hesitate to ask, and trust me when I ask this question that I mean no disrespect, but did you read the article that you linked to? The article that you linked to specifically pointed out the scientific errors in Mr. Gore's film. Allow me to list them for you. According to the article you linked to -
1. "... it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina on a long-term natural cycle in the climate." (follow the link within the article that you linked to)
2. "At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores -- not with the naked eye -- and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act."
3. "Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO2 emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to "global warming"."
4. "Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore's use of the long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two. " (I believe this is a very polite way of saying his graph is extremely misleading. To the extent that the viewer is left with the impression that CO2 has always caused a rise in temperature according to the ice core data. That is of course complete nonsense.)

Then the author goes on to state that, other than those minor scientific errors, the film is nicely based in science. Right...... That sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn't it? ;)

I could go on with the errors in "An Inconvenient Truth" but I honestly don't have the time. It would take all night to do them justice. Try doing your own research on that subject. I think you will be jaw dropping astonished when you discover the truth. Google this - british lorry driver sues over an inconvenient truth

A British Court ruled there were no less than nine scientific errors or unfounded claims in the film.

I can't honestly think of anything that Mr. Gore portrays in the film that is accurate. Perhaps you could do a piece on that?

And now, 16 years after the so called "consensus" (the genesis of the claim of consensus is fascinating and has been proven to be a blatant lie - I could provide detailed links if you are truly interested), we learn that 2008 is forecasted to be cooler than last year. So at least 16 years after the "consensus" we find that the peak temperature was 1998, ten years ago, and that 2008 will be even cooler than 2007.

You will pardon me if I don't take the fear mongering, doomsday proclaiming, chicken littles of the World serious when they say the sky is falling and we are all going to die.

C. Quesenberry

(Please forgive any spelling and grammar errors. I don't have the time to proof read this. I apologize in advance.)

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 8, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Global warming is a fraud....the Al Gore's of the world want the USA to become a socialist country with no manufacturing jobs, electric cars and government progarms. It is a lie.

Posted by: Lew | April 8, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse


This portion of your reply to my previous post..."I'll inquire with an IPCC lead author and see what the response is"... concerning the review process would be similar to the fox guarding the chicken coup. I know the link I provided has extensive information and is not just a casual read, however, it points out with no uncertainty that there are big problems with the IPCC review process. Please take the time to investigate further.

Posted by: Gordon Andelin | April 8, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Some scientists and politicians that support Anthropogenic Global Warming have played fast and loose with the facts to promote multiple agendas that benefit their positions. Others have been extremely sloppy with their statistics and "Science". Some of the observed and statistical information has been "massaged to fit" a preferred story line that politicians at the UN, IPCC and Al Gore are using for their own benefit and power.

It is therefore reasonable to be sceptical of much that is promoted as "Global Warming" or now "Climate Change", because it promotes specific agendas that are at odds with general human progress.

There are many benefits to living lighter on the land than we do today. The choices made by individuals and family units should be the driving force behind changes made toward that end. Accurate reasonable representations of geological history and natural science will persuade many reasonable people to change some of their habits for the better. Such a grass roots approach to treating the natural world better will be more effective than prohibiton or abusive taxation.

The final result will be a "greener" world whether or not AGW truly is affecting climate or not.

Posted by: Bill | April 8, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"It's a sad day when a professional in a scientific field has more trust in a court of law to determine scientific merit than a jury of their peers in the scientific community. Judges and juries simply don't have the knowledge necessary to determine the accuracy of complicated scientific matters."

Is that really John Coleman's intent? I read today that the city of Los Angeles is considering a global warming tax on its residents. Is this latest reaction to climate change being formulated by the ongoing scientific debate, or rather by populist calls for action? The taxes we will be asked to pay, the "carbon credits" we are increasingly being pressured to purchase, the sacrifices we will have to this in response to proven scientific fact and can it be proven that these actions will mitigate the problem? As far as scientific fact or the current infrastructure will support, environmental taxes seem to benefit only those who collect them. Maybe John Coleman is on to something here...the argument over global warming has long left the venue of scientific debate and has entered into the public mainstream. Our politicians and populist advocates (who are sometimes one and the same) are ready to stifle the scientific debate by declaring that the debate has ended, the conclusions have been drawn and now it's time to force the people to give up their money. Well, I am not convinced. I don't want to hear from Gore or any other politican...after all, these are the guys who courted industry in order to get elected, and once in office, encouraged development -- the kind they now claim contributes to global warming -- in order to stay in office. Anything they want from me smacks of them covering their own mistakes. I want to hear from the scientist who can produce the empirical fact that leads to only one conclusion...that taking money away from me will help to maintain the current climate. You want to talk me cause and effect. Until that can be demonstrated, then we need to put a hold on the politicians' and public advocates' drive to exact their pound of flesh from us. How does one do that? The civilised way is through the legal system. Gore, as figurehead of the populist movement, took the debate away from truly scientific peer review and into the public media in order to short-circuit the scientific process and whip up the voting public, so why criticise Coleman for wanting to counter it in the legal system? The institution of new taxes requires new laws, so maybe it is the politicians themselves, not John Coleman, who is driving this debate into the courts. Coleman is merely giving voice to the next logical step. It might actually do some good if a judge would rule that the global warming debate is ongoing and truly belongs in the scientific community, where the data can be properly analysed and truly credible objections can be resolved by those qualified to make supportable conclusions. Meanwhile, don't institutionalise an effect when the cause is still under debate.

I lived through the global cooling scare of the early 1970s and remember the lessons from that period. From my perspective, this is more of the same, only amplified by the pervasive influence of the instant media of today. And by the way, the weather in San Diego routinely defies forecasters' predictions, but I find that John Coleman's forecasts are the most dependable of them all.

Posted by: Stephen Parks | April 8, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Unlike the Hollywood crowd, we at Munich Re have been discussing climate change since the early 1970's -and whether people like to admit it or not, human behavior is a large -but indeed not the only -contributing factor. Insurers and reinsurers have much more substantive data on this matter than any one scientist or activist or politician, since risk is our core business. But in the post-Katrina world of demonizing the entire insurance industry, nobody wants to hear what we have to say. People just want to know why there homeowner rates have doubled in the past few years (nobody reminds them that the value of their homes may have tripled in the same time frame: nobody dares tell them to move 50 miles inland). Politicians in coastal areas don't want to hear that building codes are inadequate (sorry, they are!), and that if people want to protect their homes and lives and keep insurance affordable, then they need to upgrade/fortify the structure. People want easy, cheap fixes, and too often there is someone somewhere willing to pander to their unatenable demands. There's plenty of good information on climate change, if people just chose to educate themselves; and stop pointing fingers all the time.

We at Munich Re welcome intelligent, public discourse on the subject -cooperation among goverments, media, regulators, and the insurers. Cooperation, not controversy. At the end, we either all win or all lose the climate change 'game" together.


Bob Kinsella
Munich Re Group

Posted by: bob kinsella | April 8, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"political representatives of the world's governments must approve one key section of the report line-by-line."

Thats the problem, what qualifies a politician to approve conclusions on data so complex and requiring years of scientific training to understand?

Posted by: David Focil | April 8, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Climate Confusion by Roy W Spencer Is a must read. Dr. Spencer hits the nail on the head in his new easy to read book.

Posted by: Dores | April 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I have the one incredibly simple but cogent question which will allow everyone here to understand whether Algore, the IPCC or that chick at the Weather Channel know anything. Ready?

What percentage of 'global warming' is caused by human activity?

For those of you not closely watching the debate, this question is never answered. Not by that Bible published by the IPCC especially. And if you can't answer this question, they AGW is pretty much a PR campaign by people who opposed capitalism (which, just coincidentally, appears to be happening).

Posted by: bpjam | April 8, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

oh, and by the way, the idea that carbon is related to temperature change is kinda laughable scientifically, isn't it? Seriously. Looking at the data over the last 1000 years doesn't produce such an easily matching graph (the bogus hockey stick nonwithstanding).

If you want to blame cars (which is really what this is all about, according to the beloved Algore), then Co2 is the only possible evil. And it doesn't matter that Co2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere and could be increased by 10,000X and still not be a major factor.

And why does nobody talk about precipitation? What's it gonna be? Is it gonna be MORE or LESS precipitation? Talk about your causes for warming or cooling.... Boy, let's not deal with the big stuff. Let's just get lost in minutiae and pretend it's the big stuff.

Plus, why is it that political demogogues are leading this 'debate'? Where are the ACTUAL scientists proving anything under their own name? What happened to that crazy dude at NASA (Hansen)? Haven't heard from him in the last couple of years now that his blessed NASA data is showing a temp DECLINE! Is he no longer an oppressed lone voice being tortured for his religious beliefs?

Posted by: bpjam | April 8, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

The problem with some of the agencies which oversee publication, is that these groups have been told to find global warming. There is a great piece on titled "Where's the Heat" (or something similar) that talks about a sophisticated ocean temperature system that shows an actual decline in ocean temperatures over the last 5 years. The scientist heading the research is quoted as saying that he was surprised by thre results, and the he is looking into what "went wrong" and if the data is being misinterpreted.

This highlights the problem. There is data that might refute Gore's claim, but it is being ignored and cast as an anomoly. How many anomolies does it take to at least create a coversation that things might not be what we have been led to believe? Also, I think it is important that if Gore is going to continue to an make himself out to be an alturistic, crusading citizen that he fully disclose how much his personal wealth has grown since he became the face of this campaign.

Posted by: George | April 8, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

The IPCC is simply a political body with the agenda of forcing a Global Carbon Tax onto us to make the Globalist Elite even richer from the work of us Peons!

Wake Up Already

Posted by: frednitney | April 8, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I now know what all those people felt like who did not agree with the Church back in the 1400's. Peer review is no longer objective on this subject. It has become two hometown teams swing bats at each other, both wrong and right on some of the points and just don't know on others. Where does that leave our kids when the grown-ups can't get it right?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Another fact about fear-mongering and twisting of facts:
1. Increasing CO2 will kill the Coral reefs. The Coral Reefs FORMED when CO2 concentrations were orders of magnitude higher than today.

2. A recent study said models were better now than they've ever been. That's true, but when backchecked against the past, they only were accurate to the extent that climate conditions of the past are appended to the model. In other words, they're still not complete enough to model the past (and thus the future). Climate science is recognized (and sometimes scoffed at by others in the sciences) as one of the only disciplines that can base it's science on models. That's not science.

On Peer Review: Peer review is primarily rigorous when you have an opposing view; even with good science behind it, you'd be surprised how review boards pick on petty aspects of an article in an effort to discredit and prevent publication.

Also, claims of tipping points are vastly overstated. Nature is full of negative feedback loops and very few postiive feedback loops. If it were not so chaos would exist. In climate, if it weren't for negative feedbacks the earth would have melted down long ago due to CO2 concentrations ten times higher than didn't...

It's good that we're trying to improve the environment-cleaner greener technologies are the future.

But, think of this:
Climate science is in its infancy. In 30 years has humanity totally figured out the mechanisms by which the climate in the world functions?

Let's keep things in perspective as we improve our environment.

Posted by: Plish | April 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Good editorial, but I think you missed a very important detail: politics have affected the regular progression of debate within the scientific community concerning global warming. As a "skeptic", it is very hard to have your voice heard especially when mainstream media has appeared to side with the AGW camp. Furthermore, I think it is a stretch to make a comment that "...Bastardi then takes a crack at demonstrating that Gore, and, by association, climate change science have gotten a free pass" is a bit of a stretch - an assumption that Bastardi is taking a crack at all of climate change science - which is simply not true. I believe Bastardi has mentioned, I think it may have been in a different blog post, that he is open to debate and does recognize some of the scientific claims/arguments that the AGW camp makes. Look - there are compelling arguments on BOTH sides.

As a regular reader of Bastardi's blog, folks need to understand that various quotes that you omitted from the post did mention very meaningful arguments against Gore's claim. It is also easy to see why meteorologists and climatologists such as Bastardi easily become annoyed by what is being told in mainstream media. Also, don't discredit Coleman just because he is a daily met in San Diego - that does not represent his career. Read his resume, and you'll know why he has the credibility to make the statement he did.

Additionally - time and time again, the global climate models have been dis-proven, and should not be trusted. We simply do not know enough about how our climate works to make the assumption that we are having any effect on the climate.

Gore's standing as a politician is a real big problem. I don't think his standing as a "messenger" should afford him such a "free pass" from debate. His assertion that "there is no debate" and "the scientific community unanimously agrees" that humans are causing global warming should be reason enough alone to challenge him - as there are quite a number of folks in the "skeptic" camp who say otherwise. And, no, skeptics are not shrinking, they are growing in number.

Look - I'm not against conservatism, alternative fuels, etc - but by being labeled a "skeptic" - I believe that stereotypes already exist and are being applied that all skeptics are pro-oil, anti-environment, etc etc. Humans should be conserving. We should be investing in alternative energy. We should also be looking for ways to reduce REAL pollutants that are polluting our water, our air.

CO2 rise should be the least of our concerns. We are doing far worse things to our environment, and if Al Gore focused his attention on these things, I would stand in support behind him.

Unfortunately, it is far easier for the public to be scared by heat waves, destructive hurricanes, landslides, drought, you know - disasters that have been affecting mankind for thousands of years already.

Posted by: mpare | April 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Freedman,
The GW excitement phenomenon is normal human nature, people enjoy being frightened and Mr. Gore seems to have capitalized on that fact.
Mr. Gore did not upgrade his mansion in his Tennessee compound until there was a huge outcry about his massive waste of energy.
Mr. Gore continues to use "SUV" class vehicles and private jets.
Mr. Gore travels around the globe to conferences when he could save "carbon" by teleconferencing. Saying he "has to be there" is a lie.
Mr. Gore, it seems, is collecting a sizable fortune from his GW enterprises.
Mr. Gore appears to be knowingly perpetrating a fraud.
It is not without precedent that a spokesperson be sued for misrepresenting a product or service and it would be appropriate for Mr. Gore to explain himself and his contradictory behavior in court.
Mr. Gore seems to not care a bit about the children who are exposed to his GW tripe, apparently amassing wealth is more important to the mountebank than the well being of our children.
Mr. Gore has made it possible for 'grant leeches' to become wealthy on the backs of tax payers around the world and the annual cost of this hoax continues to grown.
I would expect there will come a time when GW followers will wake up, grow up and turn their backs on this fraud.

Posted by: Lew | April 8, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse


The way you frame the IPCC review process is pretty sad. M&M have shown this review process to be so flawed, even corrupt. You've been challenged multiple times here about the work by M&M and have yet to adequately address it. Is this because you cannot defend the IPCC? If Mann's work has been discredited, then why not Gore (which most of his work was based)? And what does this say about AGW and the following statement
"In fact, it's possible that there has not been a scientific issue that has ever been studied as closely, by as many scientists and from as many diverse disciplines, as climate change has."

I think the OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC work by M$M at CA are really showing the flaws in the scientific community, and AGW in general.

Posted by: Doug | April 8, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

What an idiot you are. You challenge non comformists to the "Religion of Gore" to present thier research for debate while supporting the cultists to hide from debate. Bastardi and Coleman are only calling for a court to hear the evidence so that the cultists of Gore would be required to present truth and fact instead of conjecture and lies. But continue to hide your head in the sand as most liberals do. It seems warm and safe!

Posted by: pastorgem | April 8, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Quoted from the article... "While it is likely true that the numbers of contrarians has dwindled"

With the author making such an erroneous statements as this - actually the number of contrarians are increasing at quite a rapid rate - why should anyone believe anything else he has to say?

Also quoted from the article... "After hitting Gore with that sucker punch," referring to Joe Bastardi. Only a deluded or disingenuous person could make the claim that the pointing out the truth is a sucker punch. The real suckers her are those who buy into the man manmade gloBull warming hoax. Scary when so many are willing to blindly follow those with pure political motives as opposed to actually looking into the value of the science being propagandized. The so called "sophisticated" computer models being extolled have been shown to be of no value due to the information used to create them i.e. garbage in garbage out. The new weather satellites launched by NASA and now coming on line disprove all the data created by the computer models used by the gloBull warming scammers. Just as the hockey stick graph was debunked several times over.

Wake up people you are being scammed in the name of more government control of our lives and a loss of liberty and of course a scheme to take more money from our pockets.

The author and this article are examples of a glaring ignorance of reality.

Posted by: Libertarian_Thinker | April 8, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I have a difficult time taking 'global warming' seriously because I watch our skies being sprayed by a *SECRET GOVERNMENT AEROSOL PROGRAM everyday, here in Massachusetts. Whenever anyone writes to their state health board or the EPA, we're told it doesn't exist. Yet, here we are, about to approve a new tax program which directs all fault to carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere to each human being.

The hypocracy and nondisclosure of the Govt spraying program is just astounding. People wonder where the bees have gone? Why is there such rapid die-off? People are getting sicker and sicker with mycoplasma illnesses(reoccuring flu symptoms) and autoimmune diseases and all our scientists say is, "It's baffling"?


We've had laws for the environment. Those laws have been ignored, without EPA inspection or policing. We've had corporatist takeover Congress and deregulate EVERYTHING WE WORKED SO HARD TO IMPROVE back in the 60's and 70's. Now we have corporations controlling, deregulating, and overseeing, our food(GM), drugs, industrial waste disposal, air quality, product contaminants, etc. etc.

We have a Government Program called HAARP, in Alaska, which heats up huge areas of the ionisphere, causing a 'plunger effect'..directly effecting the highs and lows of air pressure. This is a weather manipulating science, as well as many other purposes.

Once we sign on the dotted line, approving 'carbon taxation' we are essentially allowing the UN to override US law. Who gets our money and what would be done with it. We have no representation. That's just nuts.

I don't trust Al Gore's relationship with bankers and the UN. Global Warming feels more like another 'chaos-problem-solution' scenario. A 'False Flag' operation caused by Aerosol Programs and HAARP...that's what it looks like.

*Chemicals: Barium, Cadmium, Thorium, Aluminum, Maganese, Potassium and polymers capable of carrying biologicals(such as viruses, bacterias, and mycoplasmas).

Posted by: TessaC | April 8, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

SUN SPOTS - The next hysteria. As sometimes happens, the sun spot cycle has maintained its minumum rather then progress to the next maximum. If this keeps up for another six months, Gore will proclaim Human Global Warmins will save us from another 'Little Ice Age."

Besides, current temperatures are considerabley lower then during the Roman occupation of the UK. Just ask the wine afficianatos.

Posted by: ejdavid | April 8, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for clarifying some of the actors and positions in the climate change debate. Well done.

Posted by: Sarah | April 8, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Andrew and Dan- thanks for clarifying the differences. I understand that this is more a day-to-day website, which is what I typically visit it for. I was just looking for info on the "other side" and very thankful for the responses I got. Again, thanks for the feedback.

Posted by: Will in Fairfax | April 8, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

You asked for peer reviewed studies. I suggest you regularly check out the Inofre EPW Press Blog which regularly posts links to peer reviewed climate studies. One, which can be found at,

describes a review of 529 abstracts from peer reviewed scientific journals from 2004-2007 and reaches the conclusion that "Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. " It goes on to state that "In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Conclusions: (1) amongst real scientists, there is no concensus on global warming, except perhaps that we don't really understand the climate. (2) Al Gore and all the rest of the politicians, diplomats, celebrities, news reporters, etc. who think they know about "global warming" should shut up and let the real scientists figure it out. (3) There is certainly not sufficient scientific concensus on this subject to pass wide ranging legislation or sign treaties which will completely change our way of life, and (4) we all should stop reading isolated reports and let the real scientists who are working diligently to understand the climate do their jobs, free from political and media meddling.

Posted by: Bob from San Jose | April 8, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I suppose there is no question as to where Mr. Freedman stands on this issue.

The thing that gets me is that there is no way for the alarmists to be proven wrong. They've already gone from "global warming" to "climate change" too cover their butts in case the catastrophes get delayed by a few thousand years or so.
I find a movement with such shifty underpinnings and shifty "leaders" to be evidence that the struggle for power and control has no bounds. It reminds me of a television huckster exhorting us to "BUY NOW , BEFORE IT"S TOO LATE!!!". Or in other words , "Buy now before you have time to really investigate what it is you are buying".
And I cannot believe Al Gore really believes the whole thing either. There is absolutely NO WAY! IS THERE??!!??!!?? When it's all over and done Al Gore and his star-struck posse should not be given a pass!
I've really never seen any vocal climate activists EVER give any credence to the possibility of them being wrong about anything. The response is to call anyone who questions their method "outliers" or or "deniers" Is that how world class scientists behave? Is that what the so called "consensus" is? What is really at stake here?.....A lot high profile careers hang in the balance , and it's not only the oil execs , ya know?
What is really scary is the blind allegiance being witnessed across the world. It's an ideological quasi-religious movement that takes no prisoners.
All it really does is firm my resolve not to let a failed presidential candidate try to hijack public policy. And when he is finally shown to be the fool he insists on being and for what potential damage he has done , I will NEVER let the goofs who fell for it know it.I will remind them LOUDLY and with glee.

Posted by: Mikey | April 8, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Has there ever been or will there ever be a more self-serving aggrandizement than to describe one's own actions as "saving the planet"?........Gag.

Posted by: Mikey | April 8, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

2 thoughts here.

1) Why do we feel we "need" global warming as a reason to be good stewards of our enviroment? Spending less money on fossil fuel, preserving our forrests and grasslands, etc... should be common sensical without a scare tactic.

2) Al Gore should stick to inventing the internet...and pants.

Posted by: Thoughts | April 8, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The temperature in the 10th century was much higer than today. Guess it was the exhaust from all of those horse drawn carts.

Posted by: Ed | April 8, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

You know that Gore knows he is lying.
The man is undergoing mental anguish
and is using food for healing of guilt and anguish. He is full of self loathing....and not a little GW Methane.
Watch his body screams Humpty Dumpty.............

Posted by: Lowered expectations | April 8, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

One recurring thread among the many comments here has been criticism of the use of the term "global climate change" rather than "gobal warming." Many of you suggest that the emphasis on "climate change" is based on scientists' need to change tactics due to a sudden onslaught of cooler weather. This is not the case. Rather, the term "global climate change" is simply more accurate. It's used because even though the world is clearly warming on average, not every spot on the planet is warming up. In fact, some regions are cooling. So while "global warming" is still valid, "climate change" is preferable because it takes into account the regional variations that are likely to take place in a world that is warming overall.

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | April 8, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Humans are a virus. Especially Americans. Institute a massive transfer of wealth from them through a global warming/climate change tax under the guise of "largest polluter", then extinguish the virus.

Posted by: Neo Trinity | April 8, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Freedman,

"It's used because even though the world is clearly warming on average, not every spot on the planet is warming up. In fact, some regions are cooling."

The world is not "clearly warming". Cooler temperatures are spreading round the globe. Cooler temperatures have negated any warming over the past 100 years.

Playing with semantics will not reverse the truth.
The time is past due for an honest debate on the "climate change" issue.
Those who believe themselves to comprise the consensus would best serve science by not trying to tell the rest of the world to shut up.

Posted by: Lew | April 8, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Kirk Z, marvl -- fyi, offensive language has been deleted from both of your comments. We run a family-friendly show here, and like to keep it that way. Appreciate your cooperation.

Posted by: Capital Weather Gang | April 8, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Although I have moral and ethical issues about suggesting what I am about to suggest. Everyone should go and watch 'Ginger Kids' it is a South Park Episode. The reason is that Cartman is a great example of what can happen when group of people get together behind a manipulative leader. I am not comparing Al Gore to Dictators or anything of the sort. More so I want to point out that society follows people without getting any evidence. Most people who support Climate change haven't even read the reports supporting it. With science it is tough to argue unless you know the background. Galieo thought the world was flat and the majority of people believed that as well. There are too many other options out there that we don't understand about atmospheric science: Cloud radiative forcing for an example.

Posted by: Tyler | April 8, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore is and has always been a phony and compulsive liar who's only interest is self promotion and financial enrichment. Check out all of the venture capital funds he's involved with and the hundreds of millions of dollars he's made while pushing is climate change agenda. The man is unscrupulous and is being promoted by the same people on Wall Street who have brought us the mortgage and other financial disasters we are dealing with today. The next BIG financial bubble will be alternative energy and various CO2 financial cap and trade and sequestration schemes driven by big business, wall street investment bankers and the politicians they control.

Posted by: Sam | April 8, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed that over the last 10 years, as "real" science is disproving the man made "global Warming" hypothesis, that buffoons like Al Gore are starting to scream even louder about the "impending" doom.

I get the distinct feeling that as science rebuffs the myth the screaming will only get louder as Gore et al see their gravy train leaving the station. Thus the ever increasing shrill of impending catastrophe will only get louder as the likely hood of anything negative happening decreases.

Follow the money as they say.

Posted by: Johnny Canuck | April 8, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Folks- the science says this is BS. There is absolutely no doubt that the earth has been much warmer than it is today. THIS IS A FACT! Long before any fossil fuel burning machinery was invented.
Besides, 1 degree in 100 years, are you kidding me? Every night on my TV screen I see different news channels post different highs and lows for the same town on the same day. Most of the time, they vary by more than 1 degree.
So- we cannot even measure the temperature today without having universal agreement on the temperature in one town, yet mad scientist can tell me what the entire planet's exact temperature was 100 years ago.
How stupid must one be?

Posted by: Rich | April 8, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

The "Global Warming" debate, now being called "Climate Change" due in large part to the fact that there are now overwhelming reports to the opposite, just show how the collective stupidity of the Democrat Party controlled "Enviromental Whacko's" is overshadowed and surpassed ONLY by their mind numbing intellectual dishonesty.

While Mr. Friedman correctly shows the evidences that Al Gore is nothing more than a snake oil salesman, he still propagates the fallicy that "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is in fact, real and being caused by human activities by attacking two people who's scientific credentials are impeccable, as opposed to the very same "credentials" spouted fourth by Gore and his ilk.

Bottom line is that the whole issue of "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is nothing more than a money grab by those who choose to show their unmittigated hatred of AMERICA AND AMERICANS as it's undeniable that the Chinese are far worse polluters and do far greater damage to the environment than American and it's inhabitants could ever do, even if they tried.

But due to the fact that the Chinese could collapes our economy, especially now and in light of recent developments that the Chinese hold not only large U.S. monetary amounts in bonds, but also are now in the business of buying up our debt (last Sunday's '60 Minutes' piece), and is the only proof we need to see how they will never be bastardized to the extent that several of our own esteemed scientists who attempt to dispell the fallicies of "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" are being bastardized at this moment and by blogs such as this one.

Posted by: Thirteenburn | April 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Freedman- you are full of crap, they change the name to global climate change percisely because they don't know what they hell they are talking about.
In the 1920's the headlines were screaming "Global Warming" by the same set of characters, dust bowl anybody? By the 70's, the ice was coming, in the 80s we were going to run out food, now we are back to "global climate change."
When scientist are telling me that a 1000 year high in sun flares means nothing and cows farting is something we have to get a hold on, I can only wonder how stupid they really think we are.
Oh yeah, I forgot, half of American city youth don't make it out of high school, that explains it.

Posted by: Rich | April 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Lets look back at the hinge pin for Al Gore's argument - that CO2 is causing global warming.

Last time I checked, this has not been proven.

Yet, millions of people around the world all think that CO2 is causing global wa... I'm sorry, climate change.

Go on, I challenge any of you to show proof. Don't post links to circumstantial evidence, that doesn't count (Ooo, yeah, that is mostly what Algore's argument is based on...)

I plead to anyone buying Algore's argument - please at least make an attempt to understand the other side of the argument.

Geez, nevermind - its a lost cause. We can't even pick the right president, so how are we going to pick the correct policy/agenda for climate change... yep - you heard that right - there's a bit of irony for ya, kinda wish Algore did get elected so maybe we wouldn't have had to deal with his, uh, climate change campaign.

Posted by: mpare | April 8, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

This argument is a joke. More than 99% of the atmosphere is made up of Nitrogen and Oxygen, which leaves less than 1% for water evaporation, CO2 and whatever else we can throw up there. Are you telling me that the earth is sooooo fragile that a minor uptick in CO2 is going to kill us all and everything living here.
Bet most of you greenies didn't even know that.
I'll also bet that you greenies didn't even know that ALL of the global warming models don't include cloud formation or evaporation. Both of which are far more important in regulating the Earth's temperature than my SUV.

Posted by: Rich | April 8, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Rich -- You're welcome to participate in constructive debate here, but personal attacks on our writers are not welcome (e.g., "Freedman - you are full of crap") ... so keep it civil please.

Posted by: Capital Weather Gang | April 8, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

mpare -- No matter where you fall on the side of the climate change debate, your challenge to "show proof" of the link between CO2 and climate change has no basis in science. When it comes to predicting climate (and weather, too), we are not dealing with proofs and 100% certainties. So no one can say that there is 100% proof that CO2 is linked to climate change, just like no one can say there is 100% proof that it isn't. Instead, the best that scientists can do is assign probabilities to the likelihood that a given percentage of warming has been caused by manmade influence.

Posted by: Dan, Capital Weather Gang | April 8, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I began learning and campaigning about Greenhouse Effect in 1988/89, at one point as an employed campaigner with a significant Australian environment group.

20 years on, and following watching Al Gore's film with our 12 year old daughter whom we are home educating, my husband
( a longtime environment and 3rd world campaigner and researcher) decided it was important to her education that we look at the 'contrarian' position... And my word, what a shock. We were very confronted by the voluminous evidence that shows our long held beliefs were without much foundation, other than a faith in what others had told us because they 'wanted to save the world' like us. Never again will I not test the evidence with an investigation of contrary points of view.

So, if the consequences of increasing CO2 are so dire that my life is to micro-managed to the point that I have to give up all decent light globes for dim 'energy efficient' ones (which we started using in 1989) with mercury in them (see Maine Health department's guidelines for cleanup should one of these toxic things break...) then one very effective macro managed solution would be to GET RID OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX - imagine the incredible reduction in emissions, not to mention lives and money saved, toxic pollution prevented etc.etc. etc...

And as far as Al Gore 'walking his talk', he MUST, otherwise he doesn't really believe in what he is talking about - he's a massive consumer of the earth's resources, and so very much greater than the vast majority of people who are expected to sacrifice.

People I know who are sincere about their concerns do it, so why shouldn't Al Gore? Why is he so special that he gets a 'get out of reducing personal CO2 emissions' card?

I don't think any person should be able to buy their way out of personal responsibility. It is a terribly shocking consequence that people in the 3rd world are once again wearing it courtesy of corn etc being diverted to bio-fuel production. Far from saving lives, poor people are paying the ultimate price AGAIN. Shame shame shame - and such demagoguery, lack of intellectual rigour (and so easy to fall prey to the 'right' noises and words when you are a 'true believer' - I know from personal experience...).

Posted by: Fiona Meredith | April 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Dear Andrew,

As you can see from the replies, this is a very polarized subject. I believe you tried to write a balanced piece; good for you.

Let me suggest looking at Wikipedia, which also struggles to be balanced. There are some things there that trouble me, and make me a "centrist" in the global warming debate. I am deeply concerned about the quality of science supporting this theory.

Go to, punch in "global warming" as the subject, and start reading. You'll soon see some troubling things.

I quote directly, "On Earth, the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9-26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4-9%; and ozone, which causes 3-7%."

Wait A Minute! We don't *know* what CO-2's effect is better than somewhere between 9 and 26%? This is Basic Science 101 if we're going to start hugely expensive projects to limit carbon dioxide in the air. Where's the good science here to pin this number down? Nowhere in sight.

Because the very basic numbers like this aren't pinned down (and should be!!), the IPCC has to issue very broad ranges of expected effects, for example, a change of "2.0 °F to 11.5 °F".

Let's try a common sense example. If you're in a car, the difference between crashing into a barrier at 2 MPH and 11.5 MPH is enormous. The 5 MPH bumpers will soak up the little crash. You'll probably see expensive damage and whiplash from the 11.5 MPH crash.

An item I haven't seen added to the math that definitely should be there is how much people add to the carbon dioxide. People breathe out about 700 grams of CO-2 per day. There's around 6 billion people, plus or minus. Multiply. That is 4200 billion grams, or 4.2 trillion kilograms (8 trillion pounds) of CO-2 EACH DAY. The only way to stop it is to kill the people, which is a *political* alternative, and thus not mentioned.

I do not see any mention of turning off the enormous methane output of the cows in India. That's because it is politically impossible. Nor can we fit all the cows there with catalytic converters. Politically impossible. Yet methane is a much worse "greenhouse gas" than CO-2.

On and on, there is no mention made in *science* reports of *politically* impossible alternatives. Why is this? Science is science. It should have no bias. But we see things like the "hockey stick" temperature graph being the result of data manipulation to achieve a result.

So list me as a centrist. There might be something going on. So much of the science has been politically tarred that it's hard to find good science. That's never a comfortable feeling when the size of the pot is as big as this one.


Dave Small

Posted by: David Small | April 8, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

If your Idol, Gore is a weatherman then I must be Albert Einstein. Anyone would have to think twice about giving serious consideration to anything weather related that you post here if you think so highly of him. If not, then let me re-write all of the science books concerning my theory of relativity... since I have as much qualification to do so as Al Gore does to challenge the world as the greatest weather scientist of all time. What a joke. Kool-Aid anyone?

Posted by: Steve | April 8, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Freedman,

I submit for your consideration:
From the 1995 IPCC draft report, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." And, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes."
That did not say what the grant leeches and GW industry wanted it too so it was changed:
"The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."

Why should I trust a GW believer when there exists no scientific evidence that GW even exists and the IPCC can re-write the reports to say whatever is required to keep the grant money flowing?
Data is falsified, peer review is incestuous and funding sources determine research outcomes. The scientific priciples of investigation are non-existant among GW believers.
Beam me up Scotty, no intellegent life here!

Posted by: Lew | April 8, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Mpare: You stated that I omitted various quotes from Bastardi's post that would show that he made "very meaningful arguments against Gore's claim." Can you point me to what those statements are, because I read that post many times and did not see anything even approaching a level-headed scientific critique of the climate science that Gore cites as the basis for his stances on climate change solutions.

As for Coleman, his background as a TV weathercaster certainly makes him more qualified than me to predict tomorrow's weather, but he didn't do his profession any service by blasting Gore in a rant nearly on par with Bastardi's for its lack of substance and abundance of vitriol. I'm not saying he needs to agree with Gore or the IPCC, rather that if you're going to disagree, at least offer some reasons other than emotional ones for why you are doing so (many others are doing this effectively).

As far as I'm concerned, nothing in his resume, not even the founding of The Weather Channel, gives him the credibility to make many of the statements that he did.

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | April 8, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Tyler: Thanks for offering what I think is the first Capital Weather Gang reference to South Park, which continues to be as sharp as ever. Thanks for making the link, I'll search for that episode.

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | April 8, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Lew: I suggest you read subsequent IPCC reports for more information about quantifying the human influence on climate change. You're right that it's not 100 percent quantifiable, but science rarely is. Also, I've written articles in the past, as have many other reporters, on the history of that sentence in the 1995 IPCC report. It's not as simple nor as nefarious as you suggest.

Also, can you or anyone else provide me with any evidence that shows that the pursuit of grant money for climate change research is causing climate change scientists to significantly alter their reports, including the IPCC reports? This notion of a climate science conspiracy in pursuit of money is a common thread from many commenters on this site and elsewhere, yet rarely do people offer evidence to back up the claim. It would be interesting to see if there is any merit to it.

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | April 8, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Quoting Dan, of Capital Weather Gang fame -

"Instead, the best that scientists can do is assign probabilities to the likelihood that a given percentage of warming has been caused by manmade influence."

If you have this information Dan, please share it with everyone.

1. What is the probability to the likelihood that a given percentage of warming has been caused by manmade influence?

2. While you are it, what is the given percentage that you are referring to? 5%, 10%, 15% What is it? What percentage has man contributed to warming?

3. God forbid, but if every human being on the planet dropped dead tomorrow, how much of a difference would that make in the global average temperature in the year 2100?

Surely a bunch of crack reporters and AGW believers such as yourselves can answer those simple questions.

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 8, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Quoting Andrew Freedman, "This notion of a climate science conspiracy in pursuit of money is a common thread from many commenters on this site and elsewhere, yet rarely do people offer evidence to back up the claim. It would be interesting to see if there is any merit to it."

Allow me.

Hansen has taken $720,000 from a George Soros group.

--- begin quote ---
How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.
--- end quote ---

Isn't that just peachy? The guy's salary comes from our tax dollars, and yet he has taken almost 3/4 of a million dollars from George Soros.

That alone she disqualify every word that has come out of Hansen's mouth and every word that he has penned.

Source for the quote -

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 9, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Andrew, were you aware that according to the ice core data the increase in CO2 lagged the increase in temperature by 800 years?

Most people believe it is the other way around. Most people believe that *after* CO2 increases, *then* temperature increases. That isn't what the data from the ice cores tell us. Not even close.

First the temperature increased, then the CCO2 increased. It makes sense when you think about it. The planet got warmer, life flourished, life produced CO2.

Not exactly rocket science. Although it does seem difficult for some scientists at NASA to grasp it.

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 9, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Great question C. Quesenberry;
You know that true Global Warming believers can't answer factual questions because they take it on faith only, from the Goracle. You will never get an answer to your questions. The only facts that are being disseminated openly and freely are from the Warming skeptics, because they know that the facts support them, without any huge conflicts of interest to Harumph away.

Posted by: Forever Skeptic | April 9, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

If you will ante up some bucks and check out the four books I recommended earlier you will find some of the truth you are striving for. I also posted an article uncovering a huge conflict of interest that AL GORE is involved with which would fall into your concerns of pay offs, whether Grants or otherwise.
If you haven't checked it out yet (it has been recommended previously), the site;ogy/index.php?showtopic=2050

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource; has lots of the answers you are asking about.
If you want the truth, Seek and ye shall find........

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 9, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 9, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

The field of "ologies" are the "English Lit's" of the sciences. These are the only fields of science where an entire society that existed 10,000 years ago can be reconstructed from a small fragment of jaw bone. Or, where a politician can give CO2 prominence over the Sun with respect to yearly global temperature variances.

Posted by: Alfred E. Neuman | April 9, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

These "ologies" sure are producing a few "isms" these days.............

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 9, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse


I was subjective in my objectiveness.

Posted by: Alfred E. Neuman | April 9, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

It works...........
Love your magazine.

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 9, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

daenku32, Matt & anyone who thinks us skeptics are crazy,

Am I missing something? Your (daenku32 & Matt) links conveniently do not include the past year of data. Subsequently yes, your graphs appear to be rising for the past 5 years, but how can one talk about the last 5 if one does not include the last 1. I think the anonymous posting at 1:24 PM on 4-7-08 points out something significant that everyone wants to sweep under the rug that has decided global warming is a forgone conclusion and that man made gases are the root cause. If man is the sole influence on this relatively mild warming trend for the past 150 years, how can it be wiped out in just the last one. Doesn't that possibly point to a lot of hype?!?!

Honestly, I am undecided about global warming, but even if there is a recent warming trend, I think a lot of money is being poured down the "Gore" money drain, with man made gases as the root cause. Think 2 words "Cause" and "Effect".

As C. Queensbury so intelligently detailed, if CO2 concentrations increases (per ice core sampling) lags behind temperature increases, then how could it cause global warming.

I really think the human race thinks far too egocentrically to think they can corrupt an environment that took mother nature, or the universe, or God (depending upon which school of thought, philosophy or theology you subscribe to) millions if not billions of year to create.

If you want a more likely culprit to what might be causing warming and cooling trends on Earth, one only needs to look to the daytime sky. One sun spot blasts off energy into space and into our solar system at a level humans can only dream of creating.

I think we should take a lesson learned from Copernicus, regarding popular theories of his day about our neighboring celestial bodies. "Everything does not always revolve around the Earth."

Now, should we not be emitting so much CO & CO2? Probably considering the level of deforestation the human race is inflicting on the planet. The technology is most certainly available to cut down our use of fossil fuels but at what price?

A better question people should be asking is if we are spending all this money to link man made gases to global warming and spend more money to change the world's economy to drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption, will there be any money left to find out what is really causing warming trends if we realize "An Inconvenient Truth" was a sham.

Posted by: no genius | April 9, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Nice article. Whichever side of the aisle you may be on with this issue I think some good points were brought out. As for me I view Al Gore as a sign of how far we have fallen as a society. The climate change community sold their souls to have Mr. Gore as their spokesperson.

So much of science and the papers that get published do get highly criticized (reviewed). However, I will say that I believe that those who critique those papers are biased and if you don't support their cause you won't get published. Or at least accredited by them.

This all boils down to cause and effect. What does mother nature do to herself? How much does mans impact really have? Now, wouldn't it be nice and better for those in industrial areas to pollute less? Of course. Lets have some common sense applied here.

Finally, can someone point me to an article comparing the amount of impact an average volcanic eruption has with the impact of say the entire U.S.A. or North America vs. Europe?

Now for the cynic. Aren't the politicians and dare I say the vast portion of the scientific community financially motivated? The politician answers itself. The scientist community? Isn't a large portion driven by the grants they receive and if a politician wants to hear something to open a financial stream won't that scientist find support for that politician? I argue that even the well intentioned scientist gets suckered into this path.

Posted by: Al Barnes | April 9, 2008 2:19 AM | Report abuse

Marketing 101 teaches:

Create a sense of urgency
Create a need
Bash the opponents product
Offer incentives to buy said product.

Each tactic (the operative word is TACTIC) is in play where "Global Warming" is concerned.

Ah, then there is advertising! Someone explain why if Global Warming is an Established and Undisputed Fact that:

a. many want the debate to continue while Gore states it is over (a communist tactic by the way)

b. Gore needs a THREE HUNDRED MILLION dollar advertising budget to SELL HIS PROGRAM?

Global Warming is a Marxist Hoax designed to create a CLIMATE of global socialism. Yeah I guess in a sense it is about climate change.

Posted by: Jim Davis | April 9, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

CWG: "your challenge to 'show proof' of the link between CO2 and climate change has no basis in science" Are you kidding me?? I hope you are joking. It has EVERYTHING to do with science. Afterall, science has A LOT to do with theories, and our attempts to prove them. So, now we're going to set out to fix some problem that some people think we caused, with no proof, and only circumstantial evidence to go on. How can you even mention scientists assigning probabilities to the likelihood that a given percentage of warming has been caused by humans, when there has not really been any meaningful link provided that CO2 - manmade or no - has anything to do with our climate in the first place?

So, although we DO KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - has anyone ever conducted any study as to HOW MUCH of a greenhouse gas it is, say in comparison to water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas?

So, yes, we may never PROVE that CO2 is causing global warming, and we may never DISPROVE that it is causing global warming - but that is part of what science is about, is attempting to prove or disprove the THEORY by providing good, sound, credible evidence. I cannot believe that you say it has no basis in science.

If you remove yourselves from the political side of this, it actually becomes quite an interesting debate. Politics, as usual with anything else it touches, has destroyed the debate. Speaking of which - carbon credits? Come on... that doesn't actually solve anything. It just re-distributes the wealth, while emissions of this "deadly pollutant" remain the same... Guess who foots the bill? Yeah, I don't think folks will be singing the praises of carbon credits when our economy is already headed for the toilet. On the other hand, we do know for a fact that can be proven, that we are dumping far worse things into our environment than CO2.

So I'll ask another question: Do we know where the CO2 is coming from? Everytime I turn around, some news article is proclaiming that some large percentage of CO2 is coming from cars. The next article, it's coal-fired power plants. Oh, next its cows and livestock. Oceans, forests, marshes, fire extinguishers, humans, dry ice, I've seen it all - but the percentages don't add up. Do we actually know? It appears that whatever these percentage estimates is based on is NOT ACCURATE, yet arguments for action are being based on these inaccurate assessments. What if solar activity has heated the earth, which has caused the release of additional CO2 from the oceans?

Posted by: mpare | April 9, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Is science about consensus? We've seen consensus at work before. When the world was "flat"....... Anyone who asserted otherwise was dealt with harshly......sound familiar?

I think it's also the smug assuredness of G.W. advocates that stirs so much passion around this subject. The notion that "Big Oil" is profiting from "ruining the earth" assumes that the G.W. complex does NOT profit from their continued study of the subject....C'mon. A person whose professional title suggests that his only job is to study global warming most likely will not "study" himself out of a career, right? ..... T-h-i-n-k about it, folks..

Posted by: Mikey | April 9, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

And Gore is in this thing for what reason? Is he lending his voice and giving money only because he cares deeply about the planet? Or is there other motivations involved?

Posted by: Mikey | April 9, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Mr Freedman,

By the looks of the amount of pro/con postings , it looks like we're doomed.LOL

Posted by: Mikey | April 9, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Dan capital weather gang,
"Instead, the best that scientists can do is assign probabilities to the likelihood that a given percentage of warming has been caused by man made influence."

Considerable data is available to show "Over the last 10,000 years, the CO2 level has varied, but only within a 40 PPM range, at most. Then a "small fraction" comes along 0ver tha last 100 years, and the C02 level increases up by 100 PPM."
The role that a presumed variable plays in any process can be deduced by holding it constant while other variables are allowed to increase or decrease. And then allowing the presumed variable to increase or decrease while observing its effect on the process,i.e., climate change.If the earth's climate is considered a process then the effect of CO2 can be studied as follows:
Assuming that CO2 level effects the climate process then for 10,000 years CO2 has been essentially constant while the earth has undergone at least four or possible more major climatic shifts between extreme cold, little ice ages, warm and extreme warm periods.Next during the last few years the CO2 level has increased, approximately 100ppm total, while the mean average global temperature has remained relatively constant for the last 10 years, no increase in global average temperature but a recent slight decrease.
Any reputable, thinking scientist or competent process engineer reviewing such results would conclude that the CO2 level has no or very little effect on the earth's cyclical climate change.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

The above Post"Dan capital weather gang,
"Instead, the best that scientists can do is assign probabilities to the likelihood that a given percentage of warming has been caused by man made influence."....
was posted by:
E.Patrick Mosman

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Question to all,
When exactly was carbon dioxide determined to be a pollutant and harmful to the environment? Who made this earth shaking discovery? The reason I ask is simple, CO2
is essential for plant life. Without it, photosynthesis cannot occur. Greenhouses routinely raise the level of CO2 so plants grow more quickly. They also require less water. What at too high a level is toxic to air breathers is essential to the plants that resupply the O2 for us to breath. Circle of life, no? This is pretty simple stuff. Contrary to the consensus talk, it seems that skepticism is actually growing. I read an article recently (sorry I cannot remeber the link- I'm sure others read it too- believe it was linked through that one of the speakers at an asian climate conference actually stated that what we needed was greater CO2 emissions, not less.
Lets see, lower CO2 emissions, reduced plant growth, reduced plant growth, less oxygen production, less oxygen - too many people for the available supply! What is with the death wish of the left? Rather an over simplification but in the end, the leftists always see man as the problem. Or they are arrogant enough to think that we are able to control things such as the climate. I am always skeptical of anyone who wants to use a crises to limit our freedom based on a supposed threat. In this case what is target number one? Oil and gas production and consumption. Our western civilization runs on this abundant and, until now, cheap energy source. I think it is clean too. should we go back to horse power? Ethanol use drives up the price of food, hurting the poor the most. While clean, wind power's dirty secret is the tens of thousands of birds and bats killed annually. In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unabashed attempt by a defeated socialist(Gore) to regain control over policy and governments without ever having to deal with the uncertainty of an election again.

Posted by: Wes H | April 9, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

OK, so you want me to help save the earth. I live in California, where recycling is part of the ingrained culture. I stay away from plastic as much as possible and when I do use plastic, I either recycle it or if it's unrecyclable, use it to pick up dog poop. I used to drive a 1955 Studebaker (recycling taken to an extreme), which I kept well tuned, passed yearly California emissions standards and got 19 mpg, but I got rid of that and replaced it with a 27 mpg VW New Beetle. I haven't bought a hybrid yet because nobody has really convinced me that the used batteries the hybrids depend upon won't someday be a more toxic threat to the earth than the burnt gasoline is to the atmosphere, but the point is moot because I can't afford to switch cars again, anyway. I don't have a whole lot of money, so I don't travel much. I try to observe water conservation by keeping my miniscule lawn on the verge of brownness. I try to save energy by keeping my house chilly in the winter and warm in the summer. I volunteer to pick up trash on city/public property on the weekend. In short, I do my modest best to be as good a "steward of the earth" as possible.

Now, I'm being told that the planet is in extremis. The same political leadership (Democrat or Republican, doesn't matter) that shaped our society now blames it for the planet's condition. What to do, what to do? The only solution I hear for a person like me is...taxation. Pay up. We need money to combat global warming. If you drive a car, you need to be taxed. Public transportation? I'd love to give up stop-and-go traffic for a stress-free ride to work, but somehow the budget my City Council voted on year after year after year never included the building of a viable public transportation system. We got a new stadium for the home team, though, but I don't often have the luxury of going to any games.

I'm told that reducing my "carbon footprint" and paying carbon credits are the way of the future. I understand that there are numerous companies that have sprung up (well, some have folded after their founders were indicted for fraud) to collect what looks to me to be a new tax. What else could it be? Someone takes my money and does something with it, so that sounds like a tax to me. But I'm assured that it's all for the good of the planet. It's not clear I can understand, I pay money so that someone can invest in a new power plant? I'd like to know what my latest tax will be paying for, because I just can't afford to be throwing money away.

I like to study history in my spare time. From my readings, it appears that a "global warming" period was responsible for the flowering of European society. The warming of Europe made it a nice place to live and transformative periods like the Renaissance happened because people were comfortable and had leisure time to devote to the advancement of science and the arts. According to the history being taught in our schools today, though, the Europeans then sallied forth and inflicted all sorts of injustices upon indigenous peoples in the so-called New World. So, maybe that previous global warming period wasn't a good thing, after all. Not to worry...according to what I'm hearing from some scientists these days, Europe will actually cool to the point where it will be more like it was back before the Middle Ages, with people concentrating more on their own survival than imposing their culture on others. Or is it supposed to be warmer? I can't keep track.

I try to stay informed. I read literature for and against global warming or climate change. I have a degree in geophysics (which explains why I don't have much money), so I understand a bit about what the scientists are saying. I don't care what any pundit claims, there is no consensus in the scientific community. From what I can discern, more data is needed before cause and effect can be clearly defined.

And yet...we are exhorted to take action. I do want to take action, because we shouldn't be wasteful or given to excesses. But what am I supposed to do? Debates such as the one in this blog go on and on and on and ultimately prove to be a useless (as far as saving the planet goes) expression of political discontent. What has any of this discussion done to tell me what I can do, in a practical sense, to be make a positive contribution? I'm afraid that after all the sound and fury has given way to exhaustion, nothing constructive will have been accomplished. The only solution I have seen offered to combat the "global warming crisis" is more taxation. Give us your money, and we will figure it out. And by "we," I'm refering to the same leaders, politicians, bureaucrats, whatever, who created and maintain the society in which we live...the society which is now being blamed for planetary abuse. From my lowly perspective, that appears to be the real price of Al Gore's climate battle and I'm wondering why it's people like me who are asked to pay up.

Where is the leadership? Where is the vision? Where is the consensus? Where is the defined purpose that will do this planet some good? I look in vain for these things and all I see is endless discussion on how my political favourite is better than yours. Please, if you want my hard-earned money, you're going to have to do better than that.

By the way, if it wasn't for this electronic blog, I would have been forced to commit my thoughts to paper, and that would have been a waste of precious natural resources.

Posted by: Stephen Parks | April 9, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Mr Freedman wrote "However, he didn't write those studies, he's only trying to publicize their results."and "I think the distinction between debating the science and debating the policy prescriptions based on the science needs to be made especially clear in his case."
Since Al Gore published two books, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit
An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, and one movie on global warming he might be expected to demand the right to debate the scientific proofs of his allegations with those he calls 'deniers'. Instead, Mr. Gore even refused to defend his movie in the British Courts which branded it a propaganda film containing eleven, or nine depending on who is counting, inaccuracies. Apparently it is your opinion that Mr. Gore is acting as a shill or carnival barker for the IPCC, Messrs. Mann, Hansen and the environmental crowd and really doesn't have a scientific thought of his own. No doubt you are absolutely right as based on the following true story:
Once upon a time there were two Alberts. One of the two Alberts remarked: Two things are infinite:the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
Albert number one states:
1) Global warming is caused by human activity.
2) The scientific case is closed to further inquiry.
Albert number two states:
a) He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.
b) The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
Given the clues -- which Albert family name is Einstein and which is Gore?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Nice simple and cheap solution to the CO2 problem. Everybody that believes in that unsupported and unsupportable religion should exhale only every third breathe.
The skeptics can remain with every breathe because, well, they just plain know better. This will fix the problem from a couple different angles. Problem solved.
Hey Al...that one was free...any others there's a commission..........

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 9, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Stephen Parks - excellent post. I could not agree with you more and I think you hit the nail on the head. Save for a few good points here and there, this discussion will just continue on with very little to show for it.

I'm already pretty well aware of various conservation methods - I grew up on it. Our family always bought and drove Hondas, mainly for excellent reliability and fuel economy. My dad designed and built the house I grew up in back in the early 80's, it is a passive solar house with lots of ingenious, energy saving solutions built into it. In the winter, hot air from the greenhouse is ducted into the interior parts of the house. The hot water heater/system is fed by 2 tanks, painted black and placed in their own little green house, so the heater didn't have to run as much, even in the winter. Lots of simple, low cost things that save energy. Most of which involved facing the house due south, to take advantage of our big day star, and the free energy it provides for us every day. And to boot - for recreation, we enjoy sailing - which is a very relaxing and environmentally friendly activity!

I've recently been watching a show called "Invention Nation". I don't necessarily agree with all of the things they have on there, a lot of it looks good but many of the solutions would not be very viable in a large-scale implementation. But, they have a lot of great ideas and are going in the right direction. While I would hope to never pay a carbon credit, I would devote my hard-earned cash to investing in some of these small companies that are popping up and pioneering such technologies that would reduce our impact on the environment. One company in Colorado has devised a cheap method for "printing" solar circuits. This low-cost production method could allow us to put solar panels on our roofs, and because one of the goals is to be low-cost, it would be commercially viable. I dunno... I could go on, there were some brilliant ideas on that show.

But, any solution should be approached with scrutiny and caution - for example, I almost bought into the long-life lightbulb thing. I don't mind paying a little more for a bulb that lasts longer and uses less energy. That is a no-brainer. But, what chemicals are they putting in that bulb? What chemicals are they putting in the batteries in hybrid cars? Some of these things seem like a great idea on paper (i.e. corn-based ethanol), but consume almost as much energy to produce them as they purportedly save, or end up harming the environment in other ways.

Nevertheless, maybe higher fuel and energy prices are not such a bad thing. It would force people to realize, "Oh, hmm, this is costing more, lets re-think our driving routine" and maybe carpool more or something. It does have the negative effect of ofsetting people's expenditures from goods and services, which would hurt the economy. But, in the long run, it would only increase interest in and help these smallish upstarts... like the Tesla car for example. I do not really like the oil companies - and I probably speak for a lot of people when I say that I am annoyed by hearing about their "record profits". What are they doing with that money? Probably investing it in oil exploration in more and more extreme environments.... I know some of the oil companies are investing in alternative energy - but I seriously gotta question to what magnitude they are, but, well that is sort of getting into another topic.

Back on focus...


Thanks for your reply. Unlike other comment areas I have posted on - I like that you and your group are involved in the responses, and have provided such a forum to do so.

I read Bastardi's blog almost every day, most of the material he posts is a discussion on upcoming weather events - which is one of the main reasons I follow it. However, over the years (moreso recently), he has brought up many good points, and arguments against the AGW claim (and a few for). I guess all I'm saying is please don't discredit him just because of a single rant. He is a brilliant met that can sometimes be misunderstood, but he is very reasonable with his arguments and assertions (not all of them I agree with). In my opinion, perhaps it was not one of his better posts, but we can all agree that things are a bit "emotional". Unfortunately I do not have permission to post quotes from other blog posts that Bastardi has made in the past. I won't judge Gore based on the comment he made about skeptics, but I do wish he could recognize the debate going on, and stop putting skeptics in this light that we are in the dark age.

As for Coleman - well, him being a TV weather forecaster might make him a little more qualified than Gore, who is a politician, to comment on this debate. But we're trading punches here. You made a good point that Gore didn't do himself any service by lumping skeptics in the same group as folks who think the Earth if flat.

I'm not saying Bastardi's rant or Coleman's comments are justified. But you can understand why they said the things they did after Gore made comments like he did. Which I think you did an excellent job of pointing out in your editorial. I think all the things you said about Coleman can be turned right around and stated about Gore. Gore's prominence on the global stage shouldn't grant him any special type of exception, either. He, like many others, and many of us, has just gone out to gather information in support of his argument - he isn't really all that different than any of us. I don't claim to be an expert, and most everyone commenting here probably don't have the credibility to do so either. Neither should Gore, yet many do believe he is.

At the very least from all this, I do hope that the common person does understand that there is a debate here, and that there is another side to the argument. I would rather people are fairly exposed to both sides of the argument and make their own decision, than force people into accepting what I believe (or them accepting AGW). I get frustrated because it seems that most people are only exposed to one side of the argument, and sad that some skeptics have to "yell/rant" 10x as loud to try to have an equal voice, or just merely get noticed - and in many cases, the act of yelling doesn't help the argument.

I would like to see Dr. Gray on 60 minutes. His credibility cannot be argued as he is one of the foremost and well regarded climate scientists of our time with over 50 years of experience. Once I see shows like 60 minutes, or channels like Nat Geo or Discovery and other mainstream media outlets bring in experts from the other side and provide an equal forum, I would feel much better about this whole thing.

But like Stephen pointed out - we need real solutions. Hopefully good old capitalism (and not carbon trading) can do this for us.

Posted by: mpare | April 9, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Maybe we should get a petition going and make it a Law? Sounds rather Leftist?

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 9, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

It goes without saying that Al Gore is full of hot air. His stand on his former professor Dr. DeVille reveals that Gore has a hidden agenda.

Philip Freneau gives insight as to the process that is changing out nation's form of government. If you have not heard of Freneau, visit my blog > and click on Freneau's link.

What I find intriguing are the irrational battle lines being drawn that disengage rational thought, scientific discussion, and common sense. Most people I talk to are wasting a lot of money reducing their carbon footprint. By the time they discover Gore's boondoggle, it will be too late to kick themselves or reverse course.

Posted by: RadRev Dennis Hinrichsen | April 9, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I am not a climatologist, but I am a scientist, and I understand one important point. Most assurdedly, the science of climate change and the questions concerning global warming (esp. man made) and the modeling of global warming have not been settled. Why then are politicians considering changing policy over an issue that does not have consensus where it counts? And why will Mr. Gore not debate his detractors?

Posted by: Larry W | April 9, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Does Nature really need us to save her?
Whatever did she do before we got here?
Maybe she was getting a little chilly?

Man has become way too egotistical to actually believe that he understands nature well enough to be able to guide/direct her...without setting off one of her fail safes, intended for cockroaches such as we.

I will trust nature, to lead herself, over man anyday....she's been around a few days longer and taken a bunch more scars than we can ever give her.

And she wears them well.

Posted by: Forever Skeptic | April 9, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

mpare: Thanks for your thoughtful response to my earlier question. One point I'd like to add after reading your response is that for many years the mainstream press , including yours truly, always included the "other side" in its stories on climate change, in an effort to provide "balanced" coverage. The reason why that is starting to change (and many experts argue that it has yet to change significantly enough), is that the perception is that on this scientific issue, like with the link between tobacco and smoking, the other side does not have the credibility anymore that merits their inclusion in such stories.

I have mixed thoughts on this. On the one hand, playing climate stories as a "he said/she said" story will give the public confusing information and won't accurately portray the true state of play within the scientific community, which is overwhelmingly in agreement that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver of recent global climate change, despite small but persistent groups that disagree with this. On the other hand, it does go against my training as a journalist to purposefully sift out certain points of view from news stories on the subject. Finding a middle ground is challenging. With my columns I do my best to argue in favor of my point of view in as fair a manner as I can, but I don't have to include all sides in such a piece, because it's an opinion piece.

An interesting exercise for you to undertake would be to read through older newspaper clippings from major publications, from between 1988 and 2003, and compare them to 2003 to today, in terms of how much the skeptic viewpoint was represented in the coverage. I think you'll see a trend there. There are several academic studies on this as well, notably by Boykoff and Boykoff

What are your thoughts on this?

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | April 9, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Freedman,
My question still stands:
Why will Mr. Gore not debate his detractors?
And I don't agree that the "other side" is composed of "small but persistent groups that disagree." Many of the individuals in these groups are from major universities (MIT, Columbia, Colorado State, etc), and some in these groups participated in the original IPCC study, but have refuted the official IPCC conclusions.

Posted by: Larry W | April 9, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse


Good Job!
Stir the pot and piss everybody off.
Got to keep this blog going.

I don't see many comments from Warm Earthers.
They tend to be sleepy sheep.
(Lead me, Seymour, lead me)

Think up something to wake some of them up, before we skeptics disappear altogether.
I hear tell we are an endangered species.

Posted by: Forever Skeptic | April 9, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Climate facts to warm to

Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.

The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".

Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.

It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.

THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.

The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".

What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.

Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

This statement by you from 4/9/2008 at 1:32 PM,"On the one hand, playing climate stories as a "he said/she said" story will give the public confusing information and won't accurately portray the true state of play within the scientific community, which is overwhelmingly in agreement that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver of recent global climate change, despite small but persistent groups that disagree with this", sounds as if you are mimicking the IPCC and Al Gore, "the science is settled, consensus, or in agreement". Perhaps the following small list of sceptics may disagree:


"The debate on global warming is over." - Al Gore, 2006

NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming (Popular Technology)

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..."
- Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

19,000 Scientists declare that "man-made" global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
- Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (Heartland Institute)
400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
170 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign An Open Letter to the Signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (Cownwall Alliance)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' (National Post, Canada)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)

Inconvenient Fact: ...only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2, 2007 (Institute for Canadian Values).

Click the following link to finds these articles:

Does this look like a 'small' group?

Posted by: Gordon Andelin | April 9, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Freedman,

You challenged me to provide some proof of my allegations that unethical behavior was rife in the GW community. Your challenge, of course, was like asking me to prove God exists. Until the political climate changes and the perpetrators are cuffed you'll just have to rely on the yard-stick of human nature

Sloppy and unprofessional.

The infamous "hockey stick" was flawed because research protocol was not followed, period.
Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.

In a recent NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis) study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists -- at least the lead scientists -- who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

Incestuous peer review;

The specialists of ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors, 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick. These problems led Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."


$50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend

Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.

"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film.

It's interesting that a key 25 percent of "An Inconvenient Truth" is not true, and perhaps intentionally so, lies.

Basic motives.

Czechoslovakian President Vaclav Klaus: "There are huge material (very pecuniary) and even bigger psychological incentives for politicians and their bureaucratic fellow-travelers to support environmentalism. It gives them power. This is exactly what they are searching for. There is nothing altruistic in their environmentalist stances. Some people believe in irrational things and events - some of them in UFOs, some in witches, some in fairy-tales, some in omnipotent governments, some in global warming. "

"Some people are sufficiently motivated to spread the global warming hysteria. It gives them funding (especially for science connected with this issue), it gives them jobs in well-paid government positions, it gives them government subsidies for producing products which are - supposedly - in favor of global cooling, etc."

Who are the"skeptics?

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
A review of 23 quantitative records has demonstrated that mean and median world temperatures in 2006 were, on average, approximately 1 °C or 2 °F cooler than in the Medieval Period

In Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand and France, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile."

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October (2007), the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin (heard of her?) conceded the obvious, writing that (the number of) climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.

Many scientists consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. "Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote.

Mr. Freedman, a person has to be purposely ignoring facts to continue to believe that there is no fraud and mafia style strong-arm tactics among the majority of GW operatives. With the circumstantial evidence widely available, I am certain that a court of law would convict many of those crooks.

Posted by: Lew | April 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Sayeth Mr. Freedman, "... which is overwhelmingly in agreement that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver of recent global climate change, ..."

That statement is not true. Simply repeating it over and over will not make it true.

I volunteered to provide you with irrefutable evidence which proves that statement to be false. You showed no interest at all. Instead, you wish to go merrily on your way believing what you wish to believe.

I would have thought that a true journalist would have jumped on that. At best, it would have been a good story for you. At worst, you would have learned something.

I guess I now know what you are and where you stand.

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 9, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

It amazes me that man has such arrogance that he thinks he can "destroy the earth" as the alarmists preach. I grew up in the "global cooling period", now it is "global warming", wait a minute, now "climate change", soon it will be clear and evident that this CO2 emissions -- MAN MADE- is all about "global goverance" --so many of the preachers of global warming today are pure "hypocrites" and as one told me years ago "follow the money" -- that is what this is all about. Shame on these intellectual "elitists" who think they just "know better". Man made global warming alarmists have done more to harm good sound environmental issues than the polluters themselves. The science is VERY weak with man made global warming and speculative. I hope we all get off the "brainwashing' of a new generation soon.
Doug R

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Freedman is an environmental journalist with a lifelong fascination with the weather. His work has appeared on The Weather Channel's "Forecast Earth" Web site, in Congressional Quarterly, Greenwire and Environment & Energy Daily, as well as Weatherwise magazine. He has also worked for NOAA's National Weather Service and on the summit of Mount Washington as a weather observing intern. A former D.C. resident, Andrew currently resides in Boston where is he is attending the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University as part of a dual master's degree program in climate change policy with Columbia University

Looks like Andrew may be collecting opinions for a term paper, maybe?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

The 'price of Al gore's climate battle' is absolutely trivial compared with the cost should Don Alberto Goreleone succeed. Unfortunately Andrew Freedman has no idea of the ideology and misinformation driving the catastrophic gorebull warming myth.

Posted by: Robert | April 10, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Here is an excerpt from an opinion piece in the WSJ online (May 10):

"Serious scientists rarely engage in public quarrels. Alarmists are therefore often unopposed in offering simplicity in place of complexity, ideology in place of scientific dialogue, and emotion in place of dry perspective."

The Goreistas in our mist, and Mr. Freedman, should take particular note.

Posted by: Larry W | April 10, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

"Judges and juries simply don't have the knowledge necessary to determine the accuracy of complicated scientific matters." What an elitist attitude. Nazis' would be proud.

Posted by: forbinrhodes | April 10, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of brainwashing our children, "An Inconvenient Truth" is now being peddled to 3rd graders.

Best Regards,

Posted by: ClimateSanity | April 10, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

And yes, Mr. Freedman, Al Gore, being the focus point for the AGW movement, should debate those who disagree. As we can see in the majority of the posts here, he has caused many thoughtful people to rise up in complaint. If he would desire to retain even a last smidgen of credibilty (in my opinion even that is gone), he should face off his detractors and prove them wrong.

Posted by: Larry W | April 10, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse


You are probably correct about the coverage. But, that doesn't really mean anything about the debate itself. I'm not going to go so far to say or cry it is a conspiracy theory (even I have my limits), but I do believe various politics has played a hand in what is reported in the mainstream media. Look at the very general stereotype, skeptic = anti-environment, and that just looks bad. From a political standpoint, I can certainly understand why an organization would not want to be aligned with that ideology. But, just because something is reported in the media, does not mean that it is true, or make it correct. A lot of new information has come to light since 2003 on both sides of the argument - for example, just a quick search this morning on the delayed affects of CO2, I found compelling arguments both for and against this claim. It seems that in this day and age, I would have to go and count the hanging chads, err, hanging ice bergs myself...

I don't think that we'll ever be able to convince each other to the opposite side. Can we agree that we're debating if there is a debate in the first place, heh? I wish I had the time to gather names of various credible scientists and researchers and their papers that argue the skeptic point of view, but there are a lot out there. And I'm sure that you would quickly rebut them with links to credible scientists, researchers, and papers on the AGW side. I'm sure there are probably just as many on the AGW side, too, that have good points of their own to argue and attempt to prove. But, I cannot understand how anyone can say there is a consensus, when there clearly is not. There are credible scientists on the skeptic side, and as long as they are there, then there is no consensus.

In 20 or so years, once the pattern has cycled back to the cooler side of things, I hope then people will realize what a folly this was. Now, I'm not going to go running around saying "See I told you so", but still, it will be interesting to see when the turning point takes place. I'm not so sure that Gore would ever admit that he was wrong. Of course, in 20 years, the skeptics could be absolutely wrong. And I have no problem admitting that I was wrong. But think about this, if AGW is true, has anyone considered the benefits? I'm sure it's not all doom and gloom.

Like it or not, as long as this debate continues, there will always be folks on the skeptic side there to argue and defend their position. I'll leave everyone with this link I found the other day: Now, this individual believes AGW is real, but that it has minimal effect.

I didn't mean to imply that you had an obligation to report/discuss equally on both sides (it is an op/ed column), I was commenting on media in general. It would be interesting to see an op/ed columnist discuss the other side... but (unfortunately) I wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon.

Posted by: mpare | April 10, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Just figured out why the AGW argument makes no sense................

Start article

Five Easy Ways to Boost Your Brain Power

Twenty percent of scientists admit to using performance-enhancing prescription drugs for non-medical reasons, according to a survey released Wednesday by Nature, Britain's top science journal.
The overwhelming majority of these med-taking brainiacs said they indulged in order to "improve concentration," and 60 percent said they did so on a daily or weekly basis.

The 1,427 respondents -- most of them in the United States -- completed an informal, online survey posted on the "Nature Network" Web forum, a discussion site for scientists operated by the Nature Publishing Group.

More than a third said that they would feel pressure to give their children such drugs if they knew other kids at school were also taking them.

"These are academics working in scientific institutions," Ruth Francis, who handles press relations for the group, told AFP.

The survey focused on three drugs widely available by prescription or via the Internet.

Ritalin, a trade name for methylphenidate, is a stimulant normally used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, especially in children. Modafinil -- marketed at Provigil -- is prescribed to treat sleep disorders, but is also effective against general fatigue and jet lag.

Both medications are common currency on college campuses, used as "study aids" to sharpen performance and wakefulness.

"It doesn't seem to be causing too much trouble since most [students] use the drugs not to get high but to function better," Brian Doyle, a clinical pyschiatrist at Georgetown University Medical Centre, told a US newspaper last month. "When exams are over, they go back to normal and stop abusing the drugs."

Other experts expressed more concern about what the survey revealed.

"It alerted us to the fact that scientists, like others, are looking for short cuts," Wilson Compton, director of epidemiology and prevention research at the US National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), told AFP.

Ritalin, he noted, can become addictive, even if it has proven safe and effective when taken as prescribed.

The third class of drugs included in the survey was beta blockers, prescribed for cardiac arrhythmia and popular among performers due to its anti-anxiety effect.

Of the 288 scientists who said that had taken one or more of these drugs outside of a medical context, three-fifths had used Ritalin, and nearly half Provigil. Only 15 percent were fans of beta blockers.

More than a third procured their meds via the Internet, with the rest buying them in pharmacy.

Other reasons cited for popping pills were focusing on a specific task, and counteracting jet lag.

Almost 70 percent of 1,258 respondents who answered the question said they would be willing to risk mild side effects in order to "boost your brain power" by taking cognitive-enhancing drugs.

Half of the drug-takers reported such effects, including headaches, jitteriness, anxiety and sleeplessness.

Wilson of the NIDA expressed surprise at the rate of substance abuse shown, but cautioned that the survey did not meet rigorous scientific standards.

"This is a volunteer poll of people responding to an Internet survey. There might be an over-representation," he said.

But previous research has shown that, as the boundary between treating illness and enhancing wellbeing continues to blur, taking performance-boosting products continues to gain in cultural acceptance.

"Like the rise in cosmetic surgery, use of cognitive enhancers is likely to increase as bioethical and psychological concerns are overcome," opined Nature in a commentary.

In the survey, 80 percent of all the scientists -- even those who did not use these drugs -- defended the right of "healthy humans" to take them as work boosters, and more than half said their use should not be restricted, even for university entrance exams.

More than 57 percent of the respondents were 35 years old or younger.

end of article

Ever notice how the larger percentage of youth buy into the AGW like sheep?????

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Freedman,
To state that the IPCC has world governmental officials review only one "key" section of the report is a bit disingenuous. It might be instructive to read those procedures:
The "experts" get to review the material first. Thereafter the reviews involve governmental officials. The final document must be, according to procedure, palatable to all the participating governments. The following quote is rather telling: "Changes (other than
grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those
necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter." You might also be interested in reading some of the comments made during the review process. It gives lie to the notion of both consensus and objectivity.

As for the stringent requirements of peer review, perhaps you would do well to read a little more on the topic. It is entirely possible to get peer reviewed papers published which do not meet the most difficult of scientific standards. The proliferation of papers on a given topic often have more to do with the favored viewpoint of the day, whatever the topic may be. How many times are we treated to reports on studies point out the dangers of various foods, only to find out years later, in a new study, that the earlier studies got it wrong.

As for the scientific consensus or numbers of scientists who are proponents of AGW, I think this quote by Einstein is appropriate.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Posted by: frankr | April 10, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Daddy Daddy tell me that one about The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, requires multiple stages of review by experts in numerous fields, and political representatives of the world's governments must approve one key section of the report line-by-line. again I just love that fairy tale.

Posted by: tmitsss | April 10, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

What a one sided editorial. The earth has been warming and cooling since the beginning of time. Ever heard of the Ice Age, or maybe the Little Ice Age? The IPCC is a joke, and a farce.

Posted by: Brian Smith | April 10, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Mpare: Thanks for your clarifications. I think there are different ways of defining consensus. It certainly does not mean that every scientist is in agreement on climate change, but when one considers the official statements of the world's major scientific research organizations, as well as the IPCC, and the preponderance of evidence in the scientific journals, it does seem that there is agreement on a few fundamental areas of climate science. But I agree with you that consensus is a problematic term to use, especially if it erroneously implies unanimity.

C. Queensbury: Did it occur to you that perhaps I just hadn't had time to respond to your comments yet? I suggest you be a bit more respectful in your posts on future columns if you expect to engage in a productive and meaningful dialog.

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | April 10, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

25 years from now, the entire global warming agenda will go the same way as
all those bogus studies in the 1970's
that claimed just about everything we
ate causes cancer! What really irritates
me is that people accept what he (Gore)
says simply because he was VP.
Remember, he's also taken credit for
"creating" the internet, even though he has
ZERO background in computer science and electrical engineering. Gore needs to be
portrayed for what he REALLY is, a professional politician. And, we all know what they're full of. Gore's time would be
much better spent helping former President
Carter pound some nails.

Posted by: MikeyTMan | April 10, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Re: Gore and debating. Fine. Don't debate the science. Debate the proposed policies. He should be able to do that. Won't. Why?!?!? Because he would be exposed for the charlaton, (sp?) he is. When one is proposing remedies that cost in the trillions; costs that effect poor people/countries far more than the middle class/wealthy, one had better defend. If you can't defend, you shouldn't be proposing.

On another note, what's that drip, drip, drip sound I hear? That's the beads of sweat coming from the warminists as the cooling is starting approximately 15 years earlier then expected. Long before they could truly get their tax and spend plans implemented and more difficult to remove. If they truly want to get them implemented, they'd better hope the PDO shift and the diminished sun activity is short-term. This is the Rose Bowl Scam; the grand-daddy of them all. When this is exposed for the unequivical scam it is, Gore and his buddies better build a great big wall of protection.

Posted by: Mike | April 10, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Spaketh Mr. Freedman, "Did it occur to you that perhaps I just hadn't had time to respond to your comments yet?"

Yes, sir. That possibility lingered on my mind for a fleeting second. Truthfully, I would *love* to believe that was the case. But given the length of time you spent composing replies to others' posts and the length of time it would have taken to write, "C. Quesenberry: I would love to see evidence that the consensus is a myth", I had to rule that out. It took me less than 10 seconds to type that sentence. It isn't a long sentence. It doesn't really require a lot of thought. You don't need to spend a lot of time on your sentence composition.

Regrettably, and when I say regrettably I sincerely mean regrettably, it seemed much more likely that you simply had no wish to see proof that would upset your believe in a consensus.

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't actually claim that you did not have the time to respond, you merely insinuated that in the form of a question. For the sake of clarity, is that what you are saying?

As far as being respectful, I feel that I have been nothing but respectful. If you feel differently, perhaps that is because I spoke a truth that hit a little too close to home? Those can sting. Sometimes there is no good way to tell a person something they do not wish to hear. And it is only human nature to lash out at the messenger when they vocalize something which we know but do not want to accept or face.

And I did have the decency to spell your name correctly.

As far as engaging in a "productive and meaningful dialog", doesn't that require at least two people? If you have no interest or intention of engaging in a productive and meaningful dialog, does it really matter what I say? I think not. That obvious truth said, I still maintain proper decorum out of self-respect and pride. You should know that it has nothing to do with a belief that you might wish to engage in a "productive and meaningful dialog".

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 10, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse


CQ - 2
AF - 0

First lets get the rules straightened out.............

Posted by: Forever Skeprtic | April 10, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

My off-the-cuff estimate of skeptic vs. alarmist comments so far are running at something better than 10:1. Perhaps THAT explains Gore's suddent need to spend $300M to convince the "tiny, tiny" number of remaining skeptics. The reality is a growing majority of world citizens are recognizing that this emporor has no clothes. This is Scary Al's last ditch effort to try and realize billions of dollars in profits off carbon credit schemes through mandated gov't regulations. He knows if he doesn't get that legislation pushed through now, it'll never happen as we head towards the next ice age.

The true victim in all this is science itself. It will be forever tainted by this unbridled promoting of wild-eyed speculation as some sort of true science. People will be much more skeptical of all scientific claims as a result.

Posted by: LJones | April 11, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Stephen Parks, above, wrote: "By the way, if it wasn't for this electronic blog, I would have been forced to commit my thoughts to paper, and that would have been a waste of precious natural resources."

I hate to break it to you Stephen, but the energy and resources consumed to create the computer you used, coupled with the energy consumed running that computer as you typed, plus the energy running all the internet routers, DNS servers and weblog servers required to make this post possible, probably had 10x the environment impact than the small part of the one (renewable) tree required for that piece of paper you didn't use.

Posted by: LJones | April 11, 2008 1:46 AM | Report abuse

OK Mpare... you state the following:

"I wish I had the time to gather names of various credible scientists and researchers and their papers that argue the skeptic point of view"

Well go ahead, take the time, you or anyone else. Take a year if you want! All you need to do is come back with ONE - not 10, not 100 - just ONE paper that contradicts the proven re-radiative characteristics of CO2, or any GHG for that matter, and its forcing effect on global T; or, proves that the current increase in GHG is NOT anthroprogenic; or, dissproves the predictive success of ANY of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used by Hadley, UK Met Office, NCAR, Princeton, (etc.); or, shows isotopes of oxygen (O-18) to NOT be an acceptable proxy for past temperature. Just ONE paper - that's all - on any of the above. (Of course I could save you the trouble because there aren't any, but go ahead... I'm sure Fred Singer or Pat Michaels or Michael Crichton will have something for you.) But if you do find a paper, and Andrew Freedman says that it does any of the above, you can have my house and my car... really. Other than that... the case is closed, Al Gore is right I'm afraid.

You know reading over all the skeptic "evidence" in this thread is just downright embarassing. ... "cooling since 1998," "warming preceeds CO2," "...little ice age," "the earth always warmed and cooled," "...the urban heat island did it," "mid-tropospheric warming hasn't kept pace...," and on and on... Don't you people get tired of parading out the same old goofy arguments? Just about all this stuff has a grain of truth or is completely true but IT'S ONLY PART OF THE STORY! There is nothing in any of the preceding posts that hasn't been adressed ad infinitum by science... anyway, get busy finding those papers Mpare, and best of luck.

Posted by: Cumulus | April 12, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

And so....the Kool Aid speaketh........

Posted by: Anonymous | April 12, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse does my Masters in climatology, my 8 years as a science journalist, my two research stints in Antarctica, and the high school level text book on the carbon cycle I wrote.... all trumped by ideology, right? Good comeback there Potsy!

Posted by: Cumulus | April 12, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Quoting Cumulus, "All you need to do is come back with ONE - not 10, not 100 - just ONE paper that contradicts the proven re-radiative characteristics of CO2, or any GHG for that matter, and its forcing effect on global T; or, proves that the current increase in GHG is NOT anthroprogenic; or, dissproves the predictive success of ANY of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used by Hadley, UK Met Office, NCAR, Princeton, (etc.); or, shows isotopes of oxygen (O-18) to NOT be an acceptable proxy for past temperature. Just ONE paper - that's all - on any of the above.
But if you do find a paper, and Andrew Freedman says that it does any of the above, you can have my house and my car... really."

That is an offer I can't refuse!

The August 2007 edition of the American Geophysical Union (a highly respected peer-reviewed scientific journal) included this paper by Spencer et al -

Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations

Roy W. Spencer,1 William D. Braswell,1 John R. Christy,1 and Justin Hnilo2

Received 15 February 2007; revised 30 March 2007; accepted 16 July 2007; published 9 August 2007.

If you have a subscription, you can view the paper here -

If you do not have a subscription, you can view the paper here -

After careful review I am sure that both you and Mr. Freedman will agree that paper satisfies your conditions as stated. It "dissproves the predictive success of ANY of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used by Hadley, UK Met Office, NCAR, Princeton, (etc.)".

I have another paper that "shows isotopes of oxygen (O-18) to NOT be an acceptable proxy for past temperature" in so far as their use in tree rings. Would you like the link to that as well?

I look forward to hearing back from you and Mr. Freedman soon. We need to discuss some details. Namely, when and where do you want to meet to perform the necessary paperwork and then give me the keys to my new house and car.

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 12, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Were I come from it is considered proper to provide an opportunity for a gentleman (or lady) to win their lost property back. Especially if the property was lost in an obvious, spur of the moment, emotionally charged manner.

So here is said opportunity -

Find, one (just one) peer-reviewed scientific study in a respected journal/publication which proves that natural climate variability is not the cause of any perceived recent warming. Providing a link to a study that shows that something else (namely man made CO2) is the cause is not sufficient and not what I am looking for. Inference and implication are not acceptable forms of proof for the purposes of this wager/opportunity.

You have to provide a peer-reviewed scientific study that proves that natural climate variability is not the cause of any perceived recent warming.

If you can find such study, you may keep your property.

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 12, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

All of C. Quesenberry's replies have been superb. He has completely overwhelmed all those on the Gore bandwagon with his superior knowledge of the situation. Keep up the good work, and congratulations on your new house and car.

Posted by: Cade | April 12, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Quoting Cumulus again, "All you need to do is come back with ONE - not 10, not 100 - just ONE paper that contradicts the proven re-radiative characteristics of CO2, or any GHG for that matter, and its forcing effect on global T; or, proves that the current increase in GHG is NOT anthroprogenic; or, dissproves the predictive success of ANY of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used by Hadley, UK Met Office, NCAR, Princeton, (etc.); or, shows isotopes of oxygen (O-18) to NOT be an acceptable proxy for past temperature. Just ONE paper - that's all - on any of the above.
But if you do find a paper, and Andrew Freedman says that it does any of the above, you can have my house and my car... really."

This is truly too easy. Here is another paper, published in the International Journal of Climatology
Volume 26, Issue 1 , Pages91 - 112

That paper specifically examines the performance of HadCM3 in high southern latitudes.

Here is the abstract of that paper -

An assessment of mean atmospheric and oceanic data from a 100-year segment of a pre-industrial control run of version 3 of the Hadley Centre climate model is presented. The model output has been verified against in situ measurements from expeditions, data from the research stations and mean fields from the 15 year re-analysis project of the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). The wave number 3 pattern of the mean sea-level pressure (MSLP) and 500-hPa height fields are handled reasonably well, but the climatological troughs over the Bellingshausen Sea and at 130°E are too deep in winter by about 9 hPa at the surface. This is a result of positive sea-surface temperature (SST) errors over the tropical, eastern sides of the major ocean basins. These overly deep surface troughs result in the Antarctic coastal easterlies being too strong along the coast of Marie Byrd Land and much of the coast of East Antarctica. The circumpolar trough is too deep in summer by about 1.5 hPa and is located several degrees too far north in winter. Near-surface air temperatures over the interior of the Antarctic are in error by several degrees where the model has incorrect orographic height. The low-level temperature inversion is too strong over the Antarctic plateau. Precipitation minus evaporation over the interior of the Antarctic is slightly too low. The maximum in sea ice extent and the phase of the semi-annual oscillation (SAO) both lag the best available verification data by about 1 month. Copyright © 2006 Royal Meteorological Society."

The abstract makes it quite clear that it "dissproves the predictive success of ANY of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used by Hadley, UK Met Office".

If you are unable to find a scientific study like I detailed in my previous post, I would also entertain the idea of allowing you to buy your car and house back from me at a much reduced price.

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 12, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

This is not related to Cumulus (nice nick by the way - I love cumulus clouds), but I think it will prove of interest to everyone.

--- begin quote ---
Land-use modifications for urbanization and agriculture have affected climate change data more than previously thought, according to new research by a University of Guelph professor.

In a paper published online this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmosphere, economics professor Ross McKitrick says the resulting discrepancies may be leading to an overstatement of the role of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In fact, the study concludes that skewed data could account for as much as half the post-1980 warming trend over land.

"Much of the temperature data used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to measure global warming comes from places where people have modified the land surface for economic activity, as well as from low-income countries where there are few resources for maintaining continuous climate records," McKitrick said.

"To identify climate changes due to greenhouse gases, scientists have to make adjustments to the data to remove biases created by these kinds of influences."

For the study, McKitrick and co-author Patrick Michaels, a meteorologist with the Cato Institute, a non-profit public research centre in Washington, D.C., examined how the pattern of warming and cooling trends around the world compares with the patterns of population growth, economic development, coal consumption and other socio-economic indicators.

According to standard assumptions, trends in adjusted global climate data should not be correlated with patterns of economic activity, McKitrick said.

"But we found large, statistically significant correlations exist, indicating that the climate 'signal' in a commonly used scientific database remains contaminated with sources of bias that were supposed to be removed at the adjustment stage."
--- end quote ---

source for the abovequote -

And this is also fascinating, in the classic, "Oops! Maybe I was wrong." way.

--- begin quote ---
One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand.

The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes.

His changing views could influence other scientists.

"The results surprised me," Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes. What that role is, however, remains far from certain.
--- end quote ---

source for the above quote -

I salute Mr. Kerry Emanuel. It takes a big man to admit when they are wrong.

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 12, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

C. Quesenberry seems to be the most informed on this issue on this entire posting. I learn way more from him than any other. Thank you C.Q.

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 12, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Some of you are way too kind. I am moved.

But I don't think I am the most knowledgeable poster to this thread. Were I to believe something like that, I would run the risk of being consumed with the hubris that infects the warm mongers. And I definitely do not want that to happen. Hopefully a friend or family member will provide a good swift kick to my backside if that should ever start to occur.

I thought at least half of the posts here were very informative. And I would rate at least one third of them as being excellent. I particularly enjoyed the two posts which outed the political nature of the IPCC review process. I think that tells a reasonable man all he needs to know. And it also explains why the summary for policy makers was released *prior* to the actual report being released.

Whenever I observe a person, or group of people, say one thing and then do something completely opposite to what they espoused, I ignore their words and pay attention to their actions. Because I believe that actions truly do speak louder than words and our actions will give away our true thoughts and feelings.

When I watched the IPCC release the summary for policy makers *prior* to the actual scientific report being completed, it was obvious to me who/what was driving that train. A political agenda, and not science, is the driving factor at the IPCC. There is no other logical explanation for their actions, *and* their written policies.

If Cumulus ever mans up and gives me my new house and car, I could let one of you guys have the house on the cheap. Assuming he/she doesn't want to buy it back.

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 12, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Following up on my previous post concerning actions vs words, and tying that in with Mr. Freedman's column, have you ever wondered why Mr. Gore has not made "An Inconvenient Truth" available at youtube?

If you go to youtube and search for "An Inconvenient Truth" you will find over 800 videos related (I use that term loosely) to the movie, but you will NOT find Mr. Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". You will find a lot of trailers for "An Inconvenient Truth" , but not the movie itself.

Why is that?

Is Mr. Gore's primary concern getting his message out and saving the planet, *or* is his primary concern DVD sales and the almighty dollar?

Just something to think about. ;)

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 13, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Hey Quesenberry... you sure know how to pick 'em! Spencer, Michaels, Christy... even McKitrick? What about Fred Singer? Or maybe Bozo the Clown? Keep up the good work! (you might want to search for McKitrick on Real, where sceptics go to die.)

Posted by: Cumulus | April 13, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

For the first time since the climate change debate began several years back, I am using a pseudonym to comment on the issue. Too many people are getting way too vile and vicious about it, especially the "true believers" who consider the issue to be one of faith versus heresy.

I sense that there may be stalkers out there who see themselves as righteous soldiers of their faith, justified by that faith in anything they might choose to do to suppress dissent from that faith.

This very long string of comments has led away from the simple, fundamental question at the heart of the controversy: Do changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere play an important role in the climate of our planet? If the answer to that question is NO, then we can quit wasting our time trying to sort out how much carbon dioxide comes from each of the various sources of the gas within our planet's geo-physiology.

My own conclusion is that carbon dioxide has nothing at all to do with climate control. It is my belief that if we could, by magic, totally eliminate all atmospheric greenhouse gases except water vapor, there would be no measureable change in the planet's temperature. The greenhouse gas effect would continue on as before, with water vapor acting as the only player in the game having any influence at all over that greenhouse gas effect.

Posted by: Grendel | April 13, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Cumulus, that was a pathetic response. You should attack the work product and not the scientist.

Doesn't matter though. You did not stipulate that you had to *like* or *approve* of the authors of the papers. So they could have been written by Peter Pan and Wendy for all that it mattered for your challenge.

That said, you didn't mention J. Turner, W. M. Connolley, T. A. Lachlan-Cope, or G. J. Marshall. Those are the authors of "The performance of the Hadley Centre Climate Model (HadCM3) in high southern latitudes". That paper clearly satisfies your requirement. It details the inaccuracies of HadCM3.

The abstract can be found here -

It is time to behave like a man and pay up. Just out of curiosity, what is the address of my new house and what is the year, make, and model of my new car?

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 13, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

If he doesn't want to give up the house and car he promised, you might want to think about filing a lawsuit. We are all witnesses, AND there was a written agreement between the two parties. :)

Posted by: Cade | April 14, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

You could also name Gore in the suit and get the whole ball rolling..........

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 14, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

I'll give him a little more time to look for a published, peer-reviewed scientific study that proves that natural climate variability is not the cause of any perceived recent warming, with the conditions stipulated in my previous post.

That should keep him occupied for some time. And time he spends doing that is time he isn't spending talking out his rectum and harassing others. I have done my civic duty for the week!

If I haven't heard from him/her in a few days, then I will consider my options. The temptation to sue is great. Cumulus should be made to back up his/her words. Until someone makes Cumulus back up his/her words, he (or she) will run around making a general nuisance of himself (or herself).

He/she probably thinks they are anonymous and can't be easily identified. Nothing is further from the truth.

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 15, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse


You seem to want to dismiss the faults that investigators have found with the hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have and will cause significant increases in climatic temperature.

Let's look at two of the items that you listed; i.e. ""...the urban heat island did it," "mid-tropospheric warming hasn't kept pace...,". I pick those two because they may be related. As I suspect you know, the carbon dioxide-warming hypothesis does not predict that increased carbon dioxide alone will cause significant warming; it assumes that the carbon dioxide will cause an increase in the absolute humidity of the atmosphere, especially in the troposphere between 1 and 10 km above the surface. The hypothesis is that this warmer stratosphere will radiate heat back to the surface thereby warming the surface.

When researchers compared the computations of the GCMs to the temperature data observed by the satellites and balloons, they found that the troposphere to be warming significantly slower than the models predicted and the troposphere is warming more slowly than the surface temperature record shows. Therefore, the model predictions are not consistent with the physical data.

It seems to me that we have just two choices here. The models overestimate the effect of the moisture feedback. This possibility is consistent with observations that show that the absolute humidity of the atmosphere is not increasing as the hypothesis demands. Or, the surface temperature record shows an erroneously high rate of temperature increase. This possibility is consistent with claims that urban heat islands have inappropriately affected the surface temperature record.

In either case, we would have to conclude that the GCMs, which attempt to track the surface temperature record, are overestimating by wide margins.

Where is Mr. Freedman? Shouldn't he be participating? He cannot be unaware of what is transpiring here and he never responded to C. Quesenberry's questions and comments.

Just for fun
cu•mu•lus (kyōōm'yə-ləs) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. cu•mu•li (-lī')

1) A dense, white, fluffy, flat-based cloud with a multiple rounded top and a well-defined outline, usually formed by the ascent of thermally unstable air masses.
2) A pile, mound, or heap.

[Latin, heap; see keuÉ™- in Indo-European roots.]

Posted by: snorbert zangox | April 15, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

In my first comment in response to Mr. Freedman's column, I led off with what I consider to be the biggest lie in the global warming scare - a historic link showing that an increase in CO2 corresponds with a subsequent increase in temperature. Mr. Gore and his film are responsible for the wide spread belief in that lie. I think that if people knew that was a lie, they would not swallow the AGW scare mongering so quickly.

And now, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and others apparently feel the same way. You should read their letter to the IPCC. Bloody brilliant!

I won't quote it all, but here are some choice sections -
--begin quote--
14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position - that man's CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change - to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.
We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.

More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
--end quote--

It goes on and includes a fabulous graph. And, it touches on something I personally am VERY emotionally charged about.

I am not emotionally invested in the AGW bull crap. I have a personal investment, because I have five children and I wouldn't dream of leaving them the legacy that Mr. Gore envisions. But it isn't an emotional issues for me. I look at solely from a unemotional, factual basis.

But I am emotionally invested in the idiocy of pumping our food supply into our gas tank. I can't help it. Every time I think about it I get upset. I told my wife years ago when this idiocy started that it was the dumbest thing I have EVER seen in my entire life and I doubt the stupidity of it can be topped before I die. And I am being proven right on that score. Look at food prices. Look at the riots as people can no longer afford food.

It is called supply and demand and it ain't rocket science. But I digress.

The link for the full article, which is truly a must read is here -

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 15, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Some of you may want to express your opinions to Mr. Gore here.......

To: Al Gore
Mr. Gore,

Numerous scientists claim that the global warming experienced in the 20th century has nothing to do with man-made carbon dioxide, as you claim. Their arguments are compelling, and a debate would allow you to address these issues and prove that your arguments are based on science, rather than politics.

On March 14, 2007 Lord Monckton of Brenchley challenged you to debate your position on global warming, but your refusal only strengthens their position. We urge you to debate Lord Monckton of Brenchley, or otherwise admit that the causal link between man and global warming is spurious.


The Undersigned

View Current Signatures


Posted by: Kirk Z | April 15, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse


Well, first, calm down my friend. You're probably correct about the specific paper topics that you mentioned - but remember, I said (quoting myself) "...and their papers that argue the skeptic point of view". So, please don't bend the rules. I didn't mention the specific topics that you suggested I go and find papers for.

Let me be clear: I'm not arguing that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas (it is). I'm not arguing that there isn't climate change/global warming going on. I'm just arguing that the warming is not COMPLETELY or MOSTLY anthropogenic. I should have probably been a bit more clear on that before. And, there is no proof that it is NOT anthropogenic. There is also no proof that it is anthropogenic.

But whoa... let me quote Freedman from earlier, since you did mention the "P" word:
"No matter where you fall on the side of the climate change debate, your challenge to "show proof" of the link between CO2 and climate change has no basis in science."
So, either the AGW claim is above the need for proof (for some unknown reason), or, we are both in the same situation, and "proof" has "no basis in science".

So, basically, both sides are left with citing evidence that support their argument, which is all I'm trying to point out. Don't sing me any song about how "its already been debated, we're past that". Tell that to Dr. Gray. My claim is that there ARE credible scientists who have written papers citing evidence and arguing that the global warming we are seeing is not caused, in large part, by humans. To say otherwise, would basically be discrediting those scientists and their views - many of whom are not politically motivated, and feel that their science has possibly been incorrectly hijacked by politics.

Note, that I'm not being disrespectful of scientists who are arguing AGW (although I will be disrespectful to the politicians and their dirty politics, both sides too), either by discrediting their work or ignoring it or not even recognizing that they even exist. I just don't agree with them, that's all. I see a common theme among the AGW folks is that they don't even want to recognize that there is another side to this.

And I wouldn't suggest poking fun at skeptic arguments without at least some sort of meaningful response to it. I don't completely agree with this "cooling since 98" claim, but, there was a little ice age, the earth has always warmed and cooled, naturally, and there is much credence to the argument about the location of weather monitoring stations. This data may be overstating the warming. But, I would be interested to see the oxygen isotope argument. As for the models... in general I am highly skeptical of the GCM's. I would be equally as skeptic even if they were predicting an ice age.

Now this isn't directed at Cumulus - but all the AGW non-deniers: While we're poking fun, leave the hockey stick at home, please. Haven't you all gotten tired of parading out all of Gore's arguments from his Oscar-winning film? It doesn't matter how many times you repeat them, it doesn't mean they are true, or proof of AGW. So, please, no cause for alarm. Meanwhile, perhaps Gore should consider becoming a vegetarian.

Cumulus I do at least have to give you some respect since you have some credentials, but it certainly doesn't mean that I have to agree with your argument. I'd just be curious, deep down where and how your argument is rooted - in science, or with politics.

Well, I'm outta here. I do enjoy discussion on the science and debate, however, lets face facts. Folks are very entrenched on this issue. Its gonna get pretty ugly in Washington when it is time to levy new taxes and this "cap and trade" scam on the American taxpayers. Cap and trade doesn't actually solve anything or reduce emissions. But, I'll duck out of the way and let someone else discuss the economics, that's not my thing. As for the rest, I'll leave you in the good hands of C. Quesenberry. And Cumulus: I don't care if you're wrong, you can keep your house and your car.

Oh, I almost forgot. Here is a good resource I found that discusses the logarithmic warming affects of CO2:

Posted by: mpare | April 15, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I think this may be the correct website address?

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 16, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Whoops, thanks for the correction. That is the correct address.

Posted by: mpare | April 16, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Realtor Complains Lack of Global Warming Hurting Business
By Noel Sheppard | April 16, 2008 - 15:12 ET

Imagine for a moment you're an upscale realtor in the exclusive southeastern part of France called "Provence" driving around with a couple of well-healed prospective buyers hoping to see gorgeous vistas on a sunny, April day only to get caught in a snow storm.

What would you do?

Well, the manager of a British real estate company called VEF, whose office is in Haute Provence, was so angered by this that he wrote a complaint letter to the General Manager of Global Warming in Europe (uncontrollable laughter alert, emphasis added): Letter follows:

An open letter to the General Manager, Global Warming - Europe
15 April 2008 - Haute Provence office
Dear Sir / Madam As a long time resident of the south east of France, notably the famous region called "Provence", I would like to make a complaint.
Firstly, I am writing to the "General Manager" because I assume that there must be one. With so many "experts" in the world, someone somewhere must manage them. I assume.

I have spent the day with 2 people from the south of England who are very serious about buying a property in northern Provence. They have read most of my previously published news articles about the climate (300 days of sunshine, Provencal summer and Alpine winters), the exchange rate (which is not getting any better - I have written to Mr. Brown and Mr. Bush too and have expressed my wish for comment by return of post), and the lifestyle which, I hasten to add, seems to be the only thing that is not in jeopardy at the moment.

So, why is it, then, that my clients and I have had to endure a day of driving rain, snow and gale force winds when I would have expected 20 degrees Celsius and deep blue skies? Why is it that spring has been denied the right to break when, according to your "experts", the planet is warming at an alarming rate and that "winter in Europe is a thing of the past"? (Incidentally, would you please also respond to the managers of the 31 ski resorts in Haute-Provence - they would be delighted to hear your explanation as to why they have to open for a good month longer than ten years ago).

Now I can already imagine your response - "we promised you 300 days of sunshine, and you'll have them. Yes, we will send you the snow in the winter, a spectacular spring and the beautiful May to September summer". Would you please, however, make sure that you do it when I have promised that you would?

It's spring now. The calendar says so. if the planet really is warming up, would you please send some of that warmth down to Provence and the southern Alps, and NOW. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, one of the reasons that people look for French property in Provence is for the predictable weather. So I'm starting to look a bit silly.

I look forward to your swift response - a warm spell would suffice.

Best Regards

Richard Rogers

Manager of the VEF Partner Office in Haute-Provence

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 16, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Another paper on the CO2 thing......

Posted by: Forever Skeptic | April 16, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

C.Q. -- I think the aforementioned paper takes the cake. It thoroughly trashes the "Greenhouse Effect" and the contribution of CO2.
You can keep the house and car, since you were quickest off the mark,....judging from the emotion of the original bet, they are both probably a "Van down by the River"
and I have lived in enough of those.
Check out pages 44 and 84 thru 90, a surgical strike, I would say.

Posted by: Forever Skeptic | April 17, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

For those of you who haven't seen the NIPCC Final Report, it makes for a highly enjoyable read:

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 17, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Forever Skeptic! I skimmed the document quickly and it seems impressive. I will need to devote a full day to it.

My main goal with Cumulus was not acquiring a new house and car (or "Van down by the River" ). I simply wanted to let a little air out his/her false bravado.

F.S. have you seen this page -

I have had fair success in converting some back from the dark side with that page.

Cumulus, if you read this, how is your search for a published, peer-reviewed scientific study that proves that natural climate variability is not the cause of any perceived recent warming going? Well, I hope. But I suspect that task may prove a little daunting for you.

Let's make it even easier. Mr. Freedman may join you in your quest. If Mr. Freedman knows of such a paper and he posts the info on it, I will accept it as if from you.

And let's broaden the search for both you and Mr. Freedman. If either of you can find a published, peer-reviewed scientific study/paper that disproves any theory that Roy Spencer puts forward on the web page that I linked to above, you may keep your house and car. Said study/paper must directly reference Dr. Spencer's work.

Good luck. You will need it.

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 17, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Well, it has been four days. Neither Cumulus nor Mr. Freedman has posted info on any published, peer-reviewed scientific study that proves that natural climate variability is not the cause of any perceived recent warming.

And neither Cumulus nor Mr. Freedman has posted any info on any published, peer-reviewed scientific study that refutes or disproves any theory that Dr. Spencer put forth on this web page -

I am shocked.

C. Quesenberry

Posted by: C. Quesenberry | April 21, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

It seems they have retreated back into their liberal holes.

Posted by: Cade | April 23, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

The tearing of hair and the gnashing of teeth............

Posted by: Kirk Z | April 25, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING: Global Warming Will "Stop", New Peer-Reviewed Study Says

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Posted By Marc Morano - 6:40 PM ET - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov


Global Warming Will 'Stop', New Peer-Reviewed Study Says
Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years?
Weblink to Blog:

Today's UK Telegraph reports: "Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged. This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature."
This significant new study adds to a growing body of peer-reviewed literature and other scientific analysis challenging former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC). MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen's March 2008 analysis found the Earth has had "no statistically significant warming since 1995."- LINK.
Australian paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter also noted in 2007 that " the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998." Carter explained that the "temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2." (LINK)
In August 2007, the UK Met Office, Britain's version of our National Weather Service, conceded that global warming had stopped as well. Both the Nature and UK Met Office analysis predict a continuation of global warming in future years. [Note: Hyping yet more unproven computer models of the future in response to inconvenient evidence based data is the primary tool of the promoters of man-made climate doom.]
Today's new study in Nature essentially finds that global warming will have stopped for nearly 20 years. (1998 until 2015) According to the UK Telegraph article: "Writing in Nature, the scientists said: 'Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming.'"
The UK Telegraph article by reporter Charles Clover noted the significant deficiencies in UN climate models: "The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998."
The evidence based data showing the Earth's failure to continue warming has confounded the promoters of man-made climate fear. The American people have consistently rejected climate alarm as a Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 shows the American public's concern about man-made global warming is unchanged from 1989. Gore's $300 million dollar campaign to promote climate fear is attempting to convince American's that they face a climate "crisis" despite the new accumulating scientific evidence.

This new study in Nature further reveals a "tipping point" for the promoters of climate alarm. 2007 and now 2008 have challenged man-made climate fear as new peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears. A U.S. Senate minority report reveals over 400 scientists dissented from man-made climate fears, and more and more scientists continue to declare themselves skeptical of a man-made climate "crisis" in 2008.

Sampling of key inconvenient developments for promoters of a man-made climate "crisis" so far in 2008: (See also related link at bottom of this report)

1) Oceans Cooling! Scientists puzzled by "mystery of global warming's missing heat"- LINK

2) New Data from NASA's Aqua satellite is showing "greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."- LINK

3) Former NASA Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer found not one peer-reviewed paper has 'ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth' - LINK

4) UN IPCC in 'Panic Mode' as Earth Fails to Warm, Scientist says - LINK

5) UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri "to look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century."- LINK

6) New scientific analysis shows Sun "could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature" - LINK & LINK.

7) Scientists find dust free atmosphere may be responsible for up to 36 F rise in global temps (LINK)

8) Analysis in peer-reviewed journal finds cold periods - not warm periods - see increase in floods, droughts, storms, famine (LINK)

9) New York Times Laments Media's Incorrect hyping of frogs and global warming (LINK)

10) Prominent hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact (LINK)

11) MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen's March 2008 analysis found the Earth has had "no statistically significant warming since 1995."- (LINK)

12) An International team of scientists released a March 2008 report to counter UN IPCC, declaring: "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate" - LINK
# #

Full Text of today's UK Telegraph Article Below:

Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor - UK Telegraph

Last Updated: 6:01pm BST 30/04/2008

Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged.

This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."

He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away.

The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.

Today's paper in Nature tries to simulate the variability of these events and longer cycles, such as the giant ocean "conveyor belt" known as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), which brings warm water north into the North East Atlantic.

This has a 70 to 80-year cycle and when the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures in Europe. When it is weak, as it will be over the next decade, temperatures fall. Scientists think that variations of this kind could partly explain the cooling of global average temperatures between the 1940s and 1970s after which temperatures rose again.

Writing in Nature, the scientists said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming."

The study shows a more pronounced weakening effect than the Met Office's Hadley Centre, which last year predicted that global warming would slow until 2009 and pick up after that, with half the years after 2009 being warmer than the warmest year on record, 1998.

Commenting on the new study, Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre said the model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect around the North Atlantic.

"Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"That emphasises once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades."

But he said the use of just sea surface temperatures might not accurately reflect the state of the MOC, which was several miles deep and dependent on factors besides temperatures, such as salt content, which were included in the Met Office Hadley Centre model.

If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.
# #
Related Links:

Media Hype on 'Melting' Antarctic Ignores Record Ice Growth

Climate Skeptics Reveal 'Horror Stories' of Scientific Suppression; NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks 'Consensus' Claims

Senate Minority Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Minority Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears

Breakdown Of Key Points Debunking Climate Fears

Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way

Hypocrisy exposed: Comparison of Media's Coverage of a Warm Winter vs. Cold Winter

Analysis of how Hollywood Is Promoting Climate Fears to Kids

CBS News Seeks 'Hip' Environmental Reporter, No 'Knowledge of Enviro Beat' Necessary

CBS News reporter compares global warming skeptics to be the equivalent of "Holocaust deniers"

Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism

Media Covering Up UN Global Warming Report's Political Agenda

"Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming"

ABCNEWS Climate Reporter: 'Scientists tell us civilization as we know it is over'

"I don't like the word 'Balance''- Says ABC News Global Warming Reporter

New York Times Op-Ed Heat Wave Hype Melts Under Scrutiny


CNN Anchor Cited Fictional Hollywood Global Warming Movie, to Defend His Science Reporting

Newsweek Admits Error on 70's Predictions of Coming Ice Age;

Analysis of Costly "Solutions" to Global Warming

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To 'Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference


Debunking The So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming

Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism

Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to 'Little Kids' Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of 'Criminal Neglect'

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

New UN Children's Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids (11-13-2006)

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"

Posted by: Forever Skeptic | April 30, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Forever Skeptic | April 30, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

We were all told that bio-fuels would be one of the solutions in helping us solve the global warming problem but instead it has given us acute food shortages and high prices that many people across the world can not afford. Now, there is another threat that people are not focusing on and that is the cost and shortages of natural gas. Making nitrogen fertilizers to grow the corn requires massive amounts of natural gas and in the fermentation and distillation of corn to make ethanol is another big user of this valuable fuel. Boone Pickens recently said that if we get another long, cold winter like this past one there may not be enough to heat our homes.

Posted by: Jack Mclaughlin | May 2, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

More peer reviewed papers showing man made GW is merely a fund raising Venture.....

Article begins:

Peer Reviewed Studies and/or Major Scientific Journal Articles Disputing Man-made Causes for Global Warming
Links Below

We don't dispute that there may have been some global warming since the turn of the century. Even though it is quite likely some of the measurements were distorted and there is still some dispute over whether we've really warmed at all (see "If The Globe Is Warming Why Are The Oceans Not?" and "The Earth may have actually COOLED in the past 60 years!". But we'll assume for a minute that the earth really has warmed 0.7°C in the past 100 years. That is certainly within the realm of natural variability. Below are links to peer reviewed and/or major scientific journal articles backing the case for a natural cause for global warming. Man has always blamed other men (and women) for bad weather. Medieval peasants burned people at the stake believing that they were witches causing the bad weather. Lets not be so ignorant this time around. The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, this is just one of them (one of the milder one's I might add).

So why haven't you heard of these studies? Perhaps the following could answer that question:

"I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." - Ellen Goodman, national syndicated columnist
"David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change. At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime." - Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki
The IPCC's chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, recently compared eco-skeptic Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler. "What is the difference between Lomborg's view of humanity and Hitler's?" Pachauri told a Danish newspaper. "If you were to accept Lomborg's way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing. - National Review
Solar Cycles causing global warming:

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
Abstract: "During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic-time series for this period has been obtained using delta18 O data from an Antarctic ice core."

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
Abstract: "Paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun. Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries"

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
Abstract: "We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle."

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
Abstract: "Times of major transitions identified in pollen records occurred at 600, 1650, 2850, 4030, 6700, 8100, 10 190, 12 900, and 13 800 cal yr B.P., consistent with ice and marine records. We suggest that North Atlantic millennial-scale climate variability is associated with rearrangements of the atmospheric circulation with far-reaching influences on the climate."

Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
Abstract: "The database of Prof. Rogers (1887), which includes wheat prices in England in the Middle Ages, was used to search for a possible influence of solar activity on the wheat market. We present a conceptual model of possible modes for sensitivity of wheat prices to weather conditions, caused by solar cycle variations, and compare expected price fluctuations with price variations recorded in medieval England.

We compared statistical properties of the intervals between wheat price bursts during years 1249-1703 with statistical properties of the intervals between minimums of solar cycles during years 1700-2000. We show that statistical properties of these two samples are similar, both for characteristics of the distributions and for histograms of the distributions. We analyze a direct link between wheat prices and solar activity in the 17th Century, for which wheat prices and solar activity data (derived from 10Be isotope) are available. We show that for all 10 time moments of the solar activity minimums the observed prices were higher than prices for the correspondent time moments of maximal solar activity (100% sign correlation, on a significance level

Climate Models

Progress in Physical Geography 27,3 (2003) pp. 448-455
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Abstract: Climate models are now being used extensively to diagnose the causative, especially anthropogenic, factors of observed climatic changes of the past few decades (Palmer, 2001; Stott ., 2001; Thorne ., 2002). These models are also used to make long-term climate projections and climate risk assessments based on future anthropogenic forcing scenarios (Saunders, 1999; Palmer, 2001; Houghton ., 2001; Pittock, 2002; Schneider, et al S.H., 2002). Many such exercises help to shape public policy recommendations concerning future energy use and various 'climate protection' measures in order to prevent 'dangerous climate impacts' (e.g., Schneider, S.H., 2002; O'Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002). But meaningful and credible scientific confidence, resting either on the traditional deterministic method of quantification or the probabilistic mode of measuring change (as favoured by, for example, Washington, 2000; Räisänen and Palmer, 2001; Schneider, S.H., 2002) cannot yet be made to such computer experiments because climate models do not yield sufficiently reliable, quantitative results in reproducing well-documented climatic changes around the world. (This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research grant AF 49620-02-1-0194 and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration grant NAG5-7635.)

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
Albert Arking - Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Abstract: Codes commonly used in climate and weather prediction models for calculating the transfer of solar radiation in the atmosphere show systematic differences amongst each other, and even the best of codes show systematic differences with respect to observations. A 1-dimensional radiative-convective equilibrium model is used to show the effects of such bias on the global energy balance and on the global response to a doubling of CO2. We find the main impact is in the energy exchange terms between the surface and atmosphere and in the convective transport in the lower troposphere, where it exceeds 10 W m-2. The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible.


Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract: "A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years, even under the "fast-response" framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed. Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them."

On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
Abstract: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth's climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth's climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."

The Continuing Search for an Anthropogenic Climate Change Signal: Limitations of Correlation-Based Approaches
Abstract: "Several recent studies claim to have found evidence of large-scale climate changes that were attributed to human influences. These assertions are based on increases in correlation over time between general circulation model prognostications and observations as derived from a centred pattern correlation statistic. We argue that the results of such studies are inappropriate because of limitations and biases in these statistics which leads us to conclude that the results of many studies employing these statistics may be erroneous and, in fact, show little evidence of a human fingerprint in the observed records."

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Global climatologists claim that the Earth's natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33C warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would be manifest itself as a new kind of `superinsulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.

Popular Technology Forum - Thanks to Popular Technology for their assistance, most of the links you see here were collected by them and used with their permission.

Posted by: Kirk Z | May 9, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2012 The Washington Post Company