Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 02/14/2011

Circular reasoning

By Tom Toles

c_02142011.gif
***
Just a difference of opinion, except for the dying part
People don't like being called stupid, but let's face it. One side or the other is sometimes being stupid. Let's see if we can decide which.

On the climate change side we have:

Plausible theory:
-Carbon Dioxide, a long-acknowledged heat-trapping gas, is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity.
-Scientists measure this, and do their best with imperfect data to model and predict consequences.
-The measuring of CO2 levels throughout history and the effect on climate is tabulated. The effects of current increases are predicted and confirming/refuting evidence is accumulated, analyzed, reported and discussed.
-A range of possible outcomes is forecast. They range from not good to catastrophic.
-A suggestion that, as a precautionary step at least, carbon emissions be reduced is made.
-After DECADES of study, the data solidifies, the range of predicted outcomes becomes more dire, and the speed of observable current changes accelerates.
-Leaders in BOTH parties acknowledge the problem and start discussing legislative responses.
-The responses will include a shift from conventional burning of fossil fuels to alternatives. An interesting, difficult political discussion is underway.

Continued.

The opponents' side:

-A realization that some familiar consumption patterns will need to change and that there will be some costs.
-The conversation suddenly goes backward from "what is the best way to deal with this?" to "the whole problem is just made up."
-The only way to get around the science is to construct a theory that all the scientists in the world have gotten together in a deliberate conspiracy to subvert their field of study, and hoax the world for personal gain. Virtually ALL of them. Pay attention ONLY to the tiny tiny minority.
-The threat of climate change is no longer discussed as a range of possibilities, but is recalibrated down to ZERO, or next to it.
-If the deniers are right, then they may have saved themselves a few dollars and some personal convenience in doing things the way they have become comfortable with.
-If the climate science is correct, vast destruction may ensue, up to and including millions of deaths. But let's not even CONTEMPLATE that as a possibility, because maybe, just maybe, it's all a conspiracy. In fact, not maybe. It's definitely a conspiracy. We're sure of it.
-So sure we will bet the whole planet on that supposition.

Nobody likes being called stupid. What would you call this? --Tom Toles
***
sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_02142011.gif

By Tom Toles  | February 14, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  DC, Democrats, GOP  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Date with destiny
Next: Doctor's order

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

@snibbor0 - You said, "Your talking points on the side of the faithful have been repeated - and successfully refuted - for the last ten years. AGW theories are not well-supported by fact, the raw data is a mess, the publishing and review process is almost entirely driven by politics, and the ethics of the AGW believers is simply atrocious. On the other hand, your bullet points on the side of the heretics are just vague, groundless sniping."

I'm sorry. All I see from your post is actually just vague, groundless sniping. To CLAIM that points have been refuted does not actually refute anything. AGW theories are, actually, overwhelmingly well-supported by fact. The raw data is enormous, compelling, and incredibly diverse and well-documented. The publishing and review process, with only a few seized-upon exceptions, has been exhaustive and meticulous. The challenges to the "ethics" of scientists involved in the research have been exonerated by multiple objective, independent panels.

The vast body of data, research, and resulting scientific conclusions are entirely conclusive, and supported and endorsed by nearly every actual scientist involved in the many fields associated with climate study.

I would never characterize you as a big, fat doo-doo head, but that's because I am a polite, civil person who is dedicated to reasonable discourse. Otherwise.....

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 17, 2011 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Well Tom, I'm sorry, but you did ask... I guess I'm going to have to call YOU stupid.

Your talking points on the side of the faithful have been repeated - and successfully refuted - for the last ten years. AGW theories are not well-supported by fact, the raw data is a mess, the publishing and review process is almost entirely driven by politics, and the ethics of the AGW believers is simply atrocious.

On the other hand, your bullet points on the side of the heretics are just vague, groundless sniping. Why not just call them a bunch of big, fat doo-doo heads, and get it over with?

Seriously, just repeating over and over that AGW is real doesn't make it real. Before we crash the global economy (the phrase "they may have saved themselves a few dollars and some personal convenience" is a laughable distortion), you're going to have to produce some actual hard evidence, not just a lot of politically-motivated yakking.

For a start, how about putting forth a set of conditions under which AGW can be disproved? That's a critical part of any scientific theory... but you knew that, right?

Posted by: snibbor0 | February 17, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

@DirtFarmer1 - Every one of your points has been bandied around interminably. Every one is bogus, and has been proven to be bogus over and over. I'm not going to play whack-a-mole with you, only to have you pop up again next week with the same tired lines from a contrarian website. At least have the courtesy to identify your copy/paste from "wattsupwiththat" denialist website.

As FDR remarked, "Repeating a lie does not transform it into a truth."

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 16, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Reasons to question the conclusion that human-generated CO2 emissions have led to significant global warming:

1) More than 80% of thermometers in the official global network are in urban areas or at airports, which are unnaturally warm localities. This means that the warming measured by many of the official thermometers has a lot more to do with localised urbanisation than global climate change.

2) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the USA has begun to address the thermometer location issue by adding properly-located thermometers and removing poorly-located ones, but new data will take decades to accumulate and in the meantime conclusions are being reached, and policies concocted, based on the data from the poorly located thermometers.

3) Thermometer-based data suggest that the global upward trend in temperature continued until at least 2006, but temperature measurements taken by satellites, which are more reliable indicators of average surface temperature, suggest that the most recent warming trend ended in 1998. (The world is always in either a warming trend or a cooling trend; that is, the climate is always changing).

4) Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK and one of the leading supporters of the AGW theory, admitted in a BBC interview early this year that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995 and that the world has probably been cooling since 2002.

5) Over the past 150 years, a period in which there is considerable data regarding CO2 levels and temperature levels (putting aside the fact that temperature measurements have been skewed to the upside by the thermometer location issue mentioned above), temperature has experienced multi-decade upward and downward trends independently of CO2 levels.

6) Ice data suggest that over extremely long periods (thousands of years), the average CO2 level FOLLOWS the average temperature. That is, if there is an ultra-long-term cause-effect relationship then a higher temperature is the cause and a higher CO2 level is the effect. This was well known when Al Gore made his "Inconvenient Truth" film, but Gore presented the information in a way that made it seem as if CO2 was leading and temperature was following. This was a shameless attempt to mislead.

7) The "Climategate" emails showed that official temperature data had been manipulated and destroyed, and that requests for information made under the "Freedom of Information Act" had been ignored, in an effort to promote the AGW theory and suppress evidence to the contrary.

8) The way the world has heated up during the most recent warming trend does not match the way it would have heated up if the trend were being driven by an increase in atmospheric CO2.

Posted by: DirtFarmer1 | February 15, 2011 10:58 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet - You asked the loaded, two-valued question several times as to what would replace fossil fuels. I provided a link to a source that would provide ample information about that. You did not acknowledge that, and you simply dropped your question, rather than explore the issue.

Some more of those facts that you seem proud to refuse to be confused by?

I'm sorry. I'm afraid I have to consider your participation in this forum nothing but contrarian sniping. You make unsupported claims, cherry-pick data to exclude a comprehensive view of a complex issue, and engage in logical fallacies in attempts to bolster untenable positions. In other words, you argue here from an ideological agenda, and play games to deny facts and reason.

I'm disappointed.

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 15, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 15, 2011 2:50 PM

You have an not-so-admirable ability to not be confused by facts.----PTg----

Thank you

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 15, 2011 5:09 PM | Report abuse

PTG facts are facts !!!

329 ppmv in 1970 to 389 ppmv in 2010 = .44% compounding annual increase not 1% -- a 227% overstatement of the facts at the official Rocket Scientist site of NASA

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 15, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 15, 2011 2:50 PM

You have an not-so-admirable ability to not be confused by facts. You should have done some "research" to figure out what NASA was trying to say; that you did not try to get to the bottom of things suggests that you have no interest in research at all. There was a reason that you and I did not understand what NASA was saying. Doing actual research involves looking at both sides of the issue; all you do is find misinformation that supports your position. Sure, I might have worded things differently than NASA did. Facts are facts: 329 ppmv in 1970 to 389 ppmv in 2010. Ouch. Would you really have been happier if the 2010 CO2 concentration was 485 ppmv?!?!?!?

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 15, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

PTG

You are 'loyal' to the cause. I am pleased you took you time to examine the published number. 4 days later you are able to get a 'fit'. The correct factoid as published in the context given is a .44% annual increase meaning NASA overstated the annual rise in the context given 227%.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 15, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet

I believe I've figured out the issues with your NASA reference. From http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science/, you found:

"Measurements from a global network of surface stations indicate that atmospheric CO2 increased by 1% annually over the past 40 years -- i.e., from 326 ppmv in 1970 to 389 ppmv in 2010."

OK, OK. It's not worded the way I'd like and it took me some time to find the problem. I think they are saying the carbon emissions increased about 1% annually. The missing information is that about 43% of that remains in the atmosphere. The remainder ends up in oceans and land sinks. So 326 ppmv *(1.0043**40)=387 ppmv. That's essentially in agreement with what NASA reports, the difference being in how I calculate it. OK?

To verify that, I checked http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/, the "Full Mauna Loa CO2 Record" and "Annual Mean CO2 Growth Rate at Mauna Loa" links. This data is real-world measured data from 1959 to 1020. I spread-sheeted that data.I calculated the annual increases from 1960 to 2010--these differ from NOAA's increases slightly because we calculate them differently. I then took %ppmv changes from 1960 to 2010, and found the average atmospheric ppmv %-age change from 1970 to 2010. That average ppmv %-age change came to 0.45%.

1) NASA did not "fib."
2) NASA could have stated things differently, but the real problem is the lack of knowledge you (and I) had, making it difficult to determine what NASA was actually saying.
3) The 1.01 or 1.0043 annual increase in atmospheric ppmv values doesn't seem like much. But the "miracle of compounding" causes the actually atmospheric concentrations to increase rapidly. ISn't an increase from 326 to 389 ppmv in only 40 years a lot.
4) You should have done the required research to find out what the apparent problem was.
5) My previous explanation(s) of why the NASA number were apparently wrong should be considered "inoperative."

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 15, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the science of AGW has NOT solidified. The lies told that CO2 or chlorofluorocarbons, or fossil fuel consumption are directly and solely responsible for the melting of glaciers, droughts, catastrophic precipitation, loss of arctic ice, and rise of sea levels are a result of people jumping to conclusions.

NONE of the climate models work in the long run. At this point, we are just as likely to have a global glaciation, an ice-ball world, as we are to have a baked greenhouse world like Venus. We have had periods in the past where the CO2 content of the atmosphere was far greater than it is now, and yet evidence of colder global temperatures.

The point is, the U.S. and Europe can impose all the the barriers to carbon emission in the world, and it won't stop the climate change. Worse, it will destroy our socio-economic world, to the benefit of 3rd world nations and the emerging superpower of China.

I refuse to be forced to huddle in a shack while the common man on the street in China drives a Mercedes and lives in a McMansion; just because of Chicken Littles like Tom Toles say the sky is falling.

Posted by: mhoust | February 15, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

PawnTakesQueen

~~~investing in more oil drilling vs. investing in clean energy~~~

We have to do both right now. This is pragmatism.


Posted by: dalyplanet | February 15, 2011 2:38 AM | Report abuse

QueentakesPawn

From you the all-or-nothing, binary mentality

~~~~who are largely arguing for Drill, baby, drill and who are largely arguing against?~~~

So what? How is this relevant to AGW

Reducing dependence on imported oil and mitigating AGW are different discussions. Pragmatism, not Idealism will prevail regarding energy policy. The pendulum is swinging.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 15, 2011 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Queentakespawn says

~~~So explain specifically how oil companies stand to profit more by caving in to “bad science”~~~

Carbon Credits create another profit center from air and lobby's and insiders write the rules. Kyoto has done little to slow the rise of carbon consumption in Europe.

and~~~~~Diversion. You’re avoiding the actual argument at hand here which is about you deniers/skeptics not acknowledging AGW is even happening.~~~~

The argument is about the claimed catastrophic effects of AGW and the shortsighted mitigation policies that continue the business as usual approach.

Ethanol production will likely cause more deaths in the next 30 years than Human caused warming due to food shortages and artificially increased prices. CCS will cause increased carbon consumption and speed depletion of resources despite renewables and conservation reducing demand. Natural Gas will be used to produce electricity to slightly reduce CO2 output depleting this easy clean source of heat. Nuclear electricity has many problems on a global scale and even here in the US. Carbon offsets are a shell game. These are the proposed solutions and reducing CO2 output by 50% to 80% by 2035 following this published plan is not realistic.

There are many reasons to doubt the catastrophic predictions of the human caused portion of earths gradual heating. If these doubts are false then better solutions need discussion now. A Chevron or BP ad does not convince me that any government or business plan is the right plan. I am not against changing the energy business but those solutions proposed are not realistic at this time. Some are enormously poor. Government will not provide the answers and will likely pick another loser like ethanol. Brainstorming instead of bickering is what is needed. Show us all your smart solutions instead of telling us all how smart you are.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 15, 2011 12:38 AM | Report abuse

“I think the point was that we all use gas and electricity so saying that these utility providers are conservatives utilities is not true.”

Posted by: dalyplanet
-----------------------------
Again with the all-or-nothing, binary mentality. How can you not understand what I said? I swear you conservatives have a habit of not grasping gradation, continuum, or even generalization. Yes, obviously liberals use gas and electricity too, but who are largely arguing for Drill, baby, drill and who are largely arguing against? Overwhelmingly it’s respectively conservatives and then liberals, yes? Need convincing? Here: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1385

Drilling in ANWR: Favor……………Oppose
Conserv Rep ……… 90%………………8%
Liberal Dem…………31%……………..66%

Drilling Offshore: Favor………………Oppose
Conserv Rep………91%…………………7%
Liberal Dem……….44%…………………53%

Are these percentages a revelation to you? They aren’t to me and I just now googled them. Anyway, it’s along this political divide that I was referring to oil companies as “your (meaning conservatives’) precious oil companies.” Capiche? Sheesh. This is so tedious. I shouldn’t have to explain this obvious stuff.
-------------------------------
“Reading through your posts I realize you are really smart.
Please tell me where carbon credits come from. oh And how do they relate to those oil companies you mentioned.”

Posted by: dalyplanet
----------------------------------
Well, to my feeble grasping of the subject, the way I see it is carbon credits are invented out of thin air like all money is. They’re worth something because of a collective agreement that they’re worth something. They relate to the oil companies I mentioned because said companies are prominent emitters of greenhouse gases and their purchasing and selling of carbon credits would be among the largest amounts in the world presumably.

So what? How is this relevant to your AGW denialism/skepticism?

Posted by: PawnTakesQueen | February 14, 2011 11:17 PM | Report abuse

“Interesting how all Liberal arguments devolve into superlatives about 'all' Conservatives. You ask for a balanced approach to analyzing the facts you present then turn around and rack-and-stack all Conservatives as 'binary.'“

Posted by: pararanger22
-------------------------------------------
More desperation on your part. When I say “conservatives,” I’m making a generalization which is perfectly fine as long as it applies to the majority of the group. So I don’t mean all conservatives. Of COURSE there are usually exceptions. This should be obvious and you’re just wasting time in lieu of an actual argument.
-------------------------------------------
“Oil company positions on AGW may not be based solely on your perceived validity of AGW science. Anyone who listens to the WSJ this morning knows that oil companies have long anticipated changes to Federal law on the subject, thus, oil companies want to stay ahead of the curve. Adapt and profit. I'm not saying that the oil companies you presented are not ga-ga about AGW science but there are other capitalist components to their position.”

Posted by: pararanger22
-------------------------------------------
So explain specifically how oil companies stand to profit more by caving in to “bad science” and announcing that AGW is established science and a major problem that needs to be addressed and that their product is admittedly contributing to the problem than by staying on the side of “good science” along with you deniers/skeptics who are the “good guys.”
-------------------------------------------
“Your right: I do take Liberals to task about their argument (and yours) that Conservatives are simply against AGW because it frustrates oil company profits. You bring on that argument without context…”

Posted by: pararanger22
-------------------------------------------
That’s not my argument. Point to where I said that’s the only reason. You can’t because you’re making another straw man. It’s so much easier fighting fights of your own concoction instead of the actual liberal arguments.
-------------------------------------------
“You also don't bring to the table a reasonable energy policy…”

Posted by: pararanger22
-------------------------------------------
Diversion. You’re avoiding the actual argument at hand here which is about you deniers/skeptics not acknowledging AGW is even happening. The predictable disagreements that would follow over ANWR and investing in more oil drilling vs. investing in clean energy all stem from the primary divide between us.

Posted by: PawnTakesQueen | February 14, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

PawnTakesQueen

Reading through your posts I realize you are really smart.

Please tell me where carbon credits come from. oh And how do they relate to those oil companies you mentioned.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 9:42 PM | Report abuse

PawnTakesQueen

I think the point was that we all use gas and electricity so saying that these utility providers are conservatives utilities is not true.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 9:30 PM | Report abuse

“You do realize that you are manufacturing a "binary" that the commenter never made, right? He made the point that it is hypocritical for liberals to refer to "conservative's oil companies" when they consume the same oil.”

Posted by: bobmoses
-------------------------------------------
[And here’s the commenter and comment bobmoses was referring to:]

“You imply that oil companies are 'ours' on the Conservative side.

Just exactly 'how' do you get your gasoline?

Unless you live off the land with solar powered heat, dung fuel for your electricity to power your caffeine-machine to make your morning latte', then you depend on the oil companies too.

The Liberal hypocrisy on this subject never ceases to amaze me.”

Posted by: pararanger22

===========================================
Lemme splain this to you both as simply as I can. You’re saying that we liberals have to consume zero gas/oil in order to avoid being hypocrites, correct? Don’t lie by denying it. That’s exactly the standard you set for us there: any use of gasoline/oil by us constitutes hypocrisy.

Well, the reason that’s binary thinking on your part is because you’re allowing only two options:

1) Any gas/oil use by liberals = hypocrisy
2) No gas/oil use by liberals = not hypocrisy

There’s no middle ground, no in-between stance you’re allowing us such as cutting down on gas/oil usage (which is our actual stance). And since you’re falsely assigning an extremist stance to us, that’s committing a straw man fallacy in conjunction with the binary thinking.

One other thing. Because of that extremist stance you assigned to us, my bringing up the Amish was a perfectly apt comparison and not committing a straw man in return as per yet another of your insipid and desperate false charges (that at least one of you made).

Posted by: PawnTakesQueen | February 14, 2011 9:03 PM | Report abuse

But, on the other hand, we have the science of evolution.

Posted by: quiensabe | February 14, 2011 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The alarmist warmers live in some kind of alternative universe where people don't use carbon based fuels for transport, heating, cooling, cooking, and industry. None of these loonies are about to turn off their central heat or stop breathing; both of which would be necessary to actually accomplish what they recommend.
Posted by: AGWsceptic99

My Response...
The problem is that ignoring a problem with your septic system is that eventually you will be chin deep in human waste when the septic system has a total overflow.
The worst part happens when the conservatives buzz you with their motor boats.

Survival depends on making necessary rational transitions to better ways of doing things before you are drowned by you own excrement.
Dave


Posted by: OckamsRazor | February 14, 2011 6:05 PM | Report abuse

There's a Buddhist saying: When it hurts enough, you find a better way. It's not hurting enough yet. But it will.

Posted by: EthelredtheUnready | February 14, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

AGW has nothing to do with science and everything to do with control of the proles.

Why won't Al Gore debate anyone?

I don't think Canada or Russia are too concerned about Global Warming. Just move the coastal cities; it will be a lot cheaper than trying to stop something that cannot be stopped.

How come the recent data shows cooling?

Anybody want to talk about the mythical "hockey stick" graph?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc&feature=fvwrel

Makinʼ up data the old hard way,
Fudginʼ the numbers day by day,
Ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line,
Hide the decline (hide the decline).

Michael Mann thinks he so smart,
Totally inventing the hockey stick chart,
Ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line,
Hide the decline (hide the decline).

Cli-mate-gate, I think you have sealed your fate,
I hope you do a lot of time
Cuz what you did was such a crime
Hide the decline (hide the decline).

The tree ring data was very thin,
You should of chopped more trees instead of hugging them,
Ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line,
Hide the decline (hide the decline).

Cli-mate-gate, I think you have sealed your fate,
I hope you do a lot of time
Cuz what you did was such a crime
Hide the decline (hide the decline).


Posted by: ScottinVA | February 14, 2011 5:41 PM | Report abuse

What a cute set of cartoons to go with this nutty post.

Shutting down the coal fired electrical generating capacity that fuels over half of the electricity produced on the planet is what is required to meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions. This will cost way more than the few inconveniences mentioned in the post. Whole regions will go dark and be cold in the winter.

There are no viable alternatives except nuclear, and that isn't a good idea in many of the countries involved, even it they had the money and the expertise to do it. The other alternatives mentioned today add up to less than one percent world wide, and have no real prospect of reaching even two or three percent (if you exclude hydro) in the next decade.

Researching new energy forms has always made sense. Shutting down the entire globe's main power supply as part of the precautionary principle is just nonsense, and that is why countries like China and India, without whose cooperation anything the US does is meaningless, are not changing anything.

The alarmist warmers live in some kind of alternative universe where people don't use carbon based fuels for transport, heating, cooling, cooking, and industry. None of these loonies are about to turn off their central heat or stop breathing; both of which would be necessary to actually accomplish what they recommend.

Posted by: AGWsceptic99 | February 14, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet - You latch onto some particular aspect of the entire complex issue, frame it in two-valued, either-or terms, then present it as a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

Your latest now is, "What is there to replace fossil fuels?"

Here's a link to a trade association, with multiple reports, updates, newsletters. Most of it is directed at energy industry professionals, but you can certainly get a sense of the activity taking place, and the mindset among the businesses involved. I think you'll be surprised (not dismayed I hope) at the sheer volume of projects in wind, solar, energy storage, and distribution that are in process nationally and globally.

http://www.energybiz.com/?utm_source=2011_02_14&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=EB_DAILY&utm_term=Original-Member

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 14, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Tom Toles is right. Denying or worse - deliberately obfuscating - on a matter with as serious implications as climatological warming brought about by human action is foolish. And to make it a political position at the expense of all who are being and will be harmed is base.

There was a program on last night on PBS about the Himalaya Mountains. At one point it was noted that those mountains contain the 2nd largest mass of ice after the poles. At another point, we learned that recent years have experienced accelerated ice-melt. Aside from the trend, the water run-off has worsened flooding and erosion. So while industrial nations dither, the world suffers. That's brilliant!

Posted by: Jazzman7 | February 14, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Trying to reason with the Cleopatra Club (Queens of Denial) is like hollering down a well. All that comes back is an echo.

There is a peculiar sort of cognitive dissonance in the national mindset. The fact-finding, debate, and discussion about climate change is essentially over. ALL the government entities whose responsibilities will be affected are making preparations to deal with it. ALL the larger corporations (Yes, even the petrochemicals) are moving as rapidly as possible to position themselves to deal with it. Some look to minimize costs, some look to maximize profits.

The low-wattage bulbs in Congress, the pathologically paranoid, and the willfully ignorant may continue to rant and bluster about it. They may even throw up some stumbling blocks that we'll all end up paying for as the climate ignores the arguments and continues to deteriorate. But they're playing in a very small house, and to a very limited audience - mostly themselves.

Climate is already changing, and so far the changes are on the pessimistic end of the projections. They're happening on a larger scale than anticipated, and at a much faster pace. No one knows if there might be some self-limiting factors that will reduce the impact of the feedback loops, but the science isn't finding them.

Argue, rant, and bluster all you like, if it makes you feel better.

Deny, distort, and cherry-pick the facts, but they're still facts.

Look at tangential issues or narrow frameworks and claim that they prove a gigantic hoax or vile conspiracy, but the climate will continue to change.

The contrarians like to believe that playing games with the facts somehow makes them smarter than the common run of humanity. More bad news, I'm afraid.

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 14, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

PTGUNNER, you might find this interesting. The geological record shows 11 major volcanic eruptions in a 19 year period which accounts for both the MWP and the LIA.

http://www.tetontectonics.org/Climate/Ward081217%20AGU%20Poster.pdf

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 4:13 PM | Report abuse

dp

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at here. But:

The MWP saw some some regions (e.g. the North Atlantic) with warm temperatures, perhaps some regions with even warmer temperatures than today. The MWP has known causes--it corresponds to a relative peak in solar radiation. But GLOBALLY, temperatures were lower during the MWP than today, even with a relative high in solar radiation. See:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm


The LIA was due mainly to during a general period of increased solar radiation. Anthropengenic CO2 (or lack of it) had little if any impact.

So solar activity/planetary energy imbalances are the main driver of climate change. Perhaps in the past. But we have been seeing a decline in solar radiation since 1960, with rapidly increasing temperatures during that same period. With atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing--326 ppmv to 385 ppmv is quite substantial--that is the only cause that has been found.

BTW, I've reviewed the entire NASA article on the OCO, and I went through some calculations with a paper by Hafemeister and Schwartz (" A Tutorial Basic Physics of Climate Change"). I agree that either I don't understand what is being said at the NASA Web page in question or that they have misstated some information. I don't think they lied; it seems more likely that they have a climate change denier on their staff who is subverting NASA's position ;-) ! I've emailed NASA. You should have done the same--that's what real research is about.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 14, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm, I went through my posts and I don't see anywhere that I stated there wouldn't need to be a transition period where fossil fuels are consumed. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not all alternatives should be on the table. The fossil fuel industry needs to encourage conservation, develop cleaner more efficient mining techniques, powerplants, distribution systems, better drilling techniques, fuel efficient vehicles, etc. But why throw out the baby with the bath water because a handful of people don't believe in global warming. We need new cleaner fuel sources so why not be on the leading edge of this new frontier? This country became great by staying on that leading edge of technology. Not sitting back saying "whale oil lights were good for Grandpappy so they are good enough for me." Again why should we be left behind because a few people don't believe in Global Warming? Where is the downside to cleaner more environmentally friendly fuel sources?

Posted by: daburge

--------------------

I'm all for sensible (not ethanol) alternative energy sources.

I've read your views but again, what would your energy policy proposal be for the USA?

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 14, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Facts:

Many Global Warming Deniers are merely ignorant, not stupid.
Many Global Warming Deniers are both ignorant & stupid.

-retired prof/scientist Exptl. Biol.

Posted by: lufrank1 | February 14, 2011 2:52 PM | Report abuse

When you act like a Liberal idiot and indict Americans for fiddling while the country burns, you get called on it. AGW backers have no inviolate right to wisdom and they certainly (at least on this blog) avoid discussing a balanced energy policy.

The argument that we're taking a backseat in alternate energy isn't a strong one. The problem is getting Liberals to admit - in detail - that we need fossil fuels too.

If you can't enter or are unwilling to enter that part of the debate, it's a non-starter for Conservatives. You guys don't seem to want a policy debate, just political points which underpins Conservative suspicions that AGW is bull.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 14, 2011 2:25 PM
-----------------------------------------
Hmmm, I went through my posts and I don't see anywhere that I stated there wouldn't need to be a transition period where fossil fuels are consumed. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not all alternatives should be on the table. The fossil fuel industry needs to encourage conservation, develop cleaner more efficient mining techniques, powerplants, distribution systems, better drilling techniques, fuel efficient vehicles, etc. But why throw out the baby with the bath water because a handful of people don't believe in global warming. We need new cleaner fuel sources so why not be on the leading edge of this new frontier? This country became great by staying on that leading edge of technology. Not sitting back saying "whale oil lights were good for Grandpappy so they are good enough for me." Again why should we be left behind because a few people don't believe in Global Warming? Where is the downside to cleaner more environmentally friendly fuel sources?

Posted by: daburge | February 14, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

To Tom Toles...
Now that the Republicants and the Democants are on the same page; it appears that our fate is sealed.
No one has the courage to do what is necessary to save the day and keep the greedy from destroying our nation.
The government needs to use its authority to create the necessary funds to invest in the rebuilding of our infrastructure, provide jobs and support our moral obligations.
The demand side of economics can no longer support the supply side of economics and we are in rapid decay to the great joy of our enemies.
The sheep to the slaughter have no teeth and a fuzzy brain. How sad.
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | February 14, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Venezuela is looking for a few good Libs (Kennedy/Penn). Why don't you join them?
Posted by: pararanger22

My Advice...
When being attacked by an wild animal; it is depending on fear to cause you to turn and run and give the wild animal the advantage.
By the By... The English are still on the run. (:-)>
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | February 14, 2011 2:20 PM

-------------------------

Not bad Dave, not bad. I hear a Johnny Horton song in the background... :)

rgr

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 14, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing Americans like better than to fiddle while America burns.

Posted by: daburge

----------------------

There is nothing like Liberal idiots such as you that love to dis America.

Venezuela is looking for a few good Libs (Kennedy/Penn). Why don't you join them?

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 14, 2011 1:07 PM |

--------------------------

Why does it make me a Liberal idiot if I want to see our country take the lead in developing new technologies to eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels? What made our country great was our ability to forge new technologies and set the standard for the world. Now it appears we are going to let the rest of the world take the lead in developing this new frontier. Why should I desire our country take a back seat because a few people in the country don't believe in Global Warming?

Posted by: daburge

-------------------

When you act like a Liberal idiot and indict Americans for fiddling while the country burns, you get called on it. AGW backers have no inviolate right to wisdom and they certainly (at least on this blog) avoid discussing a balanced energy policy.

The argument that we're taking a backseat in alternate energy isn't a strong one. The problem is getting Liberals to admit - in detail - that we need fossil fuels too.

If you can't enter or are unwilling to enter that part of the debate, it's a non-starter for Conservatives. You guys don't seem to want a policy debate, just political points which underpins Conservative suspicions that AGW is bull.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 14, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

ArnoArrak gets the prize for the most idiotic lies per post. He takes a few quotes out of context, ignores actual measurements and photographs of glaciers all over the world done from satellites and on the ground over a period of years, documented increasing temperatures of air and water, documented increases in acidity in the ocean and declares there is no evidence for climate change.

But don't believe your lying eyes, trust ArnoArakk.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Venezuela is looking for a few good Libs (Kennedy/Penn). Why don't you join them?
Posted by: pararanger22

My Advice...
When being attacked by an wild animal; it is depending on fear to cause you to turn and run and give the wild animal the advantage.
By the By... The English are still on the run. (:-)>
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | February 14, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

In the words of that great philosopher Forest Gump "Stupid is as Stupid does"
Let's start by analyzing the first sentence
"Carbon Dioxide, a long-acknowledged heat-trapping gas, is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity."

Yes man is increasing the amount of CO2 in the air, BUT who said it is a heat trapping gas? The greenhouse effect is the absorbtion of an energy photon and within microseconds release by collisions of that energy. There is NO HEAT TRAPPING.
My pet rock (& all other matter for that matter) does a better job. It absorbs heat when the sun comes up & holds it for a few hours so that the hottest part of the day is in the afternoon not when the incoming energy peaks at noon. Stupid is as stupid does!
Then there is the heat absorbing process. When the sun comes up the increase in energy photons results in an incresse in the Greenhouse absorbtion effect. When the sun goes down , the number of photons decreases, the number of GHE absorptions decreases, the temperature goes down, IN SPITE OF the number of CO2 molecules going up! MAYBE, just maybe, it is the number of energy photons available, and NOT the number of CO2s that causes the warming and cooling. STUPID!
Any fool will tell you the sun's energy photons causes warming and cooling. maybe the STUPID scientists and cartoonists should pay attention to common sense, that is proven by experiment every night that more CO2 does NOT cause more warming. But it does prove that stupid is as stupid does!- whatever that means!

Posted by: JDoddsGW | February 14, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Let's sort it out. The climate change side claims to have a plausible theory:
"Carbon Dioxide, a long-acknowledged heat-trapping gas, is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity.
-Scientists measure this, and do their best with imperfect data to model and predict consequences.
-The measuring of CO2 levels throughout history and the effect on climate is tabulated. The effects of current increases are predicted and confirming/refuting evidence is accumulated, analyzed, reported and discussed."
Let's start with history: you are off to a poor start because of your attempt to rewrite history with the hockey stick swindle. And if you want to go to geologic history here is Daniel Rothman in PNAS about the role of carbon dioxide within the last 500 million years: "The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climate variations at tectonic time scales." The next claim is that "...the effects of current increases are predicted and confirming/refuting evidence is accumulated." This is all based on faking the "current increases" by using falsified temperature records. Satellite measured temperature records are available for the last 31 years and they show that temperature increases that are claimed for the eighties and nineties do not exist. That takes the feet out from under Hansen's claim when he pontificated in 1988 that warming had started and that we were the cause because of all the CO2 we were spewing into the air. And that claim is what really started the global warming bandwagon we have today. As to the confirming/refuting evidence, they have no actual data and depend upon computer simulations that are demonstrably false. I say this because Miskolczi has empirically determined that the average optical thickness of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has remained unchanged for the last 61 years. This means that despite constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for all these years the transparency of the atmosphere for heat radiation from beloow has not changed. To put it in other words: the greenhouse absorption signature of the added carbon dioxide is missing. Can you spell SATURATED? All the models assume that the addition of CO2 raises temperature when in the real world this does not happen. Because this is an empirical observation no amount of theory can change that. They have a choice of proving Miskolczi wrong or admitting that their theory is wrong. I go with Miskolczi and absence of warming because satellites cannot even see the warming these guys say exists right now.

Posted by: ArnoArrak | February 14, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

~~Nobody likes being called stupid. What would you call this? --Tom Toles~~~
Obsessive compulsive disorder with a hint of paranoia : )
Posted by: bertzel

My Reply...
I would call it deviant coping and denial of reality (not funny).

A fool, "stands up when he should shutup".

I would like you to do a practical experiment.
Half fill a glass tumbler with water. Check the temperature of the water. Add ice to the glass tumbler until the glass tumbler is three quarters Full of ice and water.
When half of the ice is melted; check the temperature of the water in the glass tumbler and it will be cooler. The air directly above the ice in the glass will also be cooler.
The transfer of the heat from the water and the air to the ice will melt the ice and lower the temperature of the water and the air.
What you will have observed is not a Communist Plot; it is the way that reality functions.
Ignoring reality can be stupid.
Calling reality stupid can also be stupid.
Dave


Posted by: OckamsRazor | February 14, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

What is the new form of energy that will replace coal for electricity Mr whale oil.

Electricity and petroleum replaced whale oil

What will replace carbon in 30 years ???

Sombody please answer as I have asked this 100 times here and the response is no answer or get a different car or other non answers

Posted by: dalyplanet

=============

A combination of solar, wind, wave, geothermal, hydro, biomass, and undoubtedly sources we don't have yet like hydrogen fusion and, of course, conservation to reduce the amount of energy we do use. It's amazing that you haven't gotten answers to such an elementary question but it's obvious you haven't tried to find out for yourself. One would almost think you don't have access to the internet.

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing Americans like better than to fiddle while America burns.

Posted by: daburge

There is no fire.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 1:29 PM |
--------------------------------------------
Depends on where you live. Do a google search on coal fields burning or Centralia, Pennslyvania. Again what is the downside to developing more environmentally friendly forms of energy? This is a no brainer whether you believe in Global Warming or not. Our country should be taking the lead in developing new technology!

Posted by: daburge | February 14, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing Americans like better than to fiddle while America burns.

Posted by: daburge

There is no fire.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing Americans like better than to fiddle while America burns.

Posted by: daburge

----------------------

There is nothing like Liberal idiots such as you that love to dis America.

Venezuela is looking for a few good Libs (Kennedy/Penn). Why don't you join them?

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 14, 2011 1:07 PM |
--------------------------------------------
Why does it make me a Liberal idiot if I want to see our country take the lead in developing new technologies to eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels? What made our country great was our ability to forge new technologies and set the standard for the world. Now it appears we are going to let the rest of the world take the lead in developing this new frontier. Why should I desire our country take a back seat because a few people in the country don't believe in Global Warming?

Posted by: daburge | February 14, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

What is the new form of energy that will replace coal for electricity Mr whale oil.

Electricity and petroleum replaced whale oil

What will replace carbon in 30 years ???

Sombody please answer as I have asked this 100 times here and the response is no answer or get a different car or other non answers

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 1:22 PM | Report abuse

game set match
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cet_december2010.png
Warmistas please explain this one away its supposed to be "Global warming"

Posted by: onlinejournals

================
JEEZUS, another idiot who doesn't know the difference between local weather and global climate.

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing Americans like better than to fiddle while America burns.

Posted by: daburge

----------------------

There is nothing like Liberal idiots such as you that love to dis America.

Venezuela is looking for a few good Libs (Kennedy/Penn). Why don't you join them?

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 14, 2011 1:07 PM
----------------------------------------------
So only liberals believe in Global Warming?

Posted by: daburge | February 14, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Driving a $50k hybrid and using cloth shopping bags does very little.

Posted by: rlmayville | February 14, 2011 12:52 PM |
---------------------------------------------
$50K hybrid? I drive a hybrid and it didn't cost anywhere near $50K. We paid $26K and it is worth every penny. We love the car. American, no, there were no American hybrid cars available when we purchased this vehicle. Whether you believe in Global warming or not isn't it better for society to move forward? Where would we be if we had stuck with whale oil lamps? Wood burning cook stoves? Where is the down side in creating more environmentally sustainable forms of energy?

Posted by: daburge | February 14, 2011 1:13 PM | Report abuse

game set match
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cet_december2010.png
Warmistas please explain this one away its supposed to be "Global warming"

Posted by: onlinejournals | February 14, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing Americans like better than to fiddle while America burns.

Posted by: daburge

----------------------

There is nothing like Liberal idiots such as you that love to dis America.

Venezuela is looking for a few good Libs (Kennedy/Penn). Why don't you join them?

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 14, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

dalyplanet

No I can't do it my myself. But the US and the other industrial nations - and now China - can do something as a unified group. The Chinese are already building high-speed rail and are finally getting concerned about their consumption of fossil fuels. I'm even hopeful that as the Chinese take the lead in technological developments, they will be able to reverse the present trend.

The tragedy of this situation is that individuals don't recognize that it is not their prerogative to contribute a little something to global warming without accepting a little responsibility for the consequences.

It may be anathema to the American way of life but individuals will have to relinquish some of their individual freedom of choice in order to join in massive international group efforts to improve things for future generations.

Those of us involved in WWII know that individual sacrifices are worth it to reach worthwhile international goals.

Posted by: loyalsyst | February 14, 2011 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't Tom push for nuclear power generation proliferation? His "alternatives" needs to be more specific. Driving a $50k hybrid and using cloth shopping bags does very little.

Posted by: rlmayville | February 14, 2011 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Is everyone aware that we are running out of oil? Even if there was no such thing as global warming, if we could spew the millions of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere and oceans, we are still running out of oil. The fossil fuel industry is holding our future hostage due to their vast wealth and political power with ever increasing prices due to dwindling supply without regard for climate change or the devastation it MAY create. It is mandatory that we have alternative energy sources capable of supplying our demands before we run out. The sooner we do so, the cheaper it will be and might even slow and stop climate change which is undeniably occurring.
Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 12:34 PM |
------------------------------------------
Fingersfly, everything will work out in spite of the deniers. We will just need to import all our technology from Europe, China, India, and Japan because all these countries and areas are at least attempting to find stop-gap measures or solutions. But we are Americans and we don't need no stinking technology! Why should we move ahead when we can stay behind in the petro/fossil fuel age driving our behemoth vehicles and heating 3000 square foot homes that house 4 people. There is nothing Americans like better than to fiddle while America burns.

Posted by: daburge | February 14, 2011 12:47 PM | Report abuse

There’s that binary conservative mentality rearing its ugly head yet again. So we liberals basically have to live like the Amish or we’re hypocrites, yep. But this hyperbolizing is easier for you than dealing with our actual stances which in this case is about simply a bit of collective self-sacrifice, not a massive or total one. Yes, typical conservative straw man nonsense. I swear that’s the success of conservative talk radio right there -- just a steady parade of straw man concocting for emotional gratification. Conservatives rarely even attack liberals; they just attack their delusional idea of liberals.

And the reason I said oil companies are on your side is because it’s you conservatives who are all about “Drill, baby, drill!” Remember? How soon you forget. How is that not being advocates for oil companies? Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to answer that either since you so blatantly evaded my first question which was simply asking why those major oil companies’ websites would even say AGW has been established if it hasn’t. But apparently the new Conservative Excuse--O-Matic talking point spat out from the home office is to claim that oil companies are part of the AGW conspiracy now too and for you all to distance yourselves from them. Fascinating.

Posted by: PawnTakesQueen | February 14, 2011 6:23 AM

--------------------

Interesting how all Liberal arguments devolve into superlatives about 'all' Conservatives. You ask for a balanced approach to analyzing the facts you present then turn around and rack-and-stack all Conservatives as 'binary.'

Oil company positions on AGW may not be based solely on your perceived validity of AGW science. Anyone who listens to the WSJ this morning knows that oil companies have long anticipated changes to Federal law on the subject, thus, oil companies want to stay ahead of the curve. Adapt and profit. I'm not saying that the oil companies you presented are not ga-ga about AGW science but there are other capitalist components to their position.

Your right: I do take Liberals to task about their argument (and yours) that Conservatives are simply against AGW because it frustrates oil company profits. You bring on that argument without context, i.e., your own dependence on oil. You also don't bring to the table a reasonable energy policy which means you have to admit you need fossil fuels for a long time to come. The fact is that 'Drill baby Drill' is simply the truth: we'll need to keep finding more oil until all the fabulous alternate energy solutions mature.

Finally, I can justify cutting back on fuel for National security reasons; reducing pollution; and saving money. I do this now w/ 2 hybrids & 2 subcompacts, recycling, etc. I cannot justify allowing our country to suffer because Liberals block drilling in ANWR & shallow waters and other areas because of foolish belief in AGW. The resulting loss of potential jobs and security is an insult to every American.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 14, 2011 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The deniers are out in force again. I am renaming them to the anti-environment movement. Totally debunked are the following:

It’s a natural cycle - no it is not. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

Volcanoes - no, humans emit way more. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

Medieval warm period - localized not global condition. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm


The climate models are flawed - no, they are close. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

I could go on and on through all of this. The problem with a conspiracy theory is that they usually don't work. This article is right on the money.

Posted by: join350org | February 14, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Is everyone aware that we are running out of oil? Even if there was no such thing as global warming, if we could spew the millions of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere and oceans, we are still running out of oil. The fossil fuel industry is holding our future hostage due to their vast wealth and political power with ever increasing prices due to dwindling supply without regard for climate change or the devastation it MAY create. It is mandatory that we have alternative energy sources capable of supplying our demands before we run out. The sooner we do so, the cheaper it will be and might even slow and stop climate change which is undeniably occurring.

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Scientists did not cook the data. People opposed to the idea of global warming smeared, slandered and lied about the scientists. They stole their emails, took remarks completely out of context, grossly misinterpreted and distorted the remarks, refused to listen to the scientists' explanations of the remarks and dismissed investigation after investigation that exonerated the scientists.

Do you want to listen to Glenn Beck or the National Academy of Science? Rush Limbaugh or the Royal Society of England?
Is that a difficult decision?

Posted by: Dadmeister | February 14, 2011 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Tom,

I think what some people resist and resent is the alarmist thinking "millions will die..." attitude leading the alarmists to propose a complete change in our way of life, at no small inconvenience to our lifestyles and wealth. If GW is mainly due to a natural cycle, and there is evidence for that, then we can adapt to it over a reasonable long time scale without destroying our businesses and lifestyles.

Posted by: AnotherContrarian | February 14, 2011 12:23 PM | Report abuse

To be more specific so the intellectually challenged don't get confused, the control knob didn't stay the same. Documented large volcanic eruptions (11 major eruptions in 19 years) turned the control knob to high greenhouse emissions which caused warming (MWP) and then gradual cooling (LIA) as the volcanic activity subsided. Man is pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than a major volcanic eruption every year. We can't do anything to prevent volcanic eruptions, but we can reduce man's aggravation of the problem.

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 12:22 PM | Report abuse

loyalsyst

If you think that a small car and new trains and change your light bulbs will fix AGW as presented by the alarmists then you are showing how inadequate your understanding of the worlds energy consumption is.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/carbondioxide.htm

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Dalyplanet said:

"You tell me how the earth went from MWP (medieval warming period) to LIA (little ice age) while the comtrol knob stayed the same and you will answer you question."

Easy, it didn't.

http://www.tetontectonics.org/Climate/Ward081217%20AGU%20Poster.pdf

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Toles says:
"Scientists measure this, and do their best with imperfect data to model and predict consequences."
Precisely. Scientists have been caught cooking data and biasing their computer models to predict the end of civilization in a decade or three.
Logical people will not rely on "imperfect" data and secret, flawed computer models to plan their future.

Posted by: spamsux1 | February 14, 2011 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Anthropogenic climate change must be proven scientifically before any society-altering resources are allocated to "combat" it.
Scientifically means replicable experiments, NOT models. Even the most complex models are little more than interesting curiosities. The burden of proof falls to you.


Read the DRAFT of the IPCC Second Assesssment in 1995.... you'll find that it clearly states that their "conclusions" are guesses based on assumptions drawn from models that themselves are flawwed and unreliable at best.

Posted by: jtg24 | February 14, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Everyone seems to agree that CO2 contributes something to global warming, they just disagree on how much. They agree that the melting of the glaciers is troubling (the Dutch are building more sea-walls in anticipation of rising oceans), but they don't think it's important because it may not have anything to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

But suppose the increase in CO2 contributes only a small part to global warming, but that small part means that the flooding of our coastal cities - like New York City, Boston, Miami, etc. will happen in say, fifty years instead of in say, 100 years, isn't that worth something? Isn't it worth paying more for a hybrid car than a gas-guzzler, just to keep your grandchildren above water for another 50 years? Isn't it worth paying for energy-efficient high-speed rail to get you to work faster and in comfort, than spending 2 hours a day in traffic, wasting your life and heating up the planet at the same time?

What I don't read in these climate change skeptics is a sense of foresight. They want to save money now, even though scientists tell them they could be accelerating very costly changes in the future.

Posted by: loyalsyst | February 14, 2011 11:52 AM | Report abuse

ptg

You tell me how the earth went from MWP to LIA while the comtrol knob stayed the same and you will answer you question.

Finding solutions for a high carbon diet does not require agreement regarding effects of said high carbon diet.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I saw a T-shirt slogan that said, "It's not the heat, it's the stupidity."

But it really isn't really stupidity. It's far worse than stupidity. It's a form of collective insanity that is immune to reason.

You can't debate the insane.

Posted by: abhancock | February 14, 2011 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I'll call a spade a spade, these people are some of the stupidest uneducated people I've ever seen. The republican base are a bunch of non-researching rubes that take what Fox not-news gives them and believes it! Any sane person that thinks Palin is a viable candidate for President frightens the hell out of me. Palin is an example of the people that support her, blatantly ignorant! We need the smartest people to run for elected office. I miss the Republican party of old, at least I could respect their intellect. These guys are just plan jokes and are getting worse. Face it the TEA BAGGERS are a bunch of nuts!

Posted by: noneckmd | February 14, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc&feature=fvwrel

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 14, 2011 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Makinʼ up data the old hard way,
Fudginʼ the numbers day by day,
Ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line,
Hide the decline (hide the decline).

Michael Mann thinks he so smart,
Totally inventing the hockey stick chart,
Ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line,
Hide the decline (hide the decline).

Cli-mate-gate, I think you have sealed your fate,
I hope you do a lot of time
Cuz what you did was such a crime
Hide the decline (hide the decline).

The tree ring data was very thin,
You should of chopped more trees instead of hugging them,
Ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line,
Hide the decline (hide the decline).

Cli-mate-gate, I think you have sealed your fate,
I hope you do a lot of time
Cuz what you did was such a crime
Hide the decline (hide the decline).

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 14, 2011 11:18 AM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 13, 2011 8:50 PM

OK. You believe in global warming. We've moved beyond that point. Excellent. We don't need to cover that old ground. Adn we don't need to discuss solutions until we agree that CO2 is the underlying cause, the "control knob", for GW. Progress is being made. On Point 2, you state that "maybe There are many variables to consider in climate equilibrium. I would agree that added CO2 is likely the cause of part of the warming." What are the other variables. that might cause global warming? Solar irradiance has been decreasing since 1960, so it is apparently not solar activity that is the cause of GW. What is it then? Please tell me. We can work through this if we go step by step, rather than jumping around to various denier arguments. Must stay on-point.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 14, 2011 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Climate change deniers are experts at predicting risk. That's why they just KNOW that the greatest threat to mankind in the 21st Century is nonexistent Iraqi WMD.

Posted by: Bud0 | February 14, 2011 10:52 AM | Report abuse

bobmoses

Good Job. You have a real good list and arguments.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 10:46 AM | Report abuse

You may not know it, but "the ocean is Ph basic" is gibberish and it's obvious you know absolutely nothing about either climate change or ocean Ph levels. Thousands of real measurements of oceans around the world prove that acidity is not only increasing, but in some areas it is increasing 10 times faster than expected, which you would know if you had bothered to read the scientific article on the subject.

The photos and links I provided show the rapidly melting glaciers over a period of years. There are a few glaciers which are growing, but 99% are melting. The National Geographic has a very good article on the Andes glaciers which explains scientifically why 2 are growing but 50+ are melting. Spoiler alert, it isn't because climate change isn't melting glaciers.

You are likely someone paid to post the skeptic view, but they aren't getting their money's worth from you.

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 10:46 AM | Report abuse

fingersfly

so your proof is to send me to a website of photographs ans a press release from two years ago regarding a soon to be released report. HA lame

You may not know but the ocean is pH basic.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 10:25 AM | Report abuse

and more:

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/big-chunk-of-ice-breaks-off-of-greenland-glacier-0334/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GLIMS/

Now it's your turn to support your claims that satellite photos show any evidence of glacier growth.

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Evidence of glacier melt:
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Acidity of oceans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081124141053.html

The fact that we are running out of oil is not debatable, nor is the fact that we need alternative energy sources. Spending over a trillion dollars for war on Iraq to protect the dwindling oil supply was supposedly affordable but we can't afford to switch to renewables? Puleeze!

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 10:02 AM | Report abuse

mytwocents

do something like WHAT! WHAT viable fix is proposed.

Plus your facts are suspect.

Bud0

Prove you are not the moron you appear to be and tell us the cure for carbon.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Evidence of glacier melt:
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Acidity of oceans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081124141053.htm

The fact that we are running out of oil is not debatable, nor is the fact that we need alternative energy sources. Spending over a trillion dollars for war on Iraq to protect the dwindling oil supply was supposedly affordable but we can't afford to switch to renewables? Puleeze!

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, I wrote that the human contribution to the overall CO2 level was 10-15%. Strictly speaking, human activity has caused the overall level of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by about 30%. That isn't "small", though it is a small contribution to the overall greenhouse effect.

Saying that we shouldn't worry about the human contribution because it's a "small" component of warming is like saying that you shouldn't worry about a 10 ft rise in sea level if you own a beach house, because the sea is hundreds of meters deep. Of course, the depth of the sea isn't the issue -- it's what that last 10 ft will do!

The Earth's surface is about 33 degrees (centigrade) above its equilibrium temperature for its current albedo. This is due mostly to water vapor. If we increase the warming by "only" 5% with our (projected) 50% increase in CO2 in the next 100 years, that's about 2 degrees, or about 4 degrees F. That's not "small" if you live on the tundra, or on a farm, or in a part of the country that relies on snowpacks for water (like most of California)!

Posted by: ruatango | February 14, 2011 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Most people are approaching this argument from the wrong angle. It's irrelevant whether people are right about climate change.

Fact: Large increases in carbon dioxide do not have a positive effect on our environment (I'm not talking about personal comfort during the winter).

Fact: Investing in alternative energy sources increases the likelihood of our energy independence.

Fact: There is a potentially huge market for energy from non-fossil fuel sources.

So why shouldn't we do something that could possibly benefit everyone in the long-term? Especially when the risks of doing so are relatively small.

Posted by: mytwocents | February 14, 2011 9:45 AM | Report abuse

fingersfly says

~~~We KNOW that glaciers are melting at a record pace, record hot days are occurring more frequently, vast regions of agricultural lands are becoming arid and their water supplies (mountain glaciers) are disappearing, seas are getting hotter and more acidic and that is already having an effect on coral reefs which are dying.~~~

Who is "we" that knows. You are repeating the AGW mantra. Show me the proof.

Do you Know that satellite data shows overall glacier growth and the alarmists say no the earth is rebounding.

Just how much more acidic are the seas as a percent.

Real or not real the bottom line for me is; How would you stop adding CO2 as the current plans do not seem viable. I do not think most of you alarmists really have any plan. It is just a cause to uphold.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Bud0 ... perhaps the USA has so many who, acknowledge climate change continually occurs, but believe the evidence is insufficient to support the MASSIVE Cost which Obama, Al Gore and a host of other leftwing radical progressives want to impose on our economy; meaning of course, higher taxes and huge increases in almost all products and services as a result of the sickening energy policy these Clowns seek to impose on us.

Technology can solve the CO2 'problem' and there is NO Rational need for massive government intrusion.

Why are you on the left so easily swayed by the obvious radical agenda? R U truly the 'usefull idiots' of the Marxists?

Posted by: Hazmat77 | February 14, 2011 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Oh, all those facts. Please don't try to confuse me with facts for I KNOW. It snowed a lot this winter and was really,really cold and I froze my ___. Therefore climate change is a Socialist hoax.
So say the letter writers in my local paper.
Sigh.

Posted by: caseyb1 | February 14, 2011 9:32 AM | Report abuse

jackhorst1 wrote:

"It is well known that the contribution by man made CO-2 to atmospheric warming is a tiny fraction of the whole effect.
There is little doubt the earth is warming, but to attribute a major part of it to mankind is simply wrong headed."

These things are mostly true! But to jump to the conclusion that we shouldn't stop is totally, totally, wrong.

The amount of natural greenhouse warming on earth is large, and is the reason the earth isn't covered in ice. It's essential to modern life. But you've confused this natural "warming" with the currently observed temperature increases. Most of the natural "warming" has already happened over millennia, it's not making the Earth get warmer than it is today. That's virtually all due to us.

This is because the amount of natural warming changes very slowly, over tens of thousands of years. The "small" change that humans have had (increasing the total atmospheric CO2 concentration about 10-15%) is only small compared to the whole effect. That "small" and growing effect is enough to wipe out crops, change weather patterns, and raise sea leves more than we can easily cope with.

The EARTH doesn't care about these "small" changes -- it's seen much worse -- but WE certainly do, and they've happened in the span of about 100 years.

jackhorst1 then writes:
"Focusing on that little bit is a lot like the Federal Gov't. "reducing" the budget by playing with a tiny fraction of it."

Yes, that's right. But to continue your analogy, it would be as if that "small" budget deficit (small compared to the whole budget, most of which is important to your way of life) had very large and negative effect on your well being. It would naturally make sense to do something about it, it wouldn't be "stupid". "Stupid" would be ignoring it because it's a small fraction of some bigger number that's not changing quickly and you can't do anything about, anyway. That argument is simply a non sequitur.

Posted by: ruatango | February 14, 2011 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Are the deniers aware that the Pentagon is predicting dire geopolitical consequences from manmade climate change in the 21st century? See their official report "Climate Wars".

Are the deniers aware that the US Navy expects the Arctic Ocean to become navigable in summer within a very few years, opening up an ice-free Northwest Passage for the first time in human history? They're building new Arctic ships already in preparation.

Aren't American conservatives supposed to see their military as divine and infallible? You dare question the Pentagon's wisdom? Do you deniers hate the troops?

Posted by: Bud0 | February 14, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Q. What would you call this?
A. Stupid.

Posted by: GeneTouchet | February 14, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I take comfort in the knowledge that:

A) The United States is the ONLY country with a significant denier movement.

B) These American Deniers are the same weird American religious fanatics who deny evolution - in other words they don't represent new craziness or stupidity, just the behaviour you'd expect from an already-known quantity of stupid.

C) America itself holds an declining share of world power, wealth and industry, and the rate of decline is increasing, due in part to America's heavy burden of stupid.

D) Best of all, not living in America, I don't actually have to rub shoulders with these people, or send my kids to the sort of schools that could produce such people.

Posted by: Bud0 | February 14, 2011 9:11 AM | Report abuse

bobmoses
I did not say anything about sharing views. What I'm saying is that dalyplanet is the only poster approaching this from a scientific instead of a philosophical perspective. That's what this is: science. Physics doesn't care what anyone wants to think or believe.

Posted by: Capn0ok1 | February 14, 2011 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Just curious, but do you always avoid responding to valid issues by getting your feelings hurt? You don't know anymore about psychology than you do climate change but your willingness to repeatedly demonstrate your lack of functional literacy and logic is commendable... in a Republican universe.

You posted the letter signed by your "skeptics" who aren't skeptical at all vis a vis climate change being anthropomorphic, which is the near unanimous view of all climate scientists, including skeptics, but you and the rest of the deniers can't seem to grasp that fact. I hope they are right and no catastrophe occurs, but I wouldn't bet the planet on it like you are so eager to do.

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 8:59 AM | Report abuse

BOY, FOLKS SURE HAVE A LOT OF "STUFF" TO SAY ON THIS SUBJECT... Here is one more item.
It is well known that the contribution by man made CO-2 to atmospheric warming is a tiny fraction of the whole effect.
There is little doubt the earth is warming, but to attribute a major part of it to mankind is simply wrong headed.
Focusing on that little bit is a lot like the Federal Gov't. "reducing" the budget by playing with a tiny fraction of it.
Talk about stupid...

Posted by: jackhorst1 | February 14, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

"You really ARE stupid, Bobmoses."

Just curious. Do you call people names to their face or do you only act like this when anonymous?

I guess what I am asking is do you have a real personality disorder or are you just someone who uses the anonymity of the internet to behave boorishly? It is one or the other because normal people don't talk like that in the real world.

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 8:48 AM | Report abuse

"dalyplanet is the only person here who appears to have "done the math", instead of spewing from a predetermined position. Unfortunately, his posts will sail over the heads of most people here."

Let me get this straight. The guy whose views you share is smart and informed and the rest are stupid. Seems to be the trend today, although I admire you extolling the virtues of open-mindedness while demonstrating such closed-mindedness. LOL

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 8:45 AM | Report abuse

I stand corrected, stuborn willful ignorance.

Posted by: wireman65 | February 14, 2011 8:44 AM | Report abuse

You really ARE stupid, Bobmoses. Before their closing paragraph which admits they don't know the consequences of climate change, but they MAY not be catastrophic, they say,

"Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model
predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No. Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life
dissolving away in acidified oceans? No."

A functionally literate person understands that their "no's" could just as accurately be phrased as "not yet" because total catastrophe hasn't occurred YET but they don't claim it won't, just that it might not. We KNOW that glaciers are melting at a record pace, record hot days are occurring more frequently, vast regions of agricultural lands are becoming arid and their water supplies (mountain glaciers) are disappearing, seas are getting hotter and more acidic and that is already having an effect on coral reefs which are dying. But no catastrophe YET so bury your head in the sand until it's too late to stop the wreck.

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 8:42 AM | Report abuse

dalyplanet is the only person here who appears to have "done the math", instead of spewing from a predetermined position. Unfortunately, his posts will sail over the heads of most people here.

Posted by: Capn0ok1 | February 14, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

I love how scientists are wrong over and over again but they keep calling the skeptics of above average intellect STUPID! God created the heavens and the earth. Or if he didn't, the earth is still too vast and too enduring for our 'behaviour' to tear it asunder. If I have to drink my coffee out of a paper cup instead of a nice foam cup the rest of my life, then there better be some benefit. In 52 years I have been told to drink coffee, not to drink coffee, to drink coffee, not to drink coffee again, all in the name of science. I used to have a glass of wine with dinner. It was my choice. I stopped when it became 'a good idea' to have a glass of wine with dinner. We shouldn't be told what to do with our bodies, right you liberal baby killers? Why can't I have a foam cup, then. Why can't I CHOOSE to drive a car from the 70's? It's my body! I believe the universe that was here a billion years before me will be here a billion years after me. I don't cause global anything and I can't stop global everything. I'm just gonna drive my fossil fueled 71 Chevy into oblivion while the rest of you whack jobs are looking for an extension cord for your GREEN MACHINE. Who is stupid now?

Posted by: pauljfeld | February 14, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

fingersfly... f/y/i the Earth and the Universe are NOT static. There is ALWAYS climate change occurring.

The issue is whether or not there are man-made changes occurring which are potentially catastrophic.

By the way, spending trillions of dollars to change our primary sources of energy to reduce or eliminate CO2 in the atmosphere is simply NUTS!

Why? Because using known and developing technology, there are economical scientific ways to separate excess CO2 into Oxygen and Carbon ... recycle the carbon and obviously use the oxygen..

Posted by: Hazmat77 | February 14, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

"furthermore, Bobmoses letter only talks about climate change effects on the US which "MAY" be small to negligible."

Your point?

"It doesn't address the effect on low lying countries or islands which will be drowned by the inevitable rise in sea levels or the geopolitical impacts of millions of people being forced to "higher ground" because that isn't their field."

Because the context was a response to a letter written to the US Congress by scientists about the danger posed to the US. You don't know what you are talking about. You are just flailing around foolishly.


"You have to go to the Pentagon report (created during the Bush administration) to read about that"

So, you have to go back to a report from seven years ago to find the evidence you want? Hmmm.

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 8:34 AM | Report abuse

" read the letter, Bobmoses, and I'm sure you noticed that it doesn't say climate change is not occurring. It merely says that catastrophic events haven't occurred YET as a result."

Here is what the letter says:

"We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible."

So what is up with your utter misinterpretation of what they said? Is it because your reading comprehension is poor? Is it because your are willfully misstating their position? Is it something else?

Looks like is Toles's side that is anti-science.

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Furthermore, Bobmoses letter only talks about climate change effects on the US which "MAY" be small to negligible. It doesn't address the effect on low lying countries or islands which will be drowned by the inevitable rise in sea levels or the geopolitical impacts of millions of people being forced to "higher ground" because that isn't their field. You have to go to the Pentagon report (created during the Bush administration) to read about that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 8:23 AM | Report abuse

"I read the letter, Bobmoses, and I'm sure you noticed that it doesn't say climate change is not occurring. It merely says that catastrophic events haven't occurred YET as a result. It takes a really stupid person to translate that into "climate change" isn't occurring. "

LOL. Well I NEVER DID THAT.

Can any of you folks read? LOL

You folks are so filled with rage that you are incapable of reading a comment that diverges from your narrow minded views without calling that person "stupid".

Want to try to actually respond to something I said? How about my comments about liberal straw man arguments and ad-hominem attacks?

I am taking a screen grab of this comment thread and posting it on facebook as an example of liberal "intellect" and "tolerance". LOL

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 8:20 AM | Report abuse

wvng ... If manmade carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the main problem causing all the weather and climate change, in relation to the recent and current drought in Russia and other nations - how does Toles (or anyone) explain the 'Dust Bowl' of the 1930's ... long before manmade CO2 was a 'problem'?

Why is it that whenever we have a heat wave now, it never fails that the new record temperature exceeded the high from one, two or three decades ago? What caused the previous highs?

Scientific statistics are no different than any other statistics - meaning that they are easily manipulated to support any desired conclusion.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | February 14, 2011 8:19 AM | Report abuse

I read the letter, Bobmoses, and I'm sure you noticed that it doesn't say climate change is not occurring. It merely says that catastrophic events haven't occurred YET as a result. It takes a really stupid person to translate that into "climate change" isn't occurring. This is exactly what I find in every instance of reading what the "skeptics" say. Virtually none deny climate change, only that its effects MAY be exaggerated.

The final sentence in the letter you linked says, "We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made
it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small
to negligible."

To reiterate the most pertinent point "MAY WELL BE SMALL TO NEGLIGIBLE."

When your own sources admit climate change is occurring but claim it "MAY" not cause catastrophe, you have to be pretty stupid to continue to deny climate change.

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 8:14 AM | Report abuse

"How about willful ignorance?"

Right. All of the scientists who I cite below along with all of their world-class qualifications are "willfully ignorant". Your hypocrisy is laughable.

http://www.co2science.org/education/truthalerts/v14/TruthAboutClimateChangeOpenLetter.pdf


Why are liberals so closed minded on this? Are you folks all so trained as climate scientists that you know for a fact that those scientists who are skeptical are dead wrong?

BTW: please note that Toles and those who share his rigid stance are all relying on ad-hominem attacks as the basis for their position. Tell me again who is "anti-intellectual".

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 8:12 AM | Report abuse

wvng...if 'all' the scientists in the world agreed, why was it necessary for the GlobalWarming advocates to prevaricate and create false information?

Are you aware that reports from Russia were that the global temperature calculations were made intentionally without the inclusion of the results from a number of temperature sensors located in Siberia's coldest locations!

Are you aware that the original scientific report asserting global warming was NOT presented in toto to all the scientists supposedly who signed off in agreement. They only were given a carefully constructed Summary which clearly gave prominence to the promoter's desired conclusion.

Are you aware that generally speaking, only scientists who specialize in Climatology are qualified to give expert opinions on climate change?

Are you aware that it is only a small number of scientists world wide who are actually climatologists?

Toles is full of crap and pursuing an extremist agenda.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | February 14, 2011 8:07 AM | Report abuse

"There’s that binary conservative mentality rearing its ugly head yet again. So we liberals basically have to live like the Amish or we’re hypocrites, yep."

You do realize that you are manufacturing a "binary" that the commenter never made, right? He made the point that it is hypocritical for liberals to refer to "conservative's oil companies" when they consume the same oil. Your response ignores what he actually said to put words in his mouth.

The best part is that your long and senseless rant actually includes complaints about "straw man" arguments. Your lack of self-awareness is laughable. LOL

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 8:06 AM | Report abuse

How about willful ignorance?

Posted by: wireman65 | February 14, 2011 8:04 AM | Report abuse

It's called GUILE, a part of evil. Some guileful people are very smart. It's the sheep that are often stupid."

Ah yes, because we all know that the intelligent people engage in scientific debate by accusing all who dare not share their views as evil, dumb or evil and dumb.

That is what passes for "tolerance" and "intellectualism" among many of today's liberals. LOL

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 7:59 AM | Report abuse

"I understand this is the cue for a winger to bring up the media driven "we're going into another ice age" bit from the 70s. To which I say: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Which is a cue for a winger to say - "oh, that doesn't count because they are "


Yawn. Another liberal arguing against a point that nobody has made.

You guys must be lots of fun at parties: unable to actually listen and respond to people and instead just walking around talking to themselves imagining conversations that aren't really happening.

You guys need to learn how to separate your fantasies of what a "right-winger" might say from reality.

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 7:56 AM | Report abuse

"Hey, AGW deniers/skeptics! If AGW is fake, explain the following…

Chevron acknowledging AGW
ExxonMobil acknowledging AGW
BP acknowledging AGW
Shell acknowledging AGW

Now why would your precious oil companies like these ones here join with us tree-hugging, America-hatin', hippie-environmentalist, God-hatin' Marxists and intentionally knock their own freedom-representin' product like that for the sake of ...."

Who are you screaming at? How about wiping the foam of your mouth and actually responding to something that somebody actually said instead of ranting about things that nobody here has said?

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 7:52 AM | Report abuse

"bobmoses-
If you're going to post a big list of global warming skeptics, you might want to google their names first. Posting a bunch of names of "experts", most of whom receive "funding" (aka payoffs) directly from the Koch brothers."

Ah yes, all of these people have been paid off by the Koch brothers.

Do you have ANY evidence that ANY of the people on my list have been paid off? Or is that your ignorant and closed minded way of shutting down discussion.

The notion that ignorant people like yourself claim to represent "the scientific viewpoint" is laughable. You are a joke.

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 7:49 AM | Report abuse

GaryMasters said: "Factors outside the atmosphere do cause ice ages. But they are not as well studies and right now I do not know if we have to worry about an ice age or not." Actually, the series of climatic and astronomic events associated with ice ages are seriously studied. Based on those studies, we are currently in a period where we should be cooling and where another ice age would be a possibility. But the forces that caused ice ages, as monumental as the ice ages were, were weak forces that pale in comparison to the climate forcings caused by the brew of greenhouse gases industrial man is releasing into the atmosphere.

I understand this is the cue for a winger to bring up the media driven "we're going into another ice age" bit from the 70s. To which I say: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Which is a cue for a winger to say - "oh, that doesn't count because they are proponents of AGW.

Regardless, Tom Toles is my hero for continuing to bring this subject up. I especially appreciate this part: "The only way to get around the science is to construct a theory that all the scientists in the world have gotten together in a deliberate conspiracy to subvert their field of study, and hoax the world for personal gain. Virtually ALL of them. Pay attention ONLY to the tiny tiny minority."

Posted by: wvng | February 14, 2011 7:48 AM | Report abuse

"I agree. Right-wingers are quite destructive. They are so stupid they don't recognize self-destruction."

Ah, another "tolerant" and "intellectual" liberal. Thanks for sharing your profound views with us, Professor. LOL

Posted by: bobmoses | February 14, 2011 7:46 AM | Report abuse

OK. I am patient. Let us start where we both agree: "Nobody likes being called stupid. What would you call this? --Tom Toles"

I call it a good case of "Yes, but..."

I deride the Post reporters for saying that in every story and yet it conveys much truth when used correctly.

Yes the CO2 in the atmosphere creates warming. But no, that is not all the story. Factors outside the atmosphere do cause ice ages. But they are not as well studies and right now I do not know if we have to worry about an ice age or not. But I want us to star thinking about all the possible futures. Just one solution for one problem is not problems solving. It is betting all the money on one horse.


If life were good we would have only one problem at a time to deal with. For me it would be a library book that I never return. But in the world we have to consider ice as well as fire. Warmer is an inconvenience. Ice will kill most of us.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | February 14, 2011 7:10 AM | Report abuse

I agree. Right-wingers are quite destructive. They are so stupid they don't recognize self-destruction. They nearly destroyed the economy a few years ago...and it's been resurrected. They have destroyed the job base of the U.S.: maybe it will come back. Well...the planet is next.

Posted by: pdurand | February 14, 2011 6:45 AM | Report abuse

"-The responses will include a shift from conventional burning of fossil fuels to alternatives. An interesting, difficult political discussion is underway."

But it doesn't have to be political. Just stop subsidizing the oil and agricultural industries.

Do that and the price of oil, and fuel made from oil, will rise. Then the market will find an alternative - without government direction or subsidies.

Posted by: MDLaxer | February 14, 2011 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Toles looks like Rep Pete Stark (DEM, CA) is running with your Autumn Day idea. Last week Stark introduced House Resolution 81 to proclaim Saturday as "Darwin Day." The resolution praises Darwin's theory of evolution as in what Stark says is "the advancement of science must be protected from those unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global warming and climate change," and that "the teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the united States' education system."

Posted by: billybeer6 | February 14, 2011 6:37 AM | Report abuse

Toles looks like Rep Pete Stark (DEM, CA) is running with your Autumn Day idea. Last week Stark introduced House Resolution 81 to proclaim Saturday as "Darwin Day." The resolution praises Darwin's theory of evolution as in what Stark says is "the advancement of science must be protected from those unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global warming and climate change," and that "the teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the united States' education system."

Posted by: billybeer6 | February 14, 2011 6:36 AM | Report abuse

pararanger22 said…
“You imply that oil companies are 'ours' on the Conservative side… The Liberal hypocrisy on this subject never ceases to amaze me.”

There’s that binary conservative mentality rearing its ugly head yet again. So we liberals basically have to live like the Amish or we’re hypocrites, yep. But this hyperbolizing is easier for you than dealing with our actual stances which in this case is about simply a bit of collective self-sacrifice, not a massive or total one. Yes, typical conservative straw man nonsense. I swear that’s the success of conservative talk radio right there -- just a steady parade of straw man concocting for emotional gratification. Conservatives rarely even attack liberals; they just attack their delusional idea of liberals.

And the reason I said oil companies are on your side is because it’s you conservatives who are all about “Drill, baby, drill!” Remember? How soon you forget. How is that not being advocates for oil companies? Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to answer that either since you so blatantly evaded my first question which was simply asking why those major oil companies’ websites would even say AGW has been established if it hasn’t. But apparently the new Conservative Excuse--O-Matic talking point spat out from the home office is to claim that oil companies are part of the AGW conspiracy now too and for you all to distance yourselves from them. Fascinating.

Posted by: PawnTakesQueen | February 14, 2011 6:23 AM | Report abuse

It's, among other things, a religious zealotry that believes we've been given the earth to use up before the rapture and armageddon.

Posted by: hcrawford1 | February 14, 2011 6:18 AM | Report abuse

dalyplanet and bobmoses made a spirited defense of those folks that challenge the climate change manifesto. Facts, lists of noteworthy scientists that oppose climate change theory, et al. Liberal bloggers have nothing to say worthwhile on the subject. Predictable.

Mr. Toles, once again, exhibits no ability to come to an agreement on the subject other than 'it's my way or the highway.' No options for compromise. Predictable.

I've always said that the Liberals want climate change as an issue more than they want to resolve it. After reading Krove1 and ptgrunner and others' responses on the subject, I'm certain of it.

A lot of Liberals and Liberal rags want to reduce the surplus population, and by their own recommendation, believe a smart move would be to voluntarily sterilize themselves.

I just want to add my voice of support to this measure - the more of you Liberals that want to save the planet via your own sterilization, the better.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 14, 2011 4:19 AM | Report abuse

Now why would your precious oil companies like these ones here join with us tree-hugging, America-hatin', hippie-environmentalist, God-hatin' Marxists and intentionally knock their own freedom-representin' product like that for the sake of a huge, scientific hoax? It doesn’t make sense!

Posted by: PawnTakesQueen

-------------------

You imply that oil companies are 'ours' on the Conservative side.

Just exactly 'how' do you get your gasoline?

Unless you live off the land with solar powered heat, dung fuel for your electricity to power your caffeine-machine to make your morning latte', then you depend on the oil companies too.

The Liberal hypocrisy on this subject never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 14, 2011 3:51 AM | Report abuse

Okay, I was optimistic in my previous post that hyperlinking would work here, but apparently not. So here are the links:

http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/climate_change/

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_mgmt.aspx

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9032939&contentId=7060399

Posted by: PawnTakesQueen | February 14, 2011 2:02 AM | Report abuse

Hey, AGW deniers/skeptics! If AGW is fake, explain the following…

Chevron acknowledging AGW
ExxonMobil acknowledging AGW
BP acknowledging AGW
Shell acknowledging AGW

Now why would your precious oil companies like these ones here join with us tree-hugging, America-hatin', hippie-environmentalist, God-hatin' Marxists and intentionally knock their own freedom-representin' product like that for the sake of a huge, scientific hoax? It doesn’t make sense!

Posted by: PawnTakesQueen | February 14, 2011 1:56 AM | Report abuse

KROVE1

HUH ?? Why do you and others put words I NEVER said into my mouth. I am sure there is a name for that debate technique that I don't know, but to borrow from Toles - stupid?

I said Big Energy is on board with Big Government and their plan to do 'something' but I am not sure that these efforts will slow global warming. In fact I am pretty sure they will not or not much. Again I ask you; Where do carbon credits come from. Please try to answer without the Mad Dog Syndrome value added response of your last posting.

Where in any post here today or any other have I stated that any scientists are greedy or stupid. I stated that anyone like myself that disagrees even slightly with the official doctrine is subject to insults and boorish behavior and you respond with insults and boorish behavior. Don't worry though, you are not the only one, in fact Mr Toles and others here use the same technique quite often.

Last but not least, It is NOT corporations that are adding a worrysome component of air to air (CO2) but rather YOU AND ME unless you are living like it is 1850. I assume you are not as you have the net available. CO2 comes from US, YOU AND ME, using electricity and gas in our cars and from groceries and going on vacation and heating the house and TV and Computers, use and purchase. Pretty much everything we use unless you are Amish. So if you really really care about saving the planet you will really have to go back to living like it is 1850 again and that means eating beans and giving up a lot of electricity and your car. Or we will have to figure something else out because it is NOT HERE NOW.

I really would like to discuss WHAT something else is, only without the insults - stupid.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 14, 2011 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Way to polarize the commenters Tom!

Posted by: chaunceygardener | February 14, 2011 12:16 AM | Report abuse

I find Tole's brief article to be a great summation of a complex disaster that is unfolding. It is a classic case of individual interests dominating the reasoning and motives rather than a public good winning out. i.e. it may be for everyone's good that I stop polluting, but it is better for my personal interest if I keep doing it, so, I do.

One fellow here who claims to be a spectroscopist discounts the possibility of global warming based on what amounts to a back of the envelope calculation, shrouded in sciencey mumbo jumbo. Planetary temperature changes are not amenable to back of the envelop cypherin'. but are better addressed by supercomputer modeling using programs developed and pounded on by a peer reviewed scientific process. i.e. work done by climatologists devoting years, careers, and millions of dollars on the effort.

Posted by: w-space | February 14, 2011 12:16 AM | Report abuse

dalyplanet-


I like your claim that "Big Energy" is on board with efforts to slow global warming. Google the words "oil" "funding" and "climate change" and you will find several thousand articles detailing the billions being spent by Big Energy to spread the lie that global warming does not exist. You might also want to type in "Koch Brothers"

Also hilarious is your claim that it's all the scientists of the world who are corrupt and greedy, not the people who are polluting the planet for profit or the people who are being paid off by those people.

You should do stand up comedy!

Posted by: KROVE1 | February 13, 2011 11:41 PM | Report abuse

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) No... and not being able to solve it for "reasonable" (whatever that means) cost and effort certainly does not mean we should (a) pretend it doesn't exist after or (b) give up.

Did fighting WWI or WWII require only "reasonable" cost and effort? How about pushing the USSR over the edge economically? "Reasonable" cost and effort? It seems to me that the short-term thinking of "reasonable cost and effort" is just another excuse for doing basically nothing. Perhaps we should wait until the energy fairy appears?

Or, perhaps we should take some measures now that, while seemingly draconian, will avoid taking seriously draconian measures later.

It's kinda like the deficit. Do we want to get it under control? Seriously? Then, we should raise taxes. But, ooh, that requires actual sacrifice by everybody, and we can't expect oursleves to actually PAY for what we want, can we? So, let's play, "Let's pretend," and blame it on everyone except ourselves and blame "them" (whoever "them" is) for not fixing it.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Oh, and there are other options, like nuclear power, that can be made both safe and secure IF that's what we decide needs to happen. Seems to be possible in other countries; France as a net exporter of energy comes to mind.

Posted by: jonroesler | February 13, 2011 11:38 PM | Report abuse

KROVE1

Big energy is already on board with the scheme to create money from air (where do carbon credits come from) - see the Chevron ad at the top of this page.

How about a rebuttal to the letter cited as opposed to name calling or perhaps you are just a 'tool' of the liberal agenda. The tool argument can be totally reversed as you follow the money to the most active alarmist scientists.

I believe most of you lay alarmists have no clue as to the costly yet ineffective 'solutions' planned to mediate the 'problem'. No one here has posted a viable solution or defense of those proposed solutions despite my many requests (pdog, you are excepted). Mainly it is believe the Prophet Hansen completely or you are a stupid, cynical, fool, and a tool, or a AGW/denier/Tea Party/GED wannabe. Or 97% of the IPCC doctors believe in climate change. This is a poor argument.


Posted by: dalyplanet | February 13, 2011 11:05 PM | Report abuse

bobmoses-
If you're going to post a big list of global warming skeptics, you might want to google their names first. Posting a bunch of names of "experts", most of whom receive "funding" (aka payoffs) directly from the Koch brothers and the rest of the oil and gas industry make you look like a pathetic tool.

Posted by: KROVE1 | February 13, 2011 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Tom:

One small critique:

One does not PREDICT with models. One PROJECTS. Models are built using assumptions. There are too many variables to put into a predictive model. Any reasonable sized number of variables produce a model that is based on the assumption,"If these are the only variables, then this will be the result."

Actuarial models (as used by the Social Security trustees reports) are ALWAYS wrong, i.e., the model results are never borne out precisely in the real world. But that does not mean that these models are not useful. Just that they are PROJECTIONS, not PREDICTIONS.

Posted by: billh39 | February 13, 2011 10:07 PM | Report abuse

The posted 'proof' is a lift from here

http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 13, 2011 9:59 PM | Report abuse

This is the simplest form of the chemists approach using observation not models

Had to split to fit

There are two ways of supporting or disproving theories. The first is by experimental observation, the second is by theoretical analysis. The first has been discussed endlessly in relation to AGW on this site and others. Let me offer an attempt at the second approach.

As a preamble however I would like to point out that the study of the absorption of radiant energy by matter is NOT climatology, it is spectroscopy. In fact most of the science behind climatology is derived from other disciplines thus it is not justifiable to take the view that only input from climatologists is relevant. In my case, I have spent the last 33 years very successfully carrying out research for a major spectroscopy company.

Having become interested in the AGW issue I tried to derive the direct effect of CO2 from first principles. What I found was that the relationship between CO2 concentration and retained energy was logarithmic and that each doubling of CO2 would retain about an additional 3.5 watts/sq meter. Consulting the literature I find that the logarithmic relationship is widely established, I simply re-derived an already known relationship. As to the magnitude, the 4th (ie: latest) IPCC report states that the increase in CO2 concentration from 280 to 390 ppm has increased retained energy by 1.77 watts/sq meter. 280 to 390 ppm represents 0.48 doublings so the IPCC number is 1.77/0.48 or 3.7 watts/sq meter. Pretty reasonable agreement. That means the increase from 390 to 560 ppm – a further 0.52 doublings will increase retained energy by 1.9 watts/sq meter. Using Stefan’s law relating temperature with energy radiated by a black body (known and proven for more than a century) an additional 1.9 watts/sq meter will increase the temperature of earth’s surface by about 0.34 degrees C. That’s a long way from the claimed 3+ degrees C – how come? The claimed answer is positive feedback from water vapour. My immediate thought on hearing this was to note that every single naturally stable system I can think of exhibits net negative feedback so to suggest that climate (which is clearly stable) exhibits strong positive feedback makes me very suspicious, however suspicion is not evidence so lets look at the numbers.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 13, 2011 9:54 PM | Report abuse

To get 3 degrees temperature rise requires an additional 16.5 watts/sq meter (again from Stefan’s law). If 1.9 comes from CO2, the remainder, 14.6 must come from water vapour. That would mean the positive feedback co-efficient was 14.6/16.5 or 0.88 (where 1 = runaway) WOW. Looking up the relationship between temperature and water vapour pressure in the CRC handbook I find that a 3 degree temperature increase results in approximately a 30% increase in water vapour concentration (at constant relative humidity). The logarithmic relationship applies to all greenhouse gases including water thus a 30% increase is 0.38 doublings implying that each doubling of water vapour contributes an additional 14.6/.38 watts or 38 watts/sq meter. To put this in perspective, water vapour at present only contributes 84 watts/sq meter in total. A sensitivity as large as this raises many extremely serious paradoxes and is, I believe absolutely impossible. This post is already too long for me to enumerate these but if anyone is interested I am more than willing to outline some of the paradoxes in a subsequent posting.

The models making this prediction also predict that the impact of this water vapour feedback mechanism is a hot spot in the tropics at an altitude of about 8 km. According to the models, if the positive feedback effect of water is true then this region should be warming at least 2 times as fast as the surface. However again when I read the literature I find that 1000′s of balloon measurements and the satellite measurements all fail to find such a hot spot- and in fact this region is warming significantly less than the surface. The prediction is not supported experimentally suggesting the original hypothesis is false.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 13, 2011 9:50 PM | Report abuse

"This argument reminds me of something Pascal wrote about religion, and the risks of being wrong."

Sounds like Dick Cheney's 1% doctrine to me: "any methods are justified in the off-chance that my most catastrophic predictions have any possibility of being accurate."

Nonsense.

Posted by: bobmoses | February 13, 2011 9:21 PM | Report abuse

This argument reminds me of something Pascal wrote about religion, and the risks of being wrong.

Meanwhile, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We also know that methane is even more of a greenhouse gas. What we don't know is how much methane is trapped in Arctic Permafrost.
Unfortunately, we are beginning to learn, as it increasingly melts during the summer months. Will it be Climate Change on steroids?

Posted by: OldUncleTom | February 13, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Here is a wild idea. How about just one "smart" person like Toles offer a rebuttal to the letter I cite below.

Of course, nobody will do anything of the sort. They will just call those who disagree with their views "stupid". That's what tolerant and intellectual liberals do, right? Call people "stupid"?

Come on folks. Somebody offer a rebuttal to the letter. Show us all all how "smart" you are. Toles can be the first.

Posted by: bobmoses | February 13, 2011 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Let's take a look at the first "stupid" person on my list, Syun-Ichi Akasofu:

"Syun-Ichi Akasofu (赤祖父 俊一 Akasofu Shun'ichi?, , born December 4, 1930, Nagano-ken, Japan), is the Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and its Director since its establishment in 1998 until January 2007. Previously he was director of the Geophysical Institute since 1986.

Akasofu earned a B.S. and a M.S. in geophysics at Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, in 1953 and 1957. respectively. He earned a Ph.D in geophysics at UAF in 1961. Within the framework of his Ph.D. thesis he studied the aurora. His scientific adviser was Sydney Chapman. Akasofu has been a professor of geophysics at UAF since 1964.
Akasofu was director of the Geophysical Institute from 1986 until 1999, during which time the Alaska Volcano Observatory was established and Poker Flat Research Range was modernized. He went on to become the first director of the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) upon its establishment in 1998, and remained in that position until 2007. The same year, the building which houses IARC was named in his honor.
Akasofu has served as an Associate Editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research (1972–74) and the Journal of Geomagnetism & Geoelectricity (1972–present), respectively. Furthermore, he has served as a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Planetary Space Science (1969–present), the Editorial Advisory Board of Space Science Reviews (1967–77), and the Editorial Committee of Space Science Reviews (1977–present).

1976 - Chapman Medal, Royal Astronomical Society
1977 - The Japan Academy of Sciences Award
1979 - Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU)
1979 - John Adam Fleming Medal, AGU
1980 - Named a Distinguished Alumnus by UAF
1981 - Named one of the "1,000 Most-Cited Contemporary Scientists by Current Contents
1985 - First recipient of the Sydney Chapman Chair professorship, UAF
1985 - Special Lecture for the Emperor of Japan on the aurora (October 3)
1986 - Member of the International Academy of Aeronautics, Paris
1987 - Named one of the "Centennial Alumni" by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
1993 - Japan Foreign Minister's Award for Promoting International Relations and Cultural Exchange between Japan and Alaska
1996 - Japan Posts and Telecommunications Minister Award for Contributions to the US-Japan Joint Project on Environmental Science in Alaska
1997 - Edith R. Bullock Prize for Excellence, University of Alaska
1999 - Alaskan of the Year - Denali Award
2002 - Named one of the "World's Most Cited Authors in Space Physics" by Current Contents ISI
2003 - Order of the Sacred Treasures, Gold and Silver Stars by the Emperor of Japan


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syun-Ichi_Akasofu

Why are liberal like Toles so "anti-science"?

The hypocrisy is laughable, but expected from a mindless partisan hater like Toles.

Posted by: bobmoses | February 13, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Look at all of these "stupid" people. Anyone doubt for a second that any one of these folks is far, far more intelligent than Toles? It is doubtful that they could be anywhere near as close minded and obnoxious as Toles.

http://www.co2science.org/education/truthalerts/v14/TruthAboutClimateChangeOpenLetter.pdf

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University
John Boring, University of Virginia
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University
Neil Frank, Former Director National Hurricane Center
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Victor Goldschmidt, Purdue University
Guillermo Gonzalez, Grove City CollegeLaurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University
Will Happer, Princeton University
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory
Richard Keen, University of Colorado
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE
Edward Krug, University of Illinois
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
James Wanliss, Presbyterian College
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri
Bruce West, American Physical Society Fellow
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri

Posted by: bobmoses | February 13, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Let's see. Someone with a thin grasp of science provides a cartoonishly simplistic description of a policy debate calls those who disagree with him "stupid" twice in one article.

Typical liberal "tolerance". What a disgrace.

Posted by: bobmoses | February 13, 2011 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Finally, please state your position:

1) Global warming is occurring. If you answer "No", then we can debate this. If you answer "Yes, go to 2).

2) Human activity is the primary cause. If you answer "No", then we can debate this. If you answer "Yes, go to 3).

3) We can solve the GW problem at a reasonable cost and effort.
"Yes" or "No."


Posted by: ptgrunner | February 13, 2011 1:52 PM

I DO like yes or no discussions,

1. Yes but because of the MWP and warming in the the 1930's there are reasonable arguments that there is more to warming than only CO2. I am also concerned that satellite data was included and then excluded from temperature data sets that recent average estimated temps may be somewhat overstated.

2. Maybe There are many variables to consider in climate equilibrium. I would agree that added CO2 is likely the cause of part of the warming.

3. No Getting off of fossil fuels is the only viable way to stop adding CO2 into the atmosphere. This is not an easy problem to overcome. e30m42 comment regarding fusion power is likely the only long term solution. I am very concerned that stopgap solutions like ethanol and CCS or nuclear are more harmful than good. Serious conservation will be an economic nightmare. Good solutions are not just around the corner.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 13, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Those, like Sen. James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe, who opines that global warming is a hoax, want to believe that some unspecified supernatural intervention will save the world from greenhouse gases if such be necessary, which he doubts. Apparently it will take famine and wars and petroleum shortages to convince him that global warming IS NOT A HOAX. Right wing authoritarians subsist on a steady diet of conspiracy theories that they use to scare those sheep who vote. They persist in the "knowledge" that Liberals concocted the notion of climate change to effect One World Government or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the agenda of the Trilateral Commission or to put a black Muslim in the White House. Evidence? Facts?

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | February 13, 2011 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jornolibist | February 13, 2011 7:27 PM
"Man made global warming is a hoax and liberals, socialists, communists and democrats, are all on the same team, trying to enslave people."

Seriously, do you morons actually READ these articles?

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | February 13, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

If it's that bad who should lead the way on deceasing their lifestyle first since Gore still has 3-5 mansions depending on what Tipper got, a 100 ft houseboat, and uses a private jet? Man made global warming is a hoax and liberals, socialists, communists and democrats, are all on the same team, trying to enslave people. Democrats caused the U.S. Civil War by fighting to keep their slaves back in the mid 1800's. At least the rich and elite Islamofascists walk the walk and talk the talk by blowing themselves up for their crusade. Human beings don't take kindly to having to pay artificially raised prices to heat their homes.

Posted by: jornolibist | February 13, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

~~Nobody likes being called stupid. What would you call this? --Tom Toles~~~

Obsessive compulsive disorder with a hint of paranoia : )

Posted by: bertzel | February 13, 2011 6:29 PM | Report abuse

It's called GUILE, a part of evil. Some guileful people are very smart. It's the sheep that are often stupid.

Posted by: Tony-KS | February 13, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company