why is global warming so cold, redux

January 6, 2010

For those of us in the Northern hemisphere, it’s been cold. Really cold, just like it was last year. And the cold is making global warming denialists and agnostics wonder once again how it could possibly be freezing and snowing in the middle of winter as witnessed by the deniers’ visceral reaction to a December blizzard and a whole lot of Google searches on why it’s cold as the planet is warming up registering on my dashboard. While it’s rather odd to point out that the middle of winter in areas which have been getting snow and ice over the last few tens of millions of years would be cold in late December and early January, it seems that it has to be done again, especially as verbal knives get sharpened for another attack on scientists and environmental activists.

As noted a few times already, the issue of global warming is a more a political game than a scientific inquiry at this point, which is why we had the Climategate uproar and New World Order conspiracy theories on the part of the denialists and the tale of a sinister geo-engineering plot from environmentalists. And as politics is defining the issue and what to do about it, many of the participants in the debate seem to be losing their ability and will to talk about global warming rationally, so much so that snowfall in the middle of winter is now some sort of proof that the planet can’t possibly be warming up by several degrees over the course of a century. Isn’t it obvious that winter weather in Northern climates should be cold and that a single year is not enough data to make projections of our planet’s climate dynamics over the next few hundred years? But nevertheless, media agencies are more than happy to make predictions about what an unusually hot or cold week says about the planet’s climate and unleashing zealots from both sides of the debate since that’s what drives ratings.

Believe it or not, global warming that scientists consider to be taking place is not going to turn the planet into a barren desert and the Earth isn’t going to be tropical from pole to pole as it was once upon a time. Instead, it’s going to get five to six degrees warmer and require a bit of hard work to adapt to the changing conditions. How do we know the warming isn’t just a part of the natural cycle? After taking a look at ice cores from the Arctic, we clearly see a sudden spike in carbon dioxide and an increase in global temperatures as the Industrial Age got underway. Of course it takes time for higher concentrations of greenhouse gases to alter the climate while the heat builds up and highly energetic global patterns start changing. This is why the warming was slow and steady for the last century and is projected to accelerate over the upcoming one. And this is where we have an enormous problem in communicating the issue to the public thanks to gloom and doom from environmental groups who want to create instant changes by force and regulation instead of accepting the fact that the trillion dollar infrastructure project they have in mind won’t be accomplished overnight or even a few decades.

This is when global warming denialists target an impractical and inefficient solution and weave into all sort of conspiracy theories, channeling their distaste for green activists, liberal groups, regulation and governments, and wielding aggressive mantras in reply to any call to clean up our act for a better future. They believe that a greener, cleaner world will emerge all by itself from the goodwill of benevolent markets and corporations who only have our best interests in mind because when they fail to do the right thing, we send them into ruin. And then they say environmentalists are naive and think too highly of government intervention, while they talk about allowing nature to take it’s course as they fill the skies with greenhouse gases and burn fossil fuels with wild abandon. Just as nature intended apparently…

Share
  • http://wormsnapper.blogspot.com Neal Asher

    “five to six degrees warmer” ?? So you take the top IPCC (a political organisation that cannot exist without AGW) figure and pretend you’re being reasonable?

    You know, the cry is always ‘this is weather, not climate’. Well, Earth’s temperature can only be worked out by averaging over time, we’ve had 11 years of no warming, the average dropping over the last five, and accurate records only since 1979. So how do you think this very cold and prolonged ‘weather’ is going to affect the average?
    Or will the likes of Michael Mann and Phil Jones just try and flatten that dip out like they did the Medieval Warm Period?

  • http://www.iceagenow.com Troy

    Cold? Yes, it normally gets cold during December and January. But where the author fails is that 100 year old records are getting shattered. And it’s not just North America. It’s ALL over the world. Last summer, it was the Southern Hemisphere. Now, it’s the Northern. Before this winter, it was the unuasually cool and wet summer. Before that, it was the very cold winter of 2008-2009.

    Something is happening and it’s NOT warming.

    http://www.iceagenow.com – take a look at the thousands of records and extreme winter weather events happening RIGHT NOW. Aside from Seattle’s heat wave last year, you won’t find anything heat related…

  • Jack Mildam

    Did you think there would be no more winters? Really?! lol

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/nsf-rhf111209.php

  • http://david.steadson.com David Steadson

    What amazes me is how virtually any post on AGW brings on the ignorant naysayers with the same old discredited BS (like “we’ve had 11 years of no warming”)

    Uhuh.

    Why it’s cold now is because of changes in the arctic oscillation, pushing down the cold arctic air further than it normally goes.

    Why has the oscillation changed? Well, that cold artic air is 5 to 9 degrees warmer than it normally is.

    The problem isn’t that it’s not getting warmer, it is. The problem is some of that warmer air is still damn cold and going places it doesn’t usually go.

    But hey, who cares about a little thing like facts?

  • mytor

    Melting ice at the poles causes initial lower ocean temperatures , much like dropping ice cubes into a cup of coffee, lower ocean temperatures create colder weather.
    A cold winter does not mean global warming is not happening, depending on how you look at it , it could mean quite the opposite.
    Global warming is a complex subject, as with any complex system it is dangerous to reach conclusions based on isolating one effect from all others.

  • David Steadson

    Hi, it’s me David Steadson. I posted a very smug comment previously. Not only was my comment smug, but I look smug in my photo as well just to put aside any doubts of how really smug I am.
    So I repeat, don’t let the shattering of all those 100 year old cold records planet wide fool into into thinking the planet is not about to boil over. It is. I know because the facts tell me so. Not your facts, my facts. And my facts are better than your facts. And whenever your facts seem to be placing my facts in doubt, I feel the need to come on to posts like this to tell you how dumb and stupid you all all for believing that your facts might be right and my facts might be wrong. This would mean that I must be wrong. Just read my words and look at my photo. Do I look like the type of person who could be wrong about anything? Get with the program people.

  • mytor

    erm…

    didnt think your comments were at all smug

  • Greg Fish

    Nothing brings the impassioned circumventions of scientific data faster than AGW…

    “So you take the top IPCC (a political organisation that cannot exist without AGW) figure and pretend you’re being reasonable?”

    I’m sure that the people who work with the IPCC could find other projects, since most of them are highly educated experts in their fields and had the merit to qualify for the task. And since the IPCC doesn’t actually employ anyone per se, your argument is rather moot and says that because there’s a political environmental group working on studying AGW, all of their scientific conclusions must be wrong.

    If I approached my work the same way, I would say that because someone is working on a project related to AI, the very fact that he’s studying the technology means that all his work should be discarded as wrong, regardless of whether it has factual merit.

    “… we’ve had 11 years of no warming, the average dropping over the last five, and accurate records only since 1979.”

    Actually, the global average temperatures rose 0.4°C between 2000 and 2009 when we compare them to the averages between 1961 to 1990 so it would appear that we really did have warming over the last 11 years. [cite] As for the much rumored five year dip, when the data was reviewed by statisticians randomly selected by the AP and working with only numbers that were given no context, they all concluded there was no down trend in the data. [cite] In other words, we’re not cooling down. As noted by Jack in an above comment, record highs are far outpacing record lows which drives the overall temperature average upwards.

    As for only having accurate records since 1979, that seems like an awfully arbitrary number based on the idea that those who kept temperature averages for almanacs couldn’t do their job for about a century and a half. Just because Anthony Watts says it, doesn’t mean it’s true. In fact, to borrow your debate tactic for a bit, he’s actually paid to reject AGW.

    “…where the author fails is that 100 year old records are getting shattered.”

    Temperature records get “shattered” all the time. It’s just that you’re only noting the record lows and not the record highs in a highly selective personal site which uses primarily op-eds and cherry-picked sensationalistic headlines.

    Also, your parody of David’s comment? Very passive aggressive and ironic since you’re plugging a collection of op-eds about a theory discredited back in the 1970s, make claims that have no scientific backing to them or run contrary to official data with your justification for the difference being summed up as “everybody is stupid but me and people who think like me.” Really, the hypocrisy is pretty glaring…

  • reggie

    Thanks for this, Mr. Fish. I have to endure these comments all the time when it gets cold or snows. Conversely, I don’t hear anything from these people during heat waves or unseasonably warm weather. It’s confirmation bias on a grand scale even though they both are irrelevant to the science.

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ Uncle Al

    1) That which supports Global Warming supports Global Warming.
    2) That which ignores Global Warmingn supports Global Warming.
    3) That which contradicts Global Warming supports Global Warming – test of faith!
    4) Anybody who criticizes is thereby proven unqualified to comment.

    The Ozone Hole has changed not a whit from the International Geophysical Year 1957-8 before Freon-pressurized spray cans to after a 25-year ban on Freons and their fiat replacement with ever so expensive, toxic, and thermodynamically inefficient Enviro-whiner “equivalents.” Intractable global economic recession has contracted every Official contributor to Global Warming beyond any Al Gore manbearpig pogrom – except for jackbooted State compassion levies on thoughtcrime.

    Can God Enviro-whiner Luddites make a collection plate so vast that even He all of First World civilization cannot fill it? Sure! ALL OF THEM. Carbon Tax on Everything, Carbon Credit indulgences… who hears Al Gore’s electric bill when it cries? The Deep South is a 80-year deep freeze right down to the Florida Everglades while Officially surrounded by the warmest Gulf Stream on record. Europe, thermal terminus of the Gulf Stream, is also freezing. Test of faith!

  • Greg Fish

    “Carbon tax on everything, carbon credit indulgences… who hears Al Gore’s electric bill when it cries?”

    All right, we’ll do this the hard way. Just as I’ve been saying in virtually every post on global warming, the solution being proposed to slow greenhouse gas emissions through taxes or credits is deeply flawed. They’re either unenforceable puff treaties or greenwashing. But if there are people proposing a bad solution, it doesn’t make the problem any less valid.

    I’ve read a paper by an ecologist who wanted to solve our overpopulation woes by attrition so our numbers decline from 7 billion to 500 million. It’s a terrible idea that will never work. And yet, overpopulation is still a major problem for many nations.

    “The Deep South is a 80-year deep freeze right down to the Florida Everglades while Officially surrounded by the warmest Gulf Stream on record.”

    Um, no. They’ve had freeze warnings at night for a few weeks. The South itself is not an icy wasteland. If you look at my previous reply, you’ll note that the global temps are still inching up. And yes, you still get cold snaps and freezing winters in the Northern Hemisphere with a 0.4°C uptick.

    “Europe, thermal terminus of the Gulf Stream, is also freezing. Test of faith!”

    England and other countries along the North and Baltic Baltic Seas always have a cold winter. I can still recall the bitter cold of Russian winters when -30°C or -22°F in January was not at all unusual. And these nations will continue to have winters for at least the next 70 million years, when tectonic shift will alter the planet’s climate far more than any AGW event. This is not so much a test of faith as an attempt to overturn a theory with nothing but a set of random claims.

  • http://david.steadson.com David Steadson

    Is the childish person who impersonated me above (second comment in my name) aware that identity fraud is a serious crime throughout the world?

  • mytor

    ah thought that was rather odd

  • Loeck

    So none of this is the Earth’s natural cycle?

  • WarpSpeed

    I love science, and I always have. TRUE Science has saved countless lives and improved countless others. As a brief example, a few years before I was born, the scourge of polio was of great concern. It resulted in illness, paralysis, and sometimes death, not to mention school and other public closures, justifiable fear, and the search for a way to prevent such a dread disease. Dr. Jonas Salk created the vaccine that proved successful in the prevention of polio in 1955. HE REFUSED TO PATENT IT as he had no desire to profit fom it–instead he wanted to distribute the vaccine as widely as possible to end the toll in human suffering.

    Dr. Jonas Salk was a scientist.

    While I have absolutely NO problem with any scientist profiting from his/her discoveries, I emphasize Dr. Salk’s refusal to patent his life-saving vaccine as being motivated by the very BEST of human kindness. Dr. Salk and his team followed the scientific method.

    Science, as practiced by Dr. Jonas Salk, is science at its finest. A perfect example of what science is, and should be.

    What science most assuredly is NOT, is people CLAIMING the label “scientist” to further a political agenda.

    What science most assuredly is NOT, is such “scientists” refusing to submit their data to the general science community for scrutiny and debate. (An excellent example of TRUE scientific debate occurred between Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind–a debate Susskind labeled “The Black Hole War”.)

    What science most assuredly is not is a “survey” stating that 97% of climatologists agree that global warming is occurring and that man is the cause. (If you look at the survey you will see that it involved only those scientists whose livelihood depends upon the very existence of AGW–those in academic and government research units. In fact, I’m surprised that 3% cared enough about the truth to jeopardize their careers.)

    What science most assuredly is NOT, is modifying, distorting, hiding, or destroying data to make whatever is left fit a hypothesis. (Think University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.)

    True scientists follow the Scientific Method:

    1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

    2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

    3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

    4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

    5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

    The problem with the “science” of Anthropogenic Global Warming is that there IS NONE. No outside scientific scrutiny. No unmodified data made public. No debate. (AGW supporters are quick to claim, “The debate is over,” while they run from debate challenges like frightened little puppies who yap, “The debate is over! The debate is over!”)

    Use common sense. Would these so-called “scientists” have to hide, manipulate, distort, or destroy data to keep their hypothesis afloat if the data supported it?

    Ask yourself some other questions:

    1. WHY would they hide, manipulate, distort, or destroy data?
    2. WHO are the beneficiaries of such distortions, manipulations, and destruction? (i.e. “The Winners”)
    3. WHO are the targets of such distortions, manipulations, and destruction?

    As a scientist myself, and an AGW skeptic, I say show us the science. Show us the data. Show us the computer programs used to arrive at this AGW conclusion about which you say there is no debate.

    Show us everything before you ask us to throw our rights and our nation’s sovereignty on a funeral pyre.

  • http://unreligiousright.blogspot.com/ UNRR

    This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 1/7/2010, at The Unreligious Right

  • http://david.steadson.com David Steadson

    Warp Speed,
    I’m aware it’s a fruitless exercise to point this out, but your claim that thre is “No outside scientific scrutiny. No unmodified data made public. No debate.” is completely false. No offence, but a true scientist would know that and not make such false claims.

  • reggie

    @ David Steadson – If I were to impersonate and mock the person who impersonated you to mock you, who would the victim be?

  • Greg Fish

    “The problem with the “science” of Anthropogenic Global Warming is that there is none. No outside scientific scrutiny. No unmodified data made public. No debate.”

    Right. And this is exactly why we’re debating it right now and scientists have to do more and more studies. The accusations you’ve thrown out about the CRU were already either covered in the links of the post or by other sources which pointed out that despite saying that certain papers shouldn’t be allowed at climate summits in e-mails, the papers critical of the CRU’s research were still presented, even though they lacked scientific merit.

    The data is out there in many forms, it’s just that for any random person to get it would be a major pain since we wouldn’t know what to do with it. We’re talking terabytes of raw numbers that have to be somehow organized and ran through complex simulations that take days just to compile. Running them would take months. Do you have the money or the hardware to pull off this sort of analysis? I doubt it. So why ask something you can’t use anyway? Just to ask for it and sound indignant, tell everyone you’re “a scientist” and pound your shoe on the table?

    “If you look at the survey you will see that it involved only those scientists whose livelihood depends upon the very existence of AGW”

    Nonsense. These people would have found plenty of work otherwise. Yes, they study the AGW issue right now. But do you really think they’d be unable to apply their skills in any other area of research? Most of them have very big and impressive resumes and could land a job in almost any lab. And by the same argument, we should also discard any kind of argument from the “skeptics” who are getting paid by Exxon and right wing think tanks to assail scientists who dare say that we’re exacerbating the warming trend by burning fossil fuels. Their livelyhood depends on denial.

    “Show us everything before you ask us to throw our rights and our nation’s sovereignty on a funeral pyre.”

    Oh the drama! Are you going to assemble an army to fight for America’s freedom not to sign an agreement that says that we’ll try really hard to reduce our greenhouse emissions, maybe, if we can, depending on what happens in the future? Does a fuzzy, toothless treaty or two really warrant a Second American War of Independence?

  • WarpSpeed

    David,

    ONLY data supporting the AGW hypothesis have been released. Data which do not support the hypothesis have been distorted, manipulated, “revised”, or destroyed. Question my status as a “true” scientist if you choose, but you should be aware that other scientists have expressed the same concerns that I have.

    The following is a column appearing in the UK Times Online at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
    It is written by their Environmental Editor Jonathan Leake: (any emphasis is mine)

    (BEGIN ARTICLE)

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

    The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

    In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

    The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

    Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

    Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

    He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

    (END ARTICLE)

    So you see, David, a clear admission by Professor Phil Jones of the CRU that the unmodified (or, if you prefer, original) data has not been made public. It has been destroyed. Notice also the admission that Professor Jones had listing one of his goals “thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data”.

    No offense, but a true scientist would know that any scientist thwarting or attempting to thwart access to scientific data (with the obvious exception again of a patentable result) is not a true scientist.

    Roger Pielke (who is not so much of an AGW skeptic as I) finds it troubling that the original data is gone. I could not have said it better than Professor Pielke did in response to learning that original data was destroyed: “So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science.” It simply cannot be done now. While a simple “trust us” from a group which has already destroyed data and admitted to thwarting access to data may be good enough for you, it is not good enough for me.

    Now you can certainly claim, if you so choose, that Professor Pielke is not a “true” scientist. But if you do, you will simply be participating in the web of deception (albeit after the fact) of Professor Jones and the CRU. You will also risk descending into the character assassination in which so many on your side are already engaged.

  • http://david.steadson.com David Steadson

    WarpSpeed, you’re talking about just one data set. The case for AGW is not dependent on that data set. As someone who used to work in University research dealing with very large datasets I can tell you that while what happened at Anglia is unfortunately it’s not all that unusual a situation and primarily a consequence of people doing their jobs in a chronically underfunded environment.

    Again though. Toss it out. Ignore it completely. Pretend it never existed. The data backing the existence of significant AGW still remains extremely strong.

  • WarpSpeed

    “Again though. Toss it out. Ignore it completely. Pretend it never existed. The data backing the existence of significant AGW still remains extremely strong.”

    Where?

    I’m open minded. Steer me in the right direction, and I’ll take a look. So far, I have neither seen nor heard anything that convinces me that the climate is changing in a way that is any different than it has been changing for eons. Let alone that human activity is causing it.

  • Dan Pangburn

    All average global temperatures since 1895 are accurately predicted by a simple model.

    There was no need to consider any change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas. An eye-opening graph with accurate prediction produced from the model co-plotted with measured temperature anomalies shows that AGW never was.

    The model, with graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. (One of the discoveries made during this research was the effective sea surface temperature oscillation. The integral of the PDO Index http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest indicates a substantial measure of sea surface temperatures, as does the time-integral of ENSO 3.4, but not all so replace all references to PDO with ESST for Effective Sea Surface Temperature).

    This model predicted the ongoing temperature decline trend. None of the 20 or so models that the IPCC uses did.

  • Loeck

    So really absolutely none of this warming is the earth’s natural cycle? Did we not just (relatively) leave an ice age? Could any of the earth being in a giant curve of warming and cooling be not a part of this at all? Now don’t get me wrong I think that both sides have a point, but none of you seem to be taking into account, the how many? 5, 6, 7 ice ages we’ve had in the past.

  • Greg Fish

    “I’m open minded. Steer me in the right direction, and I’ll take a look.”

    @ Warp Speed. I’ve never heard that before from someone who denies evidence of a certain phenomenon. And it’s because you’re so open minded that you’ve looked at the links to the posts covering Climategate and CO2 data, right?

    “An eye-opening graph with accurate prediction produced from the model co-plotted with measured temperature anomalies shows that AGW never was.”

    @ Dan Pangburn. Considering you threw away greenhouse gas emissions data and used numbers from studies found to be lacking in rigor by subsequent reviews, I’m sure you could make that graph say anything you want. So if we lived on a planet that did not have greenhouse gases (i.e. with an average global temperature of about 0°C or 32°F) then yes, your graph would be correct. But we don’t and hence, it’s not.

    “So really absolutely none of this warming is the earth’s natural cycle?”

    @ Loeck. If you take a look at the link to the Arctic core sample data, you can see that a part of the warming and carbon dioxide rise trend seems to be natural. However, since the dawn of the Industrial Age, we’ve sharply increased the concentration of the gas and the average global temperatures are catching up. In other words, we’re disrupting the natural equilibrium by pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air over the last century. Eventually all that excess gas starts adding up…

  • WarpSpeed

    .gfish states, “Right. And this is exactly why we’re debating it right now and scientists have to do more and more studies. The accusations you’ve thrown out about the CRU were already either covered in the links of the post or by other sources which pointed out that despite saying that certain papers shouldn’t be allowed at climate summits in e-mails, the papers critical of the CRU’s research were still presented, even though they lacked scientific merit.”

    Really? In what way(s) did these papers lack scientific merit? Because the CRU didn’t want them disclosed? Do you think it’s irrelevant that CRU “scientists” lied about, distorted, manipulated, “revised”, or destroyed data? Do you, gfish, believe that such lies, distortions, manipulations, “revisions”, or destruction should be ignored? Such continued blind faith in (now) admittedly false CRU data smacks of a theology–a religious faith which requires no evidence, no proof, only the belief of the practitioner. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with theology (I suppose even a fish has to believe in something), it does not belong in legitimate scientific debate. Neither should it have any impact on public policy whatsoever.

    The data is out there in many forms…

    Name three (other than the CRU).

    …it’s just that for any random person to get it would be a major pain since we wouldn’t know what to do with it.

    Yeah, we’re too stupid to figure out what to do with these data that are “out there in many forms”, aren’t we? Or is it, perhaps, that some of us are just not quite stupid enough to buy into the misuse of these data? Look, I don’t deny that there are massive amounts of data to process, but shouldn’t these data be examined by multiple independent groups? Obviously, the CRU distorted and destroyed data. Nevertheless, had other research units, totally independent of the CRU (and one another) examined the same data set, I seriously doubt that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit would have even attempted to alter and destroy data the way they did.

    We’re talking terabytes of raw numbers that have to be somehow organized and ran through complex simulations that take days just to compile. Running them would take months. Do you have the money or the hardware to pull off this sort of analysis? I doubt it. So why ask something you can’t use anyway? Just to ask for it and sound indignant, tell everyone you’re “a scientist” and pound your shoe on the table?

    Terabytes of raw numbers? Perhaps. And no, I do not “have the money or the hardware to pull off this sort of analysis.” I suspect that you do not either. I ask for these data to be made public not because I personally have the resourses to use them, but because others do. The open availability of these data would expose any single group that attempted to misuse them for whatever reason. Frankly, I’m surprised (and a little disappointed) that someone with your obvious zeal for the “science” of AGW would not seek out–would not relish–the chance to prove me wrong by demanding the legitimate data from legitimate researchers yourself. Kinda makes me wonder why…

    If there’s nothing to hide–no shenanigans, no lies, deceit, distortions, revisions, no deletions–why not make the data available to all?

    “If you look at the survey you will see that it involved only those scientists whose livelihood depends upon the very existence of AGW”

    Nonsense. These people would have found plenty of work otherwise.

    Probably…but the kind of work that would support them in the manner to which they have become accustomed? Highly unlikely. What would a Professor Phil Jones do without the billions thrown at AGW? When it comes to AGW, I can think of no other field at which governments have thrown so many hundreds of billions of dollars in the last two decades. If you can, gfish, please–by all means–let me know.

    Yes, they study the AGW issue right now. But do you really think they’d be unable to apply their skills in any other area of research? Most of them have very big and impressive resumes and could land a job in almost any lab.

    There are many (the aforementioned Professor Phil Jones, for example) I would like to see do just that.

    And by the same argument, we should also discard any kind of argument from the “skeptics” who are getting paid by Exxon and right wing think tanks to assail scientists who dare say that we’re exacerbating the warming trend by burning fossil fuels. Their livelyhood depends on denial.

    The “skeptics” were not included in the survey I cited. Only those who stood to profit from continuing to promote the AGW hypothesis. Just FYI, I would also have a problem with a survey consisting of scientists employed only oil companies.

    There is much more about the survey. If you’d like, I’ll be happy to post information on the science of polls and surveys as it relates to this particular survey and surveys/polls in general. In your defense, I know you’re only just now getting to know me, but I’m a giver.

    “Show us everything before you ask us to throw our rights and our nation’s sovereignty on a funeral pyre.”

    Oh the drama! Are you going to assemble an army to fight for America’s freedom not to sign an agreement that says that we’ll try really hard to reduce our greenhouse emissions, maybe, if we can, depending on what happens in the future? Does a fuzzy, toothless treaty or two really warrant a Second American War of Independence?

    Drama? Me? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

    Fuzzy, toothless treaty? Oh pulleeeeeeze. Don’t be so disingenuous. Do you even keep up with current events, or do you just choose to ignore them for the sake of your argument(s)? The goal of the Copenhagen Climate Conference was a legally binding (so-called) greenhouse gas emission agreement. Thankfully, that hasn’t happened…yet. You and I both know that you and your fellow AGWers are pushing for such a binding agreement by the middle of this year. It is my fervent hope that by that time, enough of Congress will be so concerned with the midterm elections that such an agreement will die a slow and extremely painful death.

    The only Second American War for Independence in which I am interested is to defeat you and your ilk at every level.

    If I and others like me fail, you will have your way. You will happily surrender our national sovereignty to corrupt “scientists” at the UN IPCC. You will seize our individual rights and force us to make choices that meet with the approval of numerous government bureaucrats from numerous different agencies with different agendas. Then, one day, you will realize (too late) what you have done. That you have participated in destroying individual freedom in exchange for a lie.

    It is my primary goal to save America from you. If I can also save you from yourself, I will.

    Like I said, I’m a giver.

  • WarpSpeed

    “I’m open minded. Steer me in the right direction, and I’ll take a look.”

    Warp Speed. I’ve never heard that before from someone who denies evidence of a certain phenomenon. And it’s because you’re so open minded that you’ve looked at the links to the posts covering Climategate and CO2 data, right?

    I’m here. I’m waiting. Although the post to which you responded was directed toward David, by all means, steer me in the right direction. Either do that or admit that there is no evidence supporting your position.

    Yes, I’ve looked at the links to posts covering Climategate. Have you?

  • Greg Fish

    “The only Second American War for Independence in which I am interested is to defeat you and your ilk at every level. “

    Yes, that quote and the constant hysterics about the CRU you repeat over and over and over and over and over again certainly prove that you’re an open-minded skeptic. Sure, you looked at the posts covering Climategate, which is why you read the New Scientist article listing all the ways in which the deniers’ studies are incorrect and still say that it’s all just a conspiracy by the CRU. My irony meter is going into the red zone here, hence the sarcasm.

    Steering you in the right direction would be like dragging a cat into a bathtub. Noisy and with no real results other than more seething and clawing at those you don’t like. Sure, I could respond to your all arguments point by point, but I know that all I’m going to get in reply is another 700 word post about how much you hate the CRU and how they’re all evil monsters, so it would simply be a waste of my time.

  • Paul Sulley

    An Historic Perspective on Climate Change

    In November, I was in a meeting in California, visiting with a woman about fishing in Alaska. During our conversation, she asked me, “Are all the Glaciers melting up there in Alaska?” To which, I replied, “I think they have pretty much been melting for the last 12,000 years – more or less since the end of the Last Ice Age!” She seemed surprised and puzzled at my response.

    That exchange was a tipping point for me as I realized that many people truly don’t have clear understanding of what climate change is, what causes it and maybe most importantly the fact that there is no such thing as a normal climate, as there is no stasis in Nature.

    Since then, I began perusing the Internet to gather information on Earth’s climate and to put into a historical context. I listed some of this information down in the bullet points below. This is by no means a complete analysis but does give one a starting point for thought and discussion. I sited no sources but italicized words that can be Googled for your own sources. You can also do your own reading to expand on what is listed below.

    Through my search, I also found that climate is influenced by more than mere greenhouse gasses (although greenhouse gasses are imperative for life on this planet to survive). Other major influences on the climate include: the elliptical nature of Earth’s orbit around the Sun (sometimes this planet is closer, sometimes it is further away from the Sun); Sunspots or bursts of solar energy that sends heat Earth’s way; submarine volcanoes including many mega volcanoes….Apparently there are thousands of these submerged volcanoes, the active ones can actually increase the temperature of the oceans, influence currents and weather which contributes to a changing climate. There are still more variables (precipitation, cloud cover, suspended aerosols, tectonic plates……) and there is a need to consider the complex interaction between the variables when determining how the climate is changing. The Greenhouse Gas Promoters seem to address only CO2 in the atmosphere, in isolation, as the primary driver of climate change.

    Finally, I think there is a problem with the term Climate Change. To juxtapose Climate and Change is redundant. In fact, to me the more correct phrase for Climate Change is “Climate Changes”! For the one true constant throughout the climatic history of the planet Earth is Climate Changes!

    The following are some findings that will clarify the fact that Climate Changes (it always has and always will):

    Earth’s Changing Climate – A Historical Perspective (Short List)

    The Pleistocene Epoch

    • During the Pleistocene Epoch (2.5 million years ago to 10,000 BC) there were repeated periods of glaciations and interglacial stages.

    • During the Late Pleistocene Epoch (650,000 to 10,000 BC) there were 7 major Ice Ages punctuated by shorter interglacial periods.

    • The most recent Wisconsin Ice Age began about 110,000 years ago and ended about 12,000 years ago.

    • At the Last Glacial Maximum (the time of maximum extent of the ice sheets during the last glacial period – approximately 20,000 years ago), Canada was almost completely covered by an ice sheet thousands of meters thick. Beringia (the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska) was last exposed from about 25,000 to 14,000 years ago. Beringia existed because so much water was locked up in the glaciers during the Ice Age(s) that sea levels dropped as much as 125 meters. The average depth today of the Bering Strait (part what was Beringia) is between 30 and 53 meters. This land bridge facilitated the migration of the Pleistocene Mega Fauna (including mammoths and mastodons) and were followed by humans from Siberia. Humans eventually would migrate to the southern tip of South America.

    • During a warmer climatic interval in the last interglacial stage, about 125,000 years ago, sea level was about 6 meters higher than it is today.

    • During this Last Glacial Maximum Period, Northern Washington and North Idaho were covered with glacial ice. In North Idaho, a finger of ice called the Purcell Lobe of the massive Cordilleran Ice Sheet, would periodically advance across the Clark’s Fork River creating an Ice Dam that would form Lake Missoula. At its maximum the lake was over 200 miles long and had more water than Lakes Erie and Ontario combined. Over the eons, several glacial advances occurred, the lake would form, then the ice dam would break and release the large volumes of water it contained. This enormous flood would scour much of the Columbia Basin, flow through the Columbia Gorge into the Willamette Valley and onto the Pacific Ocean.

    The Holocene Epoch

    • The interglacial period, that we are in now, began at the beginning of the Holocene Epoch (about 12,000 years ago continuing today).

    • The warmest period of the Holocene was between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago where it was 2.5C degrees warmer than it is today. Some scientists refer this period the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

    • There have been several warm and cooler phases since. In recent history, the Medieval Warming Period or Medieval Climatic Optimum began around 800 to about 1300 AD. It resulted in longer growing seasons and shorter milder winters and a flourishing population in Europe. The Norse settled in Greenland and Labrador during this period.

    • The Little Ice Age began abruptly in 1300 and ended around 1850. During this period Europe lost population due to disease, crop failures and hard winters. The Black Death (Bubonic Plague) peaked in Western Europe around 1350; the colder climate may have been a contributing factor to the spread of the disease as people were huddled inside during the long winters. This colder period also closed the chapter on the Norse settlements in the New World. By the year 1400, all habitation sites were abandoned.

    • Most mountain glaciers worldwide have been retreating since the mid-1800s (at the end of the “Little Ice Age”), and global sea level has risen about 30 centimeters since then.

    • When Captain George Vancouver charted adjacent waters of Icy Strait, Alaska in 1794, he and his crew described what we now call Glacier Bay as just a small five-mile indentation of a gigantic glacier that stretched off to the horizon. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier – the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet.

    • The Hubbard (tidewater) Glacier on the North Gulf Coast of Alaska, is growing. In May, 1986 the glacier surged, blocking the entrance of Russell Fiord with an ice dam, creating Russell Lake. The levels of the lake rose 25 meters, then by October the ice dam gave way – draining 5.3 cubic km of water rushing through the gap. In 2002, the glacier surged again and continues to threaten the blocking Russell Fiord with an ice dam today.

    • Dr. Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, he states that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

    • The average concentration of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gasses in the atmosphere is 387 parts per million (ppm) up from Preindustrial levels of 280 ppm. Human caused CO2 emissions account for 107 ppm.

    • There seems to be confusion about CO2, which includes the natural product of respiration of all animal life, as well as the decaying of organic material, the burning of forests and fossil fuels. Some label CO2 as pollution, confusing it with carbon monoxide and smog. CO2 is a nutrient as it is essential for all photosynthesizing plant life to survive.

    • CO2 makes up 0.0360% or 36/100,000 of 1% of the composition of the atmosphere, while Nitrogen and Oxygen comprise 99.03%

    Conclusion:

    Climate Changes! No one can deny it! The climate of the Earth is an extremely complex and there are many contributing factors that drive that change. It is hope that the above overview will give one a clearer understanding and perspective on Catastrophic Climate Change – This planet has been there and done that, innumerable times over the eons!

    Finally, at every step it seems the green gas campaigners make the most pessimistic assumptions and forecasts, extrapolate any changes occurring in nature into harbingers of catastrophe, and they pound the table for an expansion of governmental (and international governance) control of resources.

    Climate Changes! that is a fact. The Greatest Climatic Catastrophe for plant and animal life on this planet will not be the warming of the planet but the onset of the next Ice Age, which is inevitable as surely as the sun rises and sets……. and it is only a matter of time!

  • Observer

    David Steadson,

    You said, “What amazes me is how virtually any post on AGW brings on the ignorant naysayers with the same old discredited BS (like “we’ve had 11 years of no warming”)”

    I agree that many naysayers are ignorant. So are the GW advocates who simply parrot what entertainers and politicians have said who regularly misstate, distort and confuse scientific data. What amazes ME is how so many GW advocates make unqualified statements and provide no empirical data to support their assertions.

    To wit -

    You said, “Why it’s cold now is because of changes in the arctic oscillation, pushing down the cold arctic air further than it normally goes.”

    What scientific evidence might you offer for this statement?

    You said, “that cold artic air is 5 to 9 degrees warmer than it normally is.”

    What standard did you apply to arrive at what you consider “normal”?

    You said, “The problem isn’t that it’s not getting warmer, it is. The problem is some of that warmer air is still damn cold and going places it doesn’t usually go.”

    What criteria are you using to determine where warmer air “usually” goes? More to the point, what meaning should one construe from your comment that warmer air is still cold. Warmer than what? Cold by what standard?

    Then you state ” who cares about a little thing like facts?”

    Good comment. I would add another. Who cares about a little thing like providing evidence to substantiate what is presented as fact?

  • Greg Fish

    “You said, ‘that cold artic air is 5 to 9 degrees warmer than it normally is.’ What standard did you apply to arrive at what you consider ‘normal’?”

    @Observer. David included a link which described exactly what he was talking about and why in detail. The warming trend he cites is based on the statistical analysis of the average Arctic temperatures recorded over decades. It would be great if people who were reading this post and the replies took time to actually look at the links rather than go straight into a critique since they end up talking past each other with no regard for what’s being said.

    “It is hope[d] that the above overview will give one a clearer understanding and perspective on Catastrophic Climate Change – This planet has been there and done that, innumerable times over the eons!”

    @Paul Sulley. I don’t see anyone on this blog arguing that climate change will wipe out all of us or cause a mass extinction. It’s already too late for that since we’ve been living through one since the Ice Age. In fact, I actually try to emphasize that we’re not all going to die a horrible death just because there’s a few degrees of warming. The issue is that we need to realize that humans can alter the atmosphere with global industrial activity and know that we can’t keep polluting the planet or everything we dump into the air, the water and the ground will end up hurting us. Ever heard of neighborhoods being built on toxic waste dumps and the medical disasters that follow, like high rates of cancers and birth defects?

    Earth can shrug us off like a bad dream. But we can just as easily poison ourselves out of existence by dumping toxic waste and fumes at our leisure. Finding cleaner, more potent sources of energy than fossil fuels is not going to hurt us but it will make the energy companies who want to maintain their regional monopolies without lifting a finger do a little hard work which is why they’re so upset at environmentalists who use global warming as a boogeyman to force everyone to switch to clean energy overnight instead of giving the process time. What denialists do is make the situation even worse by using nationalism and red baiting to be obstinate for the sake of being obstinate and picking a fight with the environmentalists.

    Mind you, polluting ourselves out of existence would take a lot longer than a century, but it can happen if given enough time and enough political obstinacy not to do the right thing for the sake of not agreeing with the hated party or activist group.

  • Brenda

    It’s the Earth’s cycle that is going on here all you stupid people……….wake up!
    We didn’t do it and we can’t do anything to stop any weather situation.
    I can’t believe people actually fall for this stuff.. Al Gore is going green,,,,
    yes in his pockets…………..Wake up and see the scam here and then move on people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Observer

    gfish,

    You said, “David included a link which described exactly what he was talking about and why in detail.”

    You also stated, “It would be great if people who were reading this post and the replies took time to actually look at the links rather than go straight into a critique since they end up talking past each other with no regard for what’s being said.”

    I can only assume you are joking. BarentsObserver is the link David included in his comments and it is hardly a purveyor of scientific data . BarentsObserver is nothing more than an open internet news server. And when you looked at the link evidently you failed to notice that, contrary to your assertion, it describes nothing in any detail at all. Here is a direct quote.

    “The measurements which have been made at Norwegian meteorologist stations in the Arctic, in the last two months of 2009 showed a major increase compared with average figures for the period. Figures from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute shows that air temperatures were between five and nine degrees higher than the normal for the season, NRK reports.”

    NRK is a Norwegian television channel. So my question remains, what standard is used to arrive at normal? Simply deferring to some internet news service that passes on what has been reported on television is not a scientific explanation of anything. And David was making a point about “ignorant naysayers with the same old discredited BS.”

    When I closed my post by stating “Who cares about a little thing like providing evidence to substantiate what is presented as fact?” I should have included one important word. Who cares about a little thing like providing CREDIBLE evidence?

    Let me use the words you chose to chastise those who read this post without looking at the links.

    It would be great if people who were reading this post and the replies took time to actually look at credible scientific data (regardless of what side of the argument they are on) rather than going straight into a critique since they end up revealing their own limited understanding of the subject with no regard for honest critical evaluation.

  • Greg Fish

    “Simply deferring to some internet news service that passes on what has been reported on television is not a scientific explanation of anything.”

    There is a link to an actual report by the news channel which interviews scientists who are studying the data. Believe it or not, not everyone here has access to scientific journals that publish the studies and can’t show what they say since they’re hidden behind a pay wall. This is why you see to link to news sites.

    “It would be great if people who were reading this post and the replies took time to actually look at credible scientific data…”

    As defined by? Sure, plenty of people love to talk about credibility but most often all they do is create circular arguments about what sources best fits their existing views. For instance, in your rush to discredit the citation you immediately threw out how it’s not a scientific journal and didn’t follow the link to the actual report. Yes, granted, the report is not in English, but it does feature the scientists working on the issue and you can see that it’s not randomly made up.

    Of course when I pointed out that you missed the link and demanded evidence that was already provided, you just moved the goalposts and changed your demand to evidence that satisfies you. Any other goalposts you want to move while you’re at it?

  • reggie

    Ah, yes, Greg Fish, but what about this?

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html

    Why does this keep getting thrown at me if your precious global warming is true?

    “Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

    · Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

    · The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

    · Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

    In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.”

    Actually, I just keep getting this thrown at me and I would like some help. I don’t have the time or expertise to succinctly put this site and it’s claims down. It’s like I have too much other pseudoscience and BS to deal with, but I still feel this is important. It is hard work being a skeptic.

  • Observer

    gdfish,

    “There is a link to an actual report by the news channel which interviews scientists who are studying the data.”

    Are you serious? A link to a news channel that interviews scientists? That’s supposed to pass as credible evidence? We both know that interviews with scientists are highly variable, depending on the perspective of the one(s) being interviewed. Come on, let’s be fair. News simply reports. You can line up interviews with scientists on either side of this debate. It proves nothing.

    “Of course when I pointed out that you missed the link and demanded evidence that was already provided, you just moved the goalposts and changed your demand to evidence that satisfies you.”

    Again, are you serious? I didn’t miss the link. I clicked on it and saw that it wasn’t relevant and worthy of comment. And what was provided passes for evidence? Again, are you serious or do you just like to engage in intellectual badinage.

    I moved the goalposts and changed my demand to evidence that satisfies me? What are you talking about? First, you either missed or ignored my statement “regardless of what side of the argument they are on.” Second, I can only assume that your assumption regarding evidence that satisfies me is evidence that questions the validity of GW, which is not the case at all.

  • WarpSpeed

    gfish, you wrote (about me), “Steering you in the right direction would be like dragging a cat into a bathtub.”

    My God, you really don’t have any evidence on which to hang your hat, do you?

    Do you?

    And now, David is suddenly silent?

    I would have thought you two would have been bombarding ignorant “deniers” like me, reggie, observer, and others with all of your evidence to prove us wrong.

    Instead (in my case, at least) you scream that I am hysterical, an angry cat being put into a bathtub, lol.

    I suppose you are accustomed to such illogical parry and thrusts working against “deniers” that you are incapable of a logical argument supported by legitimate evidence in front of a skeptical, yet receptive audience. The best you could muster was a New Scientist article by the two Mikes, Michael Marshall and Michael LePage titled, “Deniergate: Turning the tables on climate sceptics.” I suppose you consider it a primer for AGW advocates such as yourself, on how to counter skeptics (like me). However, it is nothing of the sort. It is nothing more than a series of attacks on skeptics (like me) with no evidence to back them up.

    David saw the handwriting on the wall. He did not want to support his claims with evidence, so he left (for the moment, at least). You, on the other hand, being completely unable to support your claims with evidence, simply become increasingly shrill, and engage in the ad hominem attacks that are so often employed by your fellow travelers: you cannot prove us wrong, so you demonize us. How oddly theological…

    I have to say ,it’s quite a lot of fun to watch. Isn’t it odd that, in spite of having many of the governments of the world behind you, most of the major media outlets proclaiming the legitimacy of your cause, the only reason there are so many “deniers” left is the complete and total inability of AGW proponents to cite legitimate evidence to support it.

    I still welcome any evidence you can cite or to which you can link that would change my mind. However, I’m almost sure that if you were capable of doing so, you would have already done it.

    Prove me wrong.

  • Greg Fish

    “Why does this [link] keep getting thrown at me if your precious global warming is true?”

    @reggie. Seeing how little I’ve written on the topic, I really would have trouble saying that I care deeply enough to call it a precious topic to me. Furthermore there are a number of red flags in that link which don’t mesh with the position taken by me on this blog.

    For one, I always refuted the notion that global warming would be a humanity ending disaster so the idea that IPCC’s alarmism is overblown is one with which I agreed since day one. Likewise, I stated numerous times that the tax and credit system will not be a viable solution. Cleaning up our planet is something we should do anyway over the next century. Forcing people to do it by threats is ineffective and only breeds the kind of angry bickering you see here.

    At any rate, I noticed an interesting thing in the list of supporters on the linked site. They tend to be economists, physicists, geologists or vaguely identified. There’s a handful of climatologists and meteorologists. So in other words, this is a signing list of titles that by itself proves nothing.

    Furthermore, the data in the list is mostly unsourced and it goes against widely quoted and referenced numbers showing a slow and steady temperature uptick without showing what studies were used to arrive at the contrarian conclusions, only alluding to a “large volume of unnamed peer review data” and saying it was being suppressed.

    So in short, people like to throw around links, names and degrees to serve their agenda. From both sides. After looking at the data available to me, I’m swayed that there is a real warming trend and while the anthropogenic component is there, I don’t know its exact extent and I know that even the worst case scenarios will not destroy the world as we know it.

    “Are you serious? A link to a news channel that interviews scientists? That’s supposed to pass as credible evidence?”

    @Observer. And so we have out next goalpost transplant. Now scientists on TV aren’t good enough. Would official government data qualify as credible? Or is NASA also a biased source lacking any credibility as well?

    “My God, you really don’t have any evidence on which to hang your hat, do you?”

    @Warp Speed. Actually, I linked to quite a bit of stuff. You just chose to ignore it, rant on and on about how much you hate the CRU and the IPCC, then declare that I have zero proof for the position I took. Then, after I called you out on it, you manage to remember one link and immediately dismiss it as “a primer for AGW advocates” because there’s no way the studies there could be wrong.

    No, it’s all a UN conspiracy to take over the world with carbon taxes, despite their long record of being unable to enforce any treaty they’ve ever ratified, even the important legally binding ones. You can say that the Outer Space and Nuclear Test Ban treaties are exceptions, but if you really think it’s the UN that keeps nations from testing nukes in space and in desert bomb ranges, I would remind you about the vast stockpiles of nukes in Russia and the nation’s potential to use them should they consider a nuclear test as an act of war.

    “David saw the handwriting on the wall. He did not want to support his claims with evidence, so he left (for the moment, at least).”

    Well of course. He obviously has nothing else to do with his time than debate people on a blog he reads once in a while and unable to withstand the awesome might of your rants about how the IPCC should be disbanded and the CRU is a bunch of monsters as a reply to every question and piece of evidence you get, he retreated. Yes. That’s what exactly what happened…

    “Instead (in my case, at least) you scream that I am hysterical, an angry cat being put into a bathtub, lol. “

    I would really invite you to rejoin those of us in the real world and note that while I was being sarcastic and said that trying to prove something to you is like making an angry can take a bath, i.e. a messy and often fruitless task, the only screaming you heard was in your head. And yes, typing out rant after rant about how you want to Hulk out on the CRU and the IPCC in reply to anything and everything, then making Glenn Beck style appeals to conspiracy with hackneyed purple prose over notoriously ineffective international treaties, is as close to being hysterical as you can get.

    “the only reason there are so many ‘deniers’ left is the complete and total inability of AGW proponents to cite legitimate evidence to support it.”

    And because you’ve stated this as fact, it’s now a fact, right? Tell me, do you ascribe to the theory of evolution? Do you know that there are literally billions of people who deny it? Using your logic, creationists constantly argue that the only reason so many people deny evolution is because scientists don’t have a single scrap of legitimate evidence for it and it’s so fun to watch the theory just crumble before their very eyes, when in reality they’re just sinking deeper into their denial.

    Now I’m not going to equate your argument with creationism because it’s not. The whole point was to illustrate the problem with your statement using an example of this modified argumentum ad populum fallacy. But hey, if it helps you sleep at night knowing that you stuck it to those dirty commie hippies, then who I am to get between you and your fun?

    “I’m almost sure that if you were capable of [providing evidence that would change my mind], you would have already done it. “

    Right. Because you’re clearly a very objective and open-minded person and there’s no way you could just move the goalposts every time you’re shown something you don’t want to see. Of course that in your objectivity you just managed to overlook my opposition to carbon taxes and tariffs, critiques of environmentalists for misusing global warming as a boogeyman for their own goals, and calls for a slow and steady approach to cleaning up the environment and are arguing with me on points I never made is only more proof that you would never go on random rants without reading with what you’re actually disagreeing…

  • Dan Pangburn

    Gfish-
    You apparently see what you want to see instead of what is there. Read my post again.

    I didn’t ‘throw away’ greenhouse gas effects. I discovered that all average global temperatures since 1895 can be accurately predicted without considering changes to the levels of them.

    You obviously did not understand the research. Perhaps you did not even look at the paper. If you had you would know that only the most credible sources of data were used; sunspot numbers and recent average global temperature anomalies from NOAA and earlier global temperature anomalies from CDIAC/ORNL. The links to the data are given in the paper.

    The graph results from an understanding of the physics and straight-forward engineering analysis. Those who understand numerical integration, the first law of thermodynamics, and the difference between energy and power will be able to verify the work.

    The graph is correct. CHANGE in the level of CO2 or any other ghg since before 1900 has had no significant effect on climate.

  • WarpSpeed

    It’s ok gfish. Let it go. There IS no evidence for AGW. If there was you or someone would have cited it.

    Instead all you have is an MSNBC (Keith Olbermann is indicative of their objectivity) link.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/

    The best even MSNBC could do in the article you cite is say that “statisticians reject global cooling”. The article cites NO statistical evidence of global warming. That’s it???

    Oh, and I left out the Reuters link the headline of which is, “2009 set to be fifth warmest year on record”.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B71SO20091208

    Oddly enough, these two sources disagree on the hottest year on record. MSNBC claims it’s 2005, while Reuters claims its 1998. Sounds like you AGW guys need to coordinate your propaganda campaigns a little better than you do.

    You have shown, gfish, in spite of my repeated requests for evidence of AGW, you can cite none.

    You have discovered that you cannot insult me into submission, and I now realize this really makes your blood boil.

    I love it.

    Happy New Year!

  • Rhette

    David Steadson

    You not only look smug, you look arrogant, narcissistic, and self righteous. Why not just state the facts of your source, most of us don’t need to see your photo.

  • Loeck

    “Would official government data qualify as credible? Or is NASA also a biased source lacking any credibility as well?”… Uh Gfish i would think that you of all people would know that just because the government says it’s so does not make it so.

  • Greg Fish

    You apparently see what you want to see instead of what is there. You obviously did not understand the research.

    @ Dan Pagburn. And there’s no way you could possibly be guilty of the same thing? Statements like this tell me more about the fact that you have an agenda to push than anything else. If you’re going to tell me the same thing, consider that I’ve ridiculed the cap and trade solution being proposed by the IPCC and argued for a more moderate approach to the issue of how to deal with warming trends. And yet, several people in this thread seem to be able to ignore this and go on with their clichéd arguments.

    If you had you would know that only the most credible sources of data were used; sunspot numbers and recent average global temperature anomalies from NOAA…

    So in other words, you decided to correlate two things and projected causation by the correlating trends. Of course that’s not how it works and we know that sunspots have very little to no real effect on the climate. You can correlate a lot of things very closely but when your suppositions about causation are incorrect, what you do is a statistical numbers game which you justify by “physics and engineering” instead of climatology, the relevant science in question. This is like trying to verify a biology paper with a big analysis by a computer scientist. Both are probably very competent in their areas but not in each others’.

    Let it go. There’s no evidence for AGW. If there was you or someone would’ve cited it.

    @ Warp Speed. Way to address the points raised in my previous reply. You just deny that you’ve been given evidence and start plowing through what you consider to be a legitimate source of information. And that’s really easy when you provide none of your own. You just sit there, demanding proof and tossing whatever you don’t like aside as you rant about objectivity and defending your country from the evil enviros who want to turn it over to the New World Order.

    all you have is an MSNBC (Keith Olbermann is indicative of their objectivity) link.

    And the link to the Arctic ice core studies which you conveniently keep ignoring. So, I wonder, what was your grand scientific source? Oh that’s right. You had an op-ed on the evils of the CRU and how everyone working there should be sent to a labor camp or something from The Times, which also publishes articles about global warming. You have no point other than highlighting how there’s no evidence in bold and being a condescending commenter who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn’t know how to find a study in a scientific journal.

    You have shown, gfish, in spite of my repeated requests for evidence of AGW, you can cite none.

    You’re really not up on this whole intellectual honesty thing, are you? I mean it’s pretty amazing how you can blatantly lie and cherry-pick like that, trying to excuse yourself from accepting every single bit of data based on things like on what cite the report is on and what pundit happens to be on a particular network. Yeah, that’s totally what a scientist would do.

    You have discovered that you cannot insult me into submission, and I now realize this really makes your blood boil. I love it.

    Wow. This is so amazingly pathetic I’m not quite sure how to tackle this statement. In your imaginary little world, you seem to have gotten it in your head that I really care if you agree with me and am actually fighting for the “enemy” you need to defeat on an obscure little pop sci blog where global warming topics appear once in a blue moon and the author opposes all the things you want to “defeat” in the first place. And not only that, you really need me to be infuriated with you, the bringer of reason to all the undereducated sheeple who can’t see your wisdom.

    Why would it be worth my time to try and beat an overzealous internet crusader with a little too much time on his hands into submission? You just want to fight about this in public and are using this blog to play pundit. By all means, feel free if this is what you need to get validation, and if I make a good villain, feel free to keep lashing out at, or condescending to me, then declare victory in a debate that never was and completely besides my actual stand on the issue. Have fun!

    just because the government says it’s so does not make it so.

    @ Loeck. That’s true. However, the point of my question was whether there was even a single credible source out there for the people demanding to see “credible data.” A link to NASA sponsored climate data doesn’t prove the data is correct, but it should at least be a legitimate source to start a discussion.

  • Richard

    I find it ludicrous when I hear arguments put forward by the global warming alarmists that major snowstorms, as we now are experiencing, can be a result of global warming. Ludicrous because, if in fact their case is valid, then we had major global warming in the late 1950′s through out the mid 1970′s and into the early 80′s. There were many winters when, living in eastern Nebraska, I experienced blizzards, many more severe than what is currently taking place; snow drifts over 5 feet high, and lasting throughout the ENTIRE winter, never melting until mid-April; then there was the bitter cold, 20 bleow zero was not uncommon EVERY winter. So, theoretically, and as the global warmers wish to put forth, that severe winters are a resulting cause of global warming, then logically(?) we HAD global warming from the time I was in grade school through my adult years into my mid-30′s. Evidently that global warming, back then, went away on it’s own?! But then perhaps many of the proponents of global warming weren’t even alive in the 70′s, eh!? And maybe, just maybe, they haven’t bothered to speak to oldsters who can recall as far back as the 1920′s and 30′s when weather patterns changed dramatically enough to cause extremely mild winters after many years of cold ones, back to very cold one’s ,etc.; and maybe, just maybe it has much more to do with the earth’s natural cycles of warming and cooling. There certainly had to have been some form of global cooling a few million years, fore if there hadn’t been, the northern tier of the USA would still be under a mile thick blanket of ice; anyone ever hear of the ice age? I wonder what caused the palnet to warm back then??

    This planet has cycled on it’s own through many warming and cooling periods; to suggest that we now are destroying our planet and the end is near without all manner of governmental controls is begging for, and will receive all the people control they can live with. Oh yeah, and I really am impressed by a college educated idiot, head of the EPA, when she states carbon dioxide is DANGEROUS to human life…OH REALLY, a product I exhale is damaging to my health, huh??? And did anyone bother to explain to her that ALL green plants REQUIRE that CO2 to survive?? O.K., I’ll bite; let’s reduce CO2 by 50% or better….let’s see then how green your planet will remain. Oh, and lastly, the polar bear population, according to wildlife biologists, not PETA types, is increasing. Waht do wildlife biologists know, they must be warming deniers.

  • http://facebook Angie Kilgore

    I don’t think people are overreacting to the snowing in places that usually get snow, I think people are talking about the places that don’t usually get snow. It doesn’t usually snow in Baldwin Co. Alabama. We have had temperatures below freezing (at night) for over a week straight!!! That’s why I’m concerned. NO I am not a scientist nor do I even have a college degree. I am just a simple person in a simple life. However, I know that it’s not supposed to be this cold here, even in the middle of winter!!!! This is where people come to get away from the cold!!!!!

  • Greg Fish

    There certainly had to have been some form of global cooling a few million years, if there hadn’t been, the northern tier of the USA would still be under a mile of ice.

    It’s known as the Milankovitch Cycles, a 100,000 year variation in Earth’s orbit that can trigger ice ages under certain atmospheric conditions and their subsequent end.

    … to suggest that we’re destroying our planet and the end is near without all manner of governmental controls

    Ah, always the government controls. We can’t just talk about the science. No, we have to talk about the politics. Forget the data, the ice cores, the research itself and just go with political outrage. But hey, being angry is easier I suppose…

    … and I really am impressed by a college educated idiot, head of the EPA, when she states carbon dioxide is DANGEROUS to human life. OH REALLY, a product I exhale is damaging to my health, huh?

    I’d go easy on the all caps. Really. And the anti-intellectualism doesn’t do anyone any favors. Do you know why there are carbon dioxide scrubbers on the space station? If the concentration of the gas reaches a few percent of the air, the astronauts will die of hypercapnia as their bodies’ oxygen levels will fall and starve the brain. So yes, if you bother to do a little fact checking, you’ll find that what you breathe out can harm you.

    O.K., I’ll bite; let’s reduce CO2 by 50% or better, let’s see then how green your planet will remain.

    Pretty green. In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been as low as almost half of the levels we see today and plants still survived just fine. In the Permian Extinction, which raised greenhouse gas levels by far more than any AGW attributed effect could, high levels of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane cranked up the temperature and killed off a great deal of plant life and marine biodiversity, which is always rather vulnerable since it relies on delicate and highly sensitive plankton as the base of the food chain.

    the polar bear population, according to wildlife biologists, is increasing.

    I checked out this claim and the only reference I was able to find to this idea was an op-ed column by an English journalist who’s well known for misrepresenting any and all scientific research and data that doesn’t meet his personal opinions. He’s also a creationist, denied that second hand smoke is carcinogenic and that asbestos could cause mesothelioma and lung cancer, despite plenty of studies showing otherwise. So in other words, lives in his own little world where his opinions overrule facts.

    His column on polar bears was picked up quite a few right wing political blogs which transformed one scientist upset that his opinion wasn’t being hailed as revolutionary, into an entire movement of wildlife biologists.

  • Incredible

    Looks like MSNBC has pulled their article.

  • http://david.steadson.com David Steadson

    Well, I’m convinced. The proof is in the pudding – I (a) was occupied elsewhere and didn’t post some replies and (b) apparently have an arrogant photo.

    Clearly AGW is a hoax. QED. :-/

  • Dan Pangburn

    Gfish- You have now verified that you do not have the faintest idea about the research. You appear to be misled by people who focus on statistical analysis. They fit a straight line to temperatures for the last 30 years or so and it has an upward slope so they erroneously conclude this to be proof that the planet is warming. If they did the same thing using the last 1100 years of data they would see a negative slope and would conclude that the planet is cooling. Either one is a misapplication of statistics.

    If I have an agenda it would be that cap and trade is a terrible reaction to a nonexistent problem. The oceans have about 200 times the effective thermal capacitance of the atmosphere. Thermal capacitance is a measure of the amount of energy that it takes to raise the temperature of something by a specified amount. Because it is much smaller in area and does not mix, the effective thermal capacitance of the land is even less than the atmosphere. The temperature of the oceans to a depth of 700 meters is measured by over 2800 instruments distributed evenly over all the oceans in the Argo Floats program. There measurements of the temperature of the oceans reveal that the planet stopped warming in about 2004. Humanity should be figuring out what to do about the coming cooling.

    The research did not consist of correlating two things. The research started with the hypothesis that the sunspot time-integral was related to warming. The next step was to perform a straight-forward engineering analysis using the first law of thermodynamics. The result was the discovery of a model that accurately predicts average global temperatures for 114 years…and counting. The only statistics involved is the calculation of a numerical measure of how accurately the model predicts the temperature measurements but the graph shows this visually. This accurate prediction verifies both the hypothesis and the model.

    The reference that you gave reported that brightness change from sunspot activity is insufficient to cause the observed climate change but they did not rule out magnetized plasmas, etc. Although it is not necessary to understand the mechanism for the model to accurately predict, I expect that somehow sunspot-caused magnetics interact with cosmic rays to alter average cloud altitude to which average global temperature change is quite sensitive. Others have looked at sunspot count or time factors separately but I have not found where anyone else has looked at the combination of count and time as is done by time-integral of sunspot count.

    This is NOT statistical analysis. The model has accurately predicted average global temperatures for 114 years and predicts that the trend will continue to be down until about 2037.

  • http://david.steadson.com David Steadson

    Dan,

    Josh Willis, who was responsible for the Argo Floats paper showing ocean warming has stopped, published a later paper showing the original data was wrong. You can read the story here -

    Correcting Ocean Cooling

  • Greg Fish

    “The research did not consist of correlating two things. The research started with the hypothesis that the sunspot time-integral was related to warming.”

    Did you not read your own research? You took temperature and sunspot data and put them side by side, then declared that because they seem to be related and you wrote another paper that says sunspots are somehow related to global temperatures, that sunspots must be the cause. That’s the entirety of your paper. To then claim you did not try to line up the two data sets side by side and anyone who says so has no idea what the research was about, when three fourths of your paper describe exactly how you did that, it simply dishonest.

    “The next step was to perform a straight-forward engineering analysis using the first law of thermodynamics.”

    There are three sentences about your assumptions regarding sunspot activity and at no time do you explain how exactly a 3,000°K to 4,500°K area of the sun can affect our climate, instead referring to another paper in which you copy what’s said about sunspots in Wikipedia, then try to correlate some more, assuming that correlation equals causation. You’ve performed no physics on the subject to show how the effect actually happens, only that there seems to be a correlation.

    You can keep saying that you’ve done every type of analysis imaginable, but the fact is that you haven’t and only indignantly claim that you did while declaring that about a page of very simple text must have went over my head.

    “The result was the discovery of a model that accurately predicts average global temperatures for 114 years…and counting.”

    I’m sure you can link me to your paper in a peer reviewed publication where you can show us a table of temperatures predicted by your model vs. actual temps and you’ll be off by no more than a degree here or there. Right?

    “Although it is not necessary to understand the mechanism for the model to accurately predict…”

    But you do need to do it before you declare it to be the cause. Correlation does not equal causation. Causation must be proved by data and experiments.

    “I expect that somehow sunspot-caused magnetics interact with cosmic rays to alter average cloud altitude…”

    Huh? Sunspots are a result of magnetic activity on the sun, not the cause. And how would they interact with cosmic rays that stream from interstellar space when the object they affect is 93 million miles away? How would that change cloud altitude and what does that have to do with climate? You just gave me a hodgepodge of terms.

    “This is NOT statistical analysis.”

    No, of course not. How could comparing two sets of data, trying to track down any possible correlation between them and figuring out the relevant deviations and how they could apply possibly constitute statistical analysis? Except maybe in a textbook on statistics…

  • Dan Pangburn

    The sunspot/cloud connection was presented by Svensmark in 1996. It is described in a September 2009 opinion piece is at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/ . Svensmark relates sunspot activity to cloudiness. I have previously determined that average global temperature (agt) is very sensitive to average cloud altitude and expect that average cloud altitude will turn out to be a better connection once they decide to start measuring it.

    Details of the causation do not matter. The model has accurately predicted for 114 years. A substantial contributor to agt is Effective Sea Surface Temperature and that will drive agt down, particularly since the sun has gone quiet. The good news is that even our technology-challenged politicians should begin to realize that change to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has no significant effect on climate (or weather) and Cap and Trade legislation would be a mistake.

    Obviously you do not grasp the significance of the findings. You will just have to continue to wonder (along with Trenberth et. al.) why the cooling trend is down while the CO2 level continues to go up.

  • Greg Fish

    The sunspot/cloud connection was presented by Svensmark in 1996. It is described in a September 2009 opinion piece [on Watt's Up With That].

    With all due respect, Anthony Watts is about as legitimate of a source on the subject as Answers in Genesis is on evolution. Instead, I found his actual paper in Physical Review Letters and his idea rests on muons generated by collisions of cosmic rays with particles of the upper atmosphere promoting high altitude condensation nuclei for clouds. However, subsequent reviews found no evidence to show that it happens in nature and that the statistical analysis done to support Svensmark’s idea has not been done correctly. There’s also the fact that his theory hinges on solar winds, not sunspots interacting with the Earth as you clumsily tried to imply.

    So in this regard, what you found about cloud altitude doesn’t really matter since you didn’t actually publish a peer-reviewed paper on the subject (or on any of your grand, engineering findings since we’re at it) and you lack plausible mechanisms which can turn the correlation into causation. At least Svensmark published his ideas in a major journal, putting them through the peer review process.

    Details of the causation don’t matter. The model has accurately predicted [temps] for 114 years.

    You can keep saying that but it won’t make it true. In science, little things like detail do matter and they matter a great deal. Do you know what correlation without a detailed causation is called? Coincidence. And you keep chanting how your model predicts a very accurate set of temperatures for 114 years but did you ever publish your findings somewhere other than an anti-AGW blog? Did you ever submit it to peer review? Did you try to roll it back more than 114 years to see if it still holds true since you’re talking about the Sun and it’s always there, producing sunspots? How did you try to account for the dynamics of CO2 in the atmosphere in light of your findings?

    Obviously you do not grasp the significance of the findings. You’ll just have to wonder why the cooling trend is down while the CO2 level continues to go up.

    Ah yes, the crank calling card. Obviously, the people pressing for more detail must be too stupid to understand the true genius of your work. It can’t be that you’re wrong, or you did just enough work to satisfy yourself that you’re correct and leave it at that. No, it must be that those who question you just lack wits.

    Also, so far, the only cooling trend shown to exist is in op-eds and blog comments. In my previous responses, I linked to an AP report which sent climate data to statistical analysts without telling them what it was so they could focus on the numbers, and as they crunched the numbers, they found no statistically significant down trend. Despite the comment that the story in the link was taken down, it’s still up and running. It just takes a while to load since there’s obviously quite a bit of traffic flowing to it.

  • southloop contender

    I think both sides of this GW debate have excellent arguments. The bottom line IMO, is that the evidence is inconclusive. I believe the GW advocates realize that the data could be interpreted to really argue either side hence the hesitation to release it (or the reason for it’s deletion).

    I’m certain when the graph of real data is shown, it’ll have dots all over the place and no best-fit curve could really be drawn.

    @David: “Terabytes of data” is really not a good excuse to not release the data. The current cost of storage is about $100 per TB. so $100K buys 1PB.

    Nevertheless, i think some GW advocates make good points especially gfish. GW or not, we need to take better care of our planet. We also need to be aware that even if our actions aren’t affecting the earth now, they jolly well may in the future.

    The same attitude extends to taking care of our co-residents on earth especially the poor. Maybe some of the GW cash could be sent that way. We know for certain they are dying. No research needed there!

    Lets be responsible with the time we spend on earth.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    I wonder if this thread is due for a revival thanks to the “snowpocalypse” of the mid-Atlantic states. (It’s called a storm, folks, and it has happened before.*)

    Even more, I wonder if anyone’s done a study on comparative denialism, adherence-to-fiction, and general-purpose asininity of global warming denialists as compared to 9/11 troofers, birthers, creationists, anti-abortionists, et al. My anecdotal impression is that the GW crew would presently come in first, though not perhaps at the level of the troofers at their peak, nor matching the extraordinary persistence of the creos and anti-choicers.

    *Yeah, no link. Bite sue me.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Alas, as half-expected – the strikethrough tags around “Bite” above are not included in the “basic XHTML” supported by WoWT’s software.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    And this morning the strikethrough tags work! Yet I bet gfish still doesn’t believe in miracles…

  • Greg Fish

    No miracles here. Just a potential little WordPress quirk…

    Just make sure you use the < del > tag for a strikethrough and refresh your browser if it doesn’t seem to work the first time.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    [del] instead of [s] – hokay.

    One fine day this html stuff will get standardized – at which point it will be obsolete.

  • http://www.hotmail.com brythonic

    Nathan Rothschild will be the only hot person this winter in the northern hemisphere. It’s all back firing on him, particularly his underestimation of the amount of people on planet Earth who can actually think for themselves.

  • jsalas

    Oh God , if u gregfish are really an cientist then prove it and don’t as u said pass throught some information, its not global warming? Well come to think its true that 2010 was cold but how was 2005, the worst wave of heat in the story , 30 thousand dies only for heat, don’t u believe? Ok see some records and only come to think why does the super tornados started to come like the katrina, huh? Something u forgot , ah so I need to tell u something, when u are cold there are countries whit a wave of heat. Do u know that south america is protected by a natural air corrent that a lot of scientist said that it was imposible a tornado enter there, but huh? O its true, a tornade strike brazil and mexico , because if u want to form a tornado u need high pressure up in the air and low presure in the water and come to thinl what does the heat do. Only a few things u pass , oh but u said a true scientist don’t pass think so u are no a real one. I believe in what david steadson said about it.

  • Jeff

    Yes Global warming is a “complex subject” as some are saying. So is everything else surrounding the Earth’s cycles. These cycles will continue forever and each generation will have its fear-mongers. I still remember the talk of the next ice age approaching in the 80′s. What gets me is that the same people touting global warming because of our modern abilities to measure things through satellites say that Christians are ignorant for saying that natural disasters are increasing as the Bible said they would. They tell us that the only reason it appears natural disasters are on the rise is because we have better abilities to measure and keep track of them now. Make up your mind people. Of course it won’t be long that these people will have to admit prophecy is coming to pass but they will blame it on Global Warming or Global Cooling, depending on the decade, and still discount the Bible as mere coincidence.

  • Jeff

    Josh Willis, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and his colleagues concluded that the world’s oceans gained heat in the decade from 1993 to 2003. However, a follow-up study for the years 2003 to 2005 showed a surprisingly large decrease in heat content—about 5 times as large as the previous decade’s warming. Josh claims this is just a speed bump on the way to Global Warming.

    Over seventy scientist gathered to debunk the man-made global warming myth in 2009 at a conference in New York. Here is the link to an article about it. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=439146

  • earthling

    not interested in debate, just providing a relative link i came across. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  • Greg Fish

    “I still remember the talk of the next ice age approaching in the 80′s…”

    Which happened only in the media, primarily the NYT and Time Magazine. Oh, and this was in the 1970s and lasted for about a month.

    “it won’t be long that these people will have to admit prophecy is coming to pass…”

    If only I had a dollar… Prophecy? Global climactic instability is a Biblical prophecy? And what’s your justification for this claim outside your personal interpretations of a dense, metaphysically-laden collection of ancient punditry?

    “Over seventy scientist gathered to debunk the man-made global warming myth in 2009 at a conference in New York.”

    Just 70 scientists with undetermined specialties? You do know that scientists have all sorts of different specialties and aren’t necessarily well versed in fields outside of their own? This is the kind of logic global warming deniers like to apply to the IPCC, looking at every non-climatologist involved and asking why he or she is there, but when there’s a gathering of their ideological bedfellows, they don’t bother to parse the credentials.

    And come on, there are 80 doctors who think vaccines are evil, over 600 unspecified or irrelevantly credentialed scientists who supposedly “doubt evolution,” more than 1,000 supposed specialists who think that 9/11 was a secret government plot, and hundreds who believe that HIV and AIDS are not related despite decades of studies pointing out that they’re absolutely tied at the hip. Numbers are only good when they’re meaningful, not when they show that certain people disagree with well known facts.

  • Ed Lawson

    I’m a global warming denialist. Although (denialist) is not a word. As I set here looking out my window it is 5:00 in the afternoon. The temperature is 9 degrees. Snow has piled up around my window and it looks like I’ll be shoveling again.

    There is no evidence that Global Warming would impact Mankind in a negative way. Over the history of Man on the Earth warming trends have only been beneficial and contributed to civilizations advance. Bring it on please.

    Glaciers will melt and re-freeze the snow will pile up around my window every year and it will be 9 degrees in February. Common people will continue to shovel snow and eventually forbid politicians to waste money on this frivolous exercise in pseudo science.

    People like me do not believe in the science of Global Warming because there is no science. You are a fool.

    I’m a global warming denialist. Although (denialist) is not a word.