Browse By

Doubts In The Midst Of Greens

I’m attending New York Green Fest this weekend. The Green Fest promises to “celebrate sustainable living and Green politics”, but I’ve that even within this group of people who ought to be among the most environmentally aware, there are patches of of soot grey obscuring the green color.

One attendee from close by, who uses electricity obtained through the burning of coal that very likely is obtained through mountaintop removal mining, mentions her interest in organizing against the construction of wind turbine. She doesn’t want it in her backyard, she says.

Another attendee, a college professor, confided to me in private conversation that, “I’m not sure climate change is real.” She said that, though she’s not a scientist herself, she gathers that there is a great deal of controversy and disagreement among scientists about whether climate change is actually happening. She also speculated that the measurements of rising global temperature might be due to the “urban heat island effect”, with temperatures measured only in cities with increasing amounts of hot pavement. (Actually, where temperatures are measured as warming the most is in the polar regions, where there are no cities at all.)

It’s a testament to the effectiveness of corporate-funded misinformation campaigns that these ideas are coming up even amongst a gathering of Green Party activists. It seems that environmental education efforts need to take place as much within eco-oriented groups as without.

128 thoughts on “Doubts In The Midst Of Greens”

  1. ReMarker says:

    This links ( ) to an interesting article, on the “Boise Weekly” website named “Is God Green”. It is about global warming and the evangelical influence on the corporation-funded misinformation campaignes, among other things.

    The “corporation-funded misinformation” topic, occupies a small part of the article, but it names a current elected official in Congress, that supports groups that spread misinformation. Google links to sites that reveal the names of other Senators and House of Representative members, that claim global warming is a myth. Riminder: these people are elected officials….so….!!!!

    Coincidentally (not), A senator, James Inhofe (R-OK), that has a “global warming is a myth” position, is a member of the “C Street” “Family” (these guys claim to be some of the 7 Mountains Mandate, “chosen ones”).

    There is a measure of optimism to be gotten from the information in the article. Jacob may be interested in this example of how Biblical “interpretation” influences entire movements with good and/or bad results.

    1. Lord Stansted says:

      Never mind dirty deeds at the cross roads by big business, look at what the real scientists are saying here and here. Yes, they were all “peer reviewed”.

      1. Jim says:

        “Lord Stansted” has no idea what he is talking about. The first paper confuses correlation with causation and removes temperature trends before running analysis. The second paper is published in a journal featuring peer-reviewed research papers, but the paper is not in the research paper section. It is a “review,” and reviews are invited, not peer-reviewed.

        Read the second paper particularly and you’ll walk away embarrassed. It’s undergraduate-level writing.

  2. D Johnson says:

    I don’t happen to be a member of an evangelical sect supporting “global warming is a myth”, nor to the green religion that uncritically accepts every proclamation of the global warming alarmists, no matter how shakily supported by replicable scientific studies. Expressing it as a matter of belief puts the whole issue in a religious, rather than a scientific, perspective. Of course there has been net global warming since 1900. There have also been periods of significant cooling, indicating a substantial degree of natural climate variability. The current generation of climate models have not proven to be accurate predictors of future trends, and there are many studies casting doubt on the realism of their projections for this century, on which IPCC conclusions are based.

    I’d like to see a pseudo-Hippocratic oath for politicians, “First, do no harm”.

    1. Green Man says:

      D. Johnson, to the extent that it’s true that scientific climate models and the IPCC have been inaccurate, it’s because they’ve been proven, by measured facts, to be too conservative in their estimates of climate changes.

      1. AztecBill says:

        “conservative in their estimates of climate changes”?

        Is that why every new report reduces their estimate of sea level rise? Facts are catching up with them.

        If Hansen was correct in his famous 1988 testimony to Congress, we would have temperatures at least 1.5 degrees warmer now. Temperatures have been and are well below any projections made by the AGW.

  3. Rick Spung says:

    Interesting post. The number of scientists who believe the globe is cooling (which it is) and man’s CO2 output cannot influence the climate (which is also true) is growing significantly. This is mainly due to two reasons: one, the increased amount of research being done today on the mechanisms affecting climate, and two, the increased attention being paid to claims made by those who claim AGW is real.

    For example, the “hockey stick” graph was discredited and James Hanson’s surface temperature data has been shown to be unreliable, due to a Y2K programming error and the placement of weather monitoring stations (most of which are located next to air conditioner outlets and on top of asphalt parking lots or rooftops, which is a violation of the sampling agency’s own protocol).

    More and more peer-reviewed studies are being released and distributed among the scientific community, which is helping to turn the tide. And the tide is definitely turning, as shown by the following:,25197,25182520-2703,00.html

    1. Jim says:

      Your “60 German Scientists” include people like theoretical physicists and economics professors.

  4. Montag says:

    The simple fact it, there are many scientists who disagree with the myth (yes, I said it! Myth!) of global warming.

    If the “science were settled”, as Algore always claims, then the theories should be able to be falsified. That is how science works: An hypothesis is proposed and observations are made to support or undermine it. As Albert Einstein so famously said: “No amount of experimentations can ever prove me right. One experiment can prove me wrong”.

    Global Warmism takes each and every data point and claims it proves AGW. The climate got warmer? AGW! The climate got cooler? AGW again! More storms? AGW! Fewer storms? AGW! The Northwest Passage is ice free? AGW! It’s choked with ice again? Well, by Golly! It’s all because of AGW!

    What you Warmists are promoting is not science! It is religion. Science can be falsified. AGW, by your own words, cannot. Ergo, you have a religion that is threatening to become a brutal theocracy. Of course, it’s all with the best intentions!

    By the way, I think I’m pretty immune to cultural indoctrination, I don’t get any money from the oil companies, and I’m not particularly religious.

  5. Mike says:

    I got tipped off to a very good book on global warming, while reading a Green blog in Australia.

    “On my way out of Auckland airport I spotted New Zealand investigative journalist, Ian Wishart’s new book Air Con – The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming.

    “Wishart has a practical, hard-hitting writing style, that is easy to read and quite convincing. Our work at GreenBizCheck demands that we read copious amounts of literature on Climate Change and until now, I haven’t read anything that even remotely sways my views toward the climate skeptics’ camp.

    “…good on him for courageously sticking his neck out on Global Warming – a topic most of us were convinced was fact! If he is correct and the Climate Change lobby is full of self-interested parties scaring the public and lining their pockets then millions of dollars will be wasted on useless carbon trading schemes and meaningless regulations. Nevertheless, even Wishart admits that good environmental citizenship is of utmost importance – we must protect and nurture our extremely valuable natural resources. His book now makes me sleep a little better at night, pondering that maybe we are not doomed and that our planet is powerful enough to regulate temperature and not throw too much extreme weather at us greedy humans.”

    Maybe your friends are reading books like Air Con and waking up.

  6. Demesure says:

    The Green Man : “(Actually, where temperatures are measured as warming the most is in the polar regions, where there are no cities at all)”

    Actually, your claim is false on many counts:
    – there is not warming but cooling at the South pole. So saying there is warming “in the polar regions” is a half truth.
    – There is no data for the North pole over long periods (>50 years), because there is no historical station on ice. The only stations that exist are over lands, eg Greenland or North Canada so claiming we know the temperatures of the North Pole is a matter of faith, not science.
    – Likewise, stations “at the North pole” that have data back to the 1900s must be fewer than 10 and they almost tell the same thing: climate there was warmer in the 1940s than now and that past warming was natural which renders baseless the insinuation that the current warming would be manmade.
    – Even if there was “most warming in the polar regions” (which is untrue), that doesn’t negate the existence of UHI.

    1. Green Man says:

      Demesure, your information doesn’t match the lastest science.

      I’d like you to cite a source for your claim that the Antarctic region is cooling, rather than warming. Not a lobbyist press release, or an opinion piece from the Washington Times, but a scientific study. That study should be published more recently than the October 30, 2008 studies published by Nature Geoscience which conclude that both polar regions are warming, based on data that include 100 years of Arctic observations, not 50. See

      The facts are that the Antarctic polar region is warming, even though some particular areas within that region are cooling.

  7. Cam says:

    You guys are funny! I used to be exactly like you – a faithful believer in the AGW theory. Trouble is, as an environmental scientist with a background in earth and natural systems, including climate science I kept immersing myself in the research, the papers, the data, the systems and the forecasts. The biggest trouble is I cant find any evidence of CO2 contributing to climate change.

    In fact significantly the opposite – hundreds of proven natural factors. Every single piece of hard evidence in the scientific field irrefutably contradicts the CO2 theory completely! Solar activity, planetary and solar geomagnetism, orbital tilt and wobble, ocean current cycles (annual and multidecadal), cloudiness from cosmic ray activity, variations to the global water cycle, ocean floor and surface volcanic activity all contribute to changes in our climate. The arrogant faith that a trace gas generated by human activity impacting the global climate is laughable.

    Computer models rigged to provide a pre-determined conclusion, fraudulent graphs, false predictions, selective data sets, ‘Hollywood Science’ and political ideologies are not evidence.

    And as the world gets cooler over the next 20-30 years, I and tens of thousands of other natural scientists who have ‘defected’ will be chuckling “Geez – you took your time!”

    As I said – thankfully I stuck with my scientific principles and dared to question. That’s what science does. I am embarrassed that I actually used to believe this AGW religion. There is no such thing as consensus in science. Consensus in propaganda. Propaganda begets faith. Faith begets religion.

    1. Jim says:

      Our visitors aren’t randomly stumbling in. There’s a link over at a website called Climate Depot inviting people to come over here and dish, which is fine, but you should probably know that’s what’s up. What is Climate Depot? An organization that says it “Aims To Redefine Global Warming Reporting” with ties to Senator James Inhofe and Rush Limbaugh.

      Anyone who says there isn’t consensus in science is most likely not a scientist. Terms and methods become standard through consensus. Findings, too: F=ma is a point of consensus arrived at through rigorous observation, and will probably remain a point of consensus until someone rigorously demonstrates that F=mad, where d equals the number of donuts piled on top.

  8. Tom says:

    Ok, let’s just keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere in greater amounts each year, as well as methane (from the melting Tundra – see Siberia for ex.), and pollute all we want with no concern (for the droughts, floods and stronger storms that have been both predicted and verified as happening as a result of the “myth).

    Happy now?

  9. kim says:

    Heh. We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know. Your poor trace gas is such a weak greenhouse agent it can’t even keep the earth warm.

  10. kim says:

    If you got the idea that the South Pole is warming from the January Nature article by Eric Steig et al, then look again. He’s just published a corrigendum that makes the significance of his finding much less impressive. On top of that, he’s apparently PLAGIARIZED the corrigendum from a skeptic, Hu McCullough. Details at

    1. Green Man says:

      Kim, can you cite a recent scientific study that specifically refutes the conclusions in Attribution of polar warming to human influence by Nathan P. Gillett, Dáithí A. Stone, Peter A. Stott, Toru Nozawa, Alexey Yu. Karpechko, Gabriele C. Hegerl, Michael F. Wehner & Philip D. Jones , published in Nature?

      The study shows warming at both polar regions that could only be explained by human effects.

  11. kim says:

    Tom, your New York Times is just doing it’s silly little thing. Sure climate change happens, in accordance with natural forces, and that can bring unpredictable changes that may be a security threat. But whether that has anything to do with CO2 is not addressed in the article. The thrust of the article, which is propaganda, depends on the credulousness of you faithful believers in the demonization of CO2.

    Jim, glaciers respond to local influences. All over the world, including in Alaska, some glaciers are growing, some are stagnant, and some are receding. Granted, with the general warming of the last 200 years, glaciers are ‘generally’ smaller than before, and that will not reverse until generalized global cooling sets in in earnest.

    I believe the earth will cool for at least 2-3 decades because of the oceanic oscillations now in their cooling phase. If the present somewhat unusual behaviour of the sun is presaging a new Grand Minimum, then we may well cool for a century or more.

    We far more likely face climate catastrophe from global cooling than global warming. Even minimal cooling will produce crop failures that will result in mass, maybe very large mass, starvation. If we’ve been wrongfooted into mitigating a warming that isn’t happening instead of adapting to a cooling that is happening, then there will be Hell to pay for those who so wrong-footed us.

    So pay attention. Will your grandchildren curse your memory for what you are presently doing, or bless it?

    1. Green Man says:

      Uh-huh. And, Kim, do you say that the Urban Heat Island effect is also what explains warming temperatures in the Rocky Mountains – endangering the American pika?

  12. kim says:

    Sorry, ITimes, on the question of climate, Nature, and Science too, are sick true believers in the paradigm that CO2=AGW. This paradigm is collapsing, and the credibility of those journals with it.

    The present temperature series, which show global cooling for the last 4-6 years, refute that recent warming has been due to man. That is data, honey, not warped propaganda from unobjective scientists.

  13. Green Man says:

    So, I see that you cannot cite any study that contradicts the finding that both polar regions are warming, as found in the study Attribution of polar warming to human influence.

    Kim, your belief that the most prestigious scientific publications on the planet are not reliable sources of information indicates a kind of religious devotion to the idea that global warming is not taking place.

    If you won’t accept peer-reviewed scientific studies published in Nature and Science, just because of a belief that some un-named people who work at those journals are “sick”, I don’t think that you can expect to be taken seriously by people who respect the scientific process.

    You’ll get loads of support from the American Petroleum Institue, however.

    1. AztecBill says:


      Do you like to play Jeopardy?

      Answer: 1 Million Square Miles of Sea Ice.

      1. AztecBill says:

        (Opps) The Answer should be: 1 Million Square Kilometers of Sea Ice.

        1. AztecBill says:

          Seems no one wants to play.

          The question is: How much more Arctic sea ice is there today compared to the same date in 2007?

          The answer yesterday was:

          1,021,719,000,000 square meters.

  14. kim says:

    So, you refuse to look at the temperature series, which show falling temperatures as the CO2 levels continue to rise?

    And ad hominems like your last sentence are as unpersuasive as propaganda from ‘prestigious scientific publications’, which is an illicit argument to authority.

    Steig’s analysis is now so insignificant that it should be withdrawn. Instead, Nature publishes his corrigendum which is the work of another man? Get real, here.

    1. Jim says:

      Do you mean this kind of temperature series?

      UK Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia

      (Source: UK Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia)

      My, my. What a big cooling trend!

      1. Bobbo says:

        How about continuing the graph after 2000? You’ll find it’s going down.

      2. AztecBill says:

        Isn’t it amazing that the slope from 1910-1940 is steeper than the slope from 1975-2000? To what do you attribute the steep slope of temperature increase before the recent rise in CO2? It is pretty hard to argue that the first rise is natural and the second is not.

        1. Jim says:

          Why would I want to argue that the first rise is natural and the second not, AztecBill?

          1. AztecBill says:

            Simple. The big increase in CO2 didn’t begin until 1940s. If CO2 is the main driver of climate, why is the pre-1940 increase in temperature sharper than the post 1940 increase? Also why when CO2 really took off in the 1940s did temperature go in the opposite direction for 30 years? These are all questions that arise because CO2 hasn’t tracked real well with temperature. What does? The 60 year Ocean cycle. It doesn’t take much of a leap to see what the real driver of climate is.

            But the question is: why is 1910-1940 a steeper rise than 1975-2000? That is the only question I ask. My post above only explains why that question is important. I fully expect diversion into my reasons instead of answers to my question.

          2. Jim says:

            1. No, it’s not amazing. The slopes for the two periods, if not exactly the same, are roughly so.

            2. The big increase in CO2 did NOT begin after the 1940s. The big increase in CO2 began in the 1800s, coincident with the industrial revolution:

    2. Green Man says:

      Right. You can’t find a single study that contradicts the one I cited, and you’re babbling on about other things trying to distract from that fact.

      Citing “prestigious scientific publications” isn’t an illicit (illegal) “argument to authority”. It’s a reference to the importance of consensus and peer review in the scientific process.

      You can’t deal with Nathan P. Gillett, Dáithí A. Stone, Peter A. Stott, Toru Nozawa, Alexey Yu. Karpechko, Gabriele C. Hegerl, Michael F. Wehner & Philip D. Jones, so you focus on your anger at Steig, Steig, Steig.

      Your arguments are falling apart, Kim.

  15. kim says:

    The amusing thing is that until Steig came along with his bogus analysis, the warmista, alarmist, community claimed that the cooling in Antarctica was predicted by the Global Climate Models. Truth be known, those GCM’s have no regional predictive skill, something that Hanson lied about 20 years ago in Congressional testimony. So which is it? Is Antarctica warming or cooling. If you can’t even answer that question, how are going to attribute cause to the change. Do you see how silly some of this stuff is?

    And how about a previous commenters point that the Arctic was warmer in the 1940’s? This presumably before man had much effect on climate.

    There is just too much dissonance now to believe in the paradigm that CO2=AGW. That paradigm has been attractive because it is so SIMPLE and because it feeds into the correct desire to keep our environment as clean as possible. But it is just much too simple, given that we are now discovering just how complicated the heat engine is that is our world’s climate regulating mechanism. There is far more not yet understood about climate regulation than we now know. For instance, the mechanism by which the sun runs the climate, if it does, is completely unknown. Svensmark’s cosmic ray thesis may explain part of it, but nobody yet knows.

    With climate, we are in an analogous position with the origin of species before Darwin. You are advocating a position that will be demolished as simpleminded soon, just as Darwin demolished a ‘simple’ idea about the origin of man.

    Truly, look at the whole question with an open mind. Skepticism is real science, and the skeptical attitude toward climate science is growing and healthy.

  16. kim says:

    Well, jim, first of all, your series truncates at 1940, just when 30 years of relative cooling thanks to the ocean oscillations started. At the end of that period, around 1970, another warming period started, which has been incorrectly attributed to CO2. Now, we’ve entered the next 30 year cooling phase.

    That the warming of the last quarter of the last century is attributed to CO2 is the grandest example yet of the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc logical fallacy. CO2 and Temperature rose together during that period, but it was co-incidence, something shown now by the divergence between the two curves, with CO2 continuing to rise, while temperature falls.

    Look at the satellite atmospheric temperature series from RSS and UAH. The surface based temperature series also show this relative recent cooling, but not so dramatically. The surface based series are compromised for Urban Heat Island effect that is haphazardly adjusted for and by terrible placing of many thermometers.

    The highest recent temperatures were in 1998, but if you look carefully at the temperature series, the globe continued to warm until about 2004, in concert with the temperature phase of the oceanic oscillations.

    Check it out; you’ve nothing to lose but your fears, your ignorance, and your dangerously flawed policy preferences.

    1. Jim says:

      The series doesn’t truncate at 1940.

      If your cooling temperature argument has to do a period after 2004, a period during which global temperatures remain quite a bit higher than the mean, that’s arguing with a very low number of data points.

      I am willing to be a skeptic, and am willing to conclude that global warming isn’t happening, when I actually see it not happening.

    2. Jim says:

      No, it doesn’t truncate at 1940. One can see it clearly truncates in the mid 1800s.

  17. kim says:

    Whoa, GM, you can interpolate comments? In the great world, the Rockies are an anecdote. Look at the satellite tropospheric temperature series. We are cooling, and all these studies showing regional and generalized warming over the last quarter of the last century are now beside the point. Sure it warmed, but not because of man. Now we are cooling. Deal with it, or many die. Just please don’t murder even more with a mistaken emphasis on carbon dioxide.

    1. Green Man says:

      The Rocky Mountains present an anecdote that doesn’t fit the assertion in the original article, which you seem to have forgotten about. The person I talked to said that she thought measurements of global warming were just taken in cities, and that temperatures in non-urban places show cooling. It’s an example that doesn’t fit her claims. It’s not in itself proof, but it joins with other measurements taken around the globe, and they all together firmly establish global warming.

  18. kim says:

    It’s sort of amusing to run across a blog where it is still believed that the globe is warming. The big boys have moved on to claiming that the recent cooling is just long ‘weather’ and that the warming will start again soon. Their argument can be turned on its head though, to explain the warming of the last quarter of the last century.

    Tsonis et al, in a marvelous study this year from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, show that the temperature record of the last century is best explained by the coupling and uncoupling of a number of natural cycles, foremost among them the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which cycles on an approximately 60 year period. We’ve now entered a cooling phase. You can see the effect of it on jim’s graph posted earlier; see the cooling from 1880 to 1910.

    Thanks jim. I love it when my opponents make my points for me. It’s kind of inevitable, though.

    1. Green Man says:

      By “big boys” do you mean the American Petroleum Institute?

    2. Jim says:

      So… cooling from 1880 to 1910 shows that global warming now is a hoax?

  19. kim says:

    Wow, you sure know how to hobgobble a conversation with your interpolation of comments.

    Too bad you can’t respond to my points and stick instead with your argument to authority. That is not a logical fallacy when your authorities are correct, but in climate, the alarmist authorities are plain wrong. See all my points, and see the growing consensus among skeptical scientists that the CO2=AGW paradigm is just wrong.

    Watch the thermometers; they are more persuasive than all your mistaken hypotheses. Data, man, data.

    Sure CO2 has a greenhouse gas effect. The urge for fatal policy prescriptions to combat that effect is from the exaggeration of its effect by ascribing a large positive feedback from water vapor in the assumptions underlying the GCM’s. Those assumptions appear to be wrong, with water vapor now appearing to have a small negative feedback effect, or at least a variable one. In addition, the models parameterize clouds and convection inadequately.

    I think I’ve never heard so loud
    The quiet message in a cloud.

  20. kim says:

    No, honey, by big boys I meant the Realclimate crew. They will admit the globe is cooling; they think it is just temporary.

  21. kim says:

    What’s really important, since the heat capacity of the ocean is so huge compared to that of the atmosphere is the slight worldwide cooling shown in the ocean since about 2004. Josh Willis has a series from 3000 Argos buoys measuring the temperature of the first 700 meters of the ocean all around the world, and they show cooling.

    A wise one once said the the climate is the continuation of the ocean by other means.

  22. kim says:

    The degree to which the surface temperature series are corrupted is unknown, those being HadCru and GISS. The satellite tropospheric temperature series, UAH and RSS use competing algorithms on publicly available data to show cooling for the last five years or so. HadCru and GISS hide their data and their algorithms, such that no one can figure out what they are doing. Nonetheless, they also show relative cooling, HadCru more than GISS, but both less than UAH and RSS.

    Give it up, Green Man; you really don’t quite know enough about the current science. I’d recommend Pielke Pere’s site,, Steve McIntyre’s site,, Anthony Watts’s site, as well as and, these last two being aggregating sites. They are all skeptical sites, so hold your nose, but open your eyes as you enter.

  23. kim says:

    jim, 11:29. No, cooling from 1880 to 1910 show the effect of the oceanic oscillations, and that is the phase of the PDO that we are in now. I expect the temperature curve from 2005 to around 2035 to show approximately what you so kindly showed us from 1880 to 1910.

  24. kim says:

    jim, 11:36. On my computer, your graph truncates at 1940. If you can see further, note the cooling from 1940 to 1970. That’s what’s just starting now.

  25. kim says:

    jim @11:36: My argument depends upon recent, granted only very recent, cooling and the explanation of the oceanic oscillations to predict further cooling for two to three decades. I note that you admit recent cooling, though claiming it is too short-lived to be significant. I understand that but when you add the prediction, from the oscillations, then it seems that you’ll inevitable become a skeptic as the globe further cools. Frankly, I can ask for nothing more. I’m not really trying to persuade you; I’m hoping to lead you to the sort of examination by which you will persuade yourself. No hurry, buddy, but please, suspend the lethal policy prescriptions until we know a little more.

  26. kim says:

    By the way, Green Man, I very much appreciate the forum, and I congratulate your lack of editing or banning. The big boys, Tamino, Joe Romm, Steve Benen, Matt Yglesias, P.Z Myers, all deleted or banned me instead of refuting me. Andy Revkin did not and I congratulate his honesty and curiosity. He’ll get there eventually, but AGW is deep in his soul and has been for many years.

    1. Pepe says:

      Myers is creepy. He gives me the willies.

  27. ReMarker says:

    Climate change data, typical of ANY data about anything (facts, trend observations, or fiction), including whether humans have visited the moon and/or whether the earth is flat (I know Jamaicans that have these beliefs), can be believed or not depending on an individual’s “interpretation” of the data, and is based on a variely of factors, factual and/or mythical.

    In so far as global warming being a fact, is concerned, it is hard to imagine that global warming does not exist. We can view before and after pictures and videos of massive ice melts in many places on the earth, that haven’t happened in 10’s of thousands of years, according to scientist’s ice core studies, link:
    It is also hard to imagine ocean levels are not rising if you live on a South Pacific island and had to move away from your ancestral home because water is there now .

    Whether people believe humans contribute to global warming or not, the facts that remain are:

    A. The average surface temperatures of the earth is currently rising.
    B. Earth temperature changes (small and large) have good and bad consequences, mostly bad (refer to Jim’s link to an article in the NY Times concerning the potential consequences of humans being displaced because of a rising earth surface temperatures). However, if the ocean levels rise, and even if coastal cities are flooded, I will be closer to the ocean.
    C. Earth “energy related” natural resources (oil, coal, etc.) are finite.

    I think there are several “global warming effecting” actions that are prudent for all Americans to take, even if global warming is not the prodominate reason. With such actions, it is probable many negative effects of global warming can be mitigated considerably.

    Prudent actions and probable benefits:
    Action: Reduce the use of and find reasonable alternatives to energy related finite natural resources. ie. oil and coal.
    Probable benefit/s: Reduced green house gases, less dependence of foriegn controlled energy, keeps 100s of billions of dollars spent on foreign controlled energy here in America, increases American industies that are marketable world wide (including transportation energy efficiency and alternate enegy sources technologies), reduced negative impacts on natural resources in terms of animal hapitat (including humans), reduced negative influences on the asthetics of natural resources, to name a few.

    My conclusion: It is dumb to take no action!!!

    1. ReMarker says:

      PS. I applaude and support the positions of the Obama administration in terms of their initiatives designed to mitigate the negative effects of increased global surface temperatures. ie. better fuel effiency standards, alternative “energy source” research funding, grants to alternative “energy source” businesses, etc.

  28. kim says:

    ReMarker, the Precautionary Principle is a paean to ignorance. Please look up ‘lost opportunity costs’.

    The sea level rise has been going on for longer than man has been producing CO2, and seems to have ameliorated just in the last three years. The South Sea Island hysteria about disappearing islands seems to be from the land sinking more than from sea rising.

    The Arctic Sea Ice Extent at minimum hit a low in 2007, and, on a seasonally adjusted basis, is now rising. Consonant with a cooling globe the Arctic is now freezing back up. The ‘massive ice melts’ are from the Antarctic Peninsula which has been warming locally for unknown reasons. The bulk of Antarctica is probably cooling. The ice behaviour of the rest of the earth responds to local conditions. I’m also not trying to argue that the earth didn’t warm for the last quarter of the last century; I’m claiming that it is now cooling and will be for the indeterminate future. So much for melting ice.

    Granted, we’ll run out of fossil fuel eventually, or at the least, it will be priced out of the energy market. Why corrupt the market unnecessarily in the meantime with carbon encumbrances, and expensive and wasteful mandates and subsidies for other forms of energy production?

    There is little doubt that it is important to keep the earth clean. You must keep your room clean, too, else it becomes unlivable. Don’t distract us from legitimate efforts to preserve the environment by senseless chasing of the CO2 will o’ the wisps.

    1. ReMarker says:

      So what? It’s still dumb to do nothing!!!

      Particularly taking into consideration your observation,
      “Granted, we’ll run out of fossil fuel eventually, or at the least, it will be priced out of the energy market. Why corrupt the market unnecessarily in the meantime with carbon encumbrances, and expensive and wasteful mandates and subsidies for other forms of energy production?

      Why wait? Sooner or later we must do something about energy sources. The sooner we try to mitigate the negative effects, the fewer people will be adversely effected. Even though it would be fun for me to travel 20 miles to the beach instead of my current 50 mile trip, I’m happy to drive the 50 if it is possible millions of people would be better off.

      It is extremely likely if we disregard the impact of running out of oil, as you suggest, then the economic catastrophy our country and the world is currently experiencing will seem minor.

      BTW, the energy market that you don’t want to corrupt, sucks 600 billion dollars + out of our (American’s) hands each year.

  29. kim says:

    Ah, I see how the interpolating is done; it’s through the reply function. Well, I don’t like it much, but it’s nice to see the way it fouls up a conversation is not deliberate. I can see one advantage in that the reply is spatially close to the originating remark.

    Temporally, though, chaos results.

    1. ReMarker says:

      Yep, everyone has a say and everyone can read it. No control here.

  30. ron from Texas says:

    A remark was made in the article that the warming temps were measured at the poles. This is completely erroneous.

    The network of temp sensors is mostly in the continental US and there numerous documented cases of temp stations that were built around with concrete and asphalt. A house gets built and the sensor is less than 10 feet away from the outside compressor unit. A little bit of basic physics and mechanics, here. There is a fan motor that draws air in through the condenser coils and blows the hot air from the coils out and away. This hot air impacts the nearby temp station. The actual average temp in the area might be 80 F but the addition of the condenser heat nearby could make the sensor read a few degrees warmer.

    But all that might be moot. Real climatologists, such as Dr. John Christy, was the original lead author of the IPCC report, uses satellite and weather ballon data. Christy’s initial report for the IPCC was lobotomized. They completely removed the summation where he said that there was no evidence that we were forcing global warming through CO2 output. So, he removed himself from the IPCC. The refused to take his name off the list of “consensus.” So, he and others had to threaten a lawsuit to get their names removed.

    What does the sat and balloon data show? No warming since 1998. And a good deal of cooling since 2007.

  31. ron from Texas says:

    Also, the comment was made by another person that the 60 german scientists included people not specializing in climate. First off, you don’t have to be a climate expert to see bad science. Physics is physics, regardless of what branch of science one is in. Secondly, the director of the IPCC is not a scientist and not a climatologist. He is an economist. So, who’s going to check the credentials of whom?

    1. Green Man says:

      Ron, you may be from Texas, but even a Texan can’t make an economist a scientist, as your “60 German scientists” list claims.

      The Director of the IPCC is not one of the people who conducts the scientific work of the IPCC. He’s the person who, you know, directs the IPCC.

      Why do people who deny climate change grasp at straws like this, rather than admitting that they’re just plain wrong?

  32. ron from Texas says:

    Al Gore, the eminent physicist and climatologist (translation: he didn’t get to be president and now wants to rule the world through the carbon trading market (can you say Enron, et al?)) said the Larsen B Ice Shelf suffer the breakage because of excessive heat brought on by anthro CO2. Wrong. Guess what? there are two active volcanos under the west coast of Antarctica. Anyone remember the plate tectonics and vulcanism they learned in 8th grade? One of the volcanos is located right under where Larsen B broke. I don’t have a degree in science but even my public education (back when it meant something) taught me a few things.

    1. Green Man says:

      Um, Ron, if the volcano was always there, and it’s the volcano that caused the Larsen B Ice Shelf to break apart, why is it that the Larsen B Ice Shelf was there in the first place?

  33. ReMarker says:

    Why disparage Gore? And how do you know he wants to rule the world? More importantly, why do you care?

    What Gore does or doesn’t do and why, will not change oil and coal from being finite natural resourses. Undoubtedly, global warming has fossil fuel/greenhouse gas “implications”, at worst. Many, including Gore, treat global warming as the “smoking gun”, that proves our inefficient, damaging, and dumb use of fossil fuels. Using our natural resources in dumb ways is the real issue, and I believe Gore knows that. If being smart about effiencies, fuel or otherwise, benefits all of us, in America and the whole world, then what’s the problem?

    1. Montag says:

      So just how big is Algore’s Carbon Butt Print?

      Huge mansion, private jets, multiple-SUV motorcades. Hmmm… He really cares about the environment, doesn’t he. Oh, yeah! Now I remember! He took mass transit into Oslo from the airport to accept his Nobel Prize. Pity he had his luggage ride in that motorcade to his hotel!

      Regardless of whether Algore is right or wrong, he plans on profiting on his prophesies of AGW disaster. He is a major stockholder in a carbon trading company, which really doesn’t do anything to reduce CO2, but makes a lot of money for folks who “care” and makes it more expensive for all the rest of us. Maybe Algore doesn’t want to rule the world, but he certainly doesn’t want to curtail his lifestyle the way he want us to.

      Hmmm… Sound like someone who might want to rule the world after all!

  34. Ed Moran says:

    Our dumb use of fossil fuel is a fact: AGW is not!
    It may be happening. Many scientists say it is: many (less but growing) say “No” or “Not proven”.
    Gore is making his tens of millions. He’s cool either way. “I am proven correct” or “I am wrong but I’m very rich”.

    1. ReMarker says:

      Exactly. I try to make the point that global warming as a “smoking gun” is not the issue. Debating global warming causes may not move public opinion to the much needed conclusion, fossil fuels are going away, fast!!!

      However, It is entirely possible, and probable IMO, that global temperatures will benefit as we address the fossil fuel issue.

      As for Gore, you are right. He’s cool either way. He has been set from birth. His family is “old money” and that doesn’t count his “new money”. Money is not his motivation.

      1. Montag says:

        “Money is not his motivation.” ???? What?! Are you serious???!!!

        The man is cashing in BIG TIME, all thanks to the mindless lemmings who have the hubris to believe that humanity (which actually only occupies a tiny percentage of the Earth’s surface) is actually more powerful than the Sun, volcanoes, the oceans and even the climate!

        My! Aren’t we full of ourselves!

  35. Rick Spung says:

    Here’s another example of what I was referring to earlier- as new research on CO2, climate, etc. comes out, the entire community must absorb the findings and re-assess previously-held views.

    In a nutshell, the IPCC is wrong about the residence time of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. As a result, man’s contribution to the total amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere is much, much lower than previously thought. It is a waste of time and resources to try and lower the US output of CO2, because any reduction would have no effect on global temperature.

    I think it would be obvious to any objective observer that the oceans act as a large CO2 sink. When ocean temperature rises, CO2 is released. When oceans cool, CO2 is absorbed. All the research on ice cores has shown that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are driven by global temperatures, not vice versa. Increases in atmospheric CO2 lag, rather than lead, global temperature change.

  36. anon says:

    By polar, you must mean arctic. The antarctic shows very weak trends, so weak that it takes significant statistical gymnastics for the data to agree with global warming.

  37. Pepe says:

    What I can’t stomach about the global warming crowd is that they’re doom-mongers who don’t want to be proved wrong! Like some millennialist sect who won’t know what to with themselves if the End of the World comes and goes without incident. My message to them is simple: don’t worry, be happy.

  38. Sam Levine says:

    The front page of Newsweek in the 1970’s declared Global Cooling. The experts were wrong then and the global warming hysteria present today is false. Global Warming is a Hoax

    1. Jim says:

      Stop thinking dichotomously (climate change theories have been false before, therefore they cannot be true now). That’s an oversimplification. Of course scientists can be wrong. Of course they could be wrong now. But the chopped baloney put forward by your camp — either in the form of this dichotomous thinking or in the form of “6,000 Scientists Sign in Outrage!!!” petitions containing econometricians and social studies teachers — doesn’t help your case. It makes you look desperate. Keep your remarks to the science if you want to do any convincing. By all means, keep your remarks to what Newsweek said in the 1970s if you want to keep my eyeballs a-rolling.

  39. Climatologist says:

    Green Man

    You mentioned Dr. Phil Jones as someone Kim can’t deal with. Well Phil was co-author on a paper this past year that showed that urban heat island produced a contamination in China of 0.1C per decade (1 degree C per century). That despite the fact Hadley makes no adjustment for urbanization (they only include a degree of uncertainty of 0.05C per century to deal with local factors). This research said to be only applicable to China applies to the entire globe where UHI is responsible for at least half the warmth shown since 1900 according to more than half a dozen other peer review studies. The local college professor’s inclination in the story is right on target as is Kim.

  40. Rick Spung says:

    With regards to ice cover in the Arctic, you can get daily updates from this site:

    Yes, daily. It is a amazing tool. Just bookmark it and recheck it every so often. Note the minimum in sea ice cover that was hit in the fall of 2007. Then note the increase in ice cover from 2007 to 2008. And finally, note the 2009 trend, which seems to be heading for an increase over 2008. It will be extremely interesting to check the progress over the next six-eight weeks, as that is the most crucial period of the year. It will give both sides of the AGW debate an important bench mark to reference in future discussions.

    Another useful daily-updated chart can be found at:

    It is a comparison of daily Arctic temperatures verses the average temperature from 1958-2002. Note that you can also pull up a graph of each year’s results from 1958 to 2009, by clicking the appropriate year in the blue box to the left (marked Arkiv). A remarkable tool for climate enthusiasts.

    When I was growing up in Illinois in the 1970s, we had some fierce winters. Rechecking those years confirms that daily temps in the last third of the year were below the curve. In contrast, most of the recent years show late-year temps above the curve, especially 2007 (hence the loss of ice cover). So, the question will be (at the risk of repeating myself), what will this fall bring? Above-curve temps or below? Time will tell.

  41. Demesure says:

    Greenman : “Kim, can you cite a recent scientific study that specifically refutes the conclusions in Attribution of polar warming to human influence by Nathan P. Gillett, Dáithí A. Stone, Peter A. Stott, Toru Nozawa, Alexey Yu. Karpechko, Gabriele C. Hegerl, Michael F. Wehner & Philip D. Jones , published in Nature?

    The study shows warming at both polar regions that could only be explained by human effects.”
    No, the Gillett et al doesn’t show warming at “both polar regions”! You are misinterpreting the study to your own bias. If you read it, you’ll see they are saying what the IPCC said: that there is “both warming and cooling in Antarctica”, which is a half truth since only the Peninsula, which accounts for less than 3% of the whole continent, is warming. If you look at stations’ data, eg here, you’ll see cooling in most of them. Even the Steig’s paper cited above recognize Antarctica has been cooling over the past 30 years while there has been an “unprecedented” global warming. BTW, you’ll also see that the claim that there is data over 100 years for Antarctica is nonsense (just show me one Antarctica station with continuous data over 100 years, just ONE ?!?).
    And if you look at the sea ice extent around Antarctica, it has increased since data exist.

    Those are massive evidence that even the IPCC (which uses more than one paper, contrary to you) can’t deny. So it’s clueless to continue claiming “Antarctica is warming” based on a paper that you haven’t read and that you assume represents “latest data (which it does not), paper based itself on attribution models which are not falsifiable.

  42. Tom says:

    It’s not about strict warming all the time, the problem is climate change! The predictability of weather will be off, the growing seasons in our once fertile farm regions will vary to the extent that it will become harder to GROW FOOD, and drought conditions will increase where it’s been dryer and flooding will replace areas that were normally wetter in the past, and storms will increase in strength.

    It really doesn’t matter what anyone thinks about this – it’s happening despite our petty arguments. We can SEE it happening and still nothing is being done. To the commenter above who asked about what our grandchildren will think – we’ll be lucky if they can keep humanity going in the generations to come. It ain’t gettin’ any easier.

    1. Montag says:

      Hey, Tom! Here’s a newsflash:


      It did it long before humans came along. It will keep on changing as long as the Earth exists.

      Oh, and don’t sell humanity short. History, archeology and paleontology have all shown that humanity survived far worse things than a little warming in our climate. In fact, when things get warmer we tend to do a lot better!

    2. Montag says:


      that “climate change” shibboleth was invented by a Liberal PR firm because folks like farmers, who are deeply attuned to all things climactic, just don’t believe Algore. “Climate change” was an attempt to change the language so more people buy into the AGW myth.

      Basically, what you’re saying is that the AGW alarmists are right, no matter what the climate actually does. That’s not science, Tom! That’s religion.

      1. Green Man says:

        Really? Name that liberal PR firm, Montag.

        Climate change is a phrase that refers to aspects of climate change that go beyond temperature – such as alteration of precipitation and ocean acidification.

        1. Montag says:

          I couldn’t find the original New York Times story, but it does exist.

          And using “climate change” instead of “global warming” or “AGW” is simply a debating technique wherein, regardless of the facts or the arguments, your side wins. It’s like having a coin with “heads” on both sides. It may deter the weak minded, but you’re not getting one over on me!

  43. kim says:

    Tom, and it isn’t CO2 that is making the climate change. Humans have been adapting to climate change since we’ve been humans. That is not to say that there won’t be trouble from climate change, the Mayan civilization crashed and burned because of a drought from climate change. The take home lesson is that the climate change is not man’s fault. The key word is Adaptation, not Mitigation.

    1. Jim says:

      You can keep saying that, you keep linking to other documents that say that, but you haven’t demonstrated that CO2 is not responsible for climate change.

    2. ReMarker says:

      I hope this helps your enlightenment.

      Webster’s definitions:
      Adaptation – adjustment to environmental conditions
      Mitigation – to cause to become less harsh or hostile.

      ADAPTATION IS THE RESULTS OF OUR ACTIONS TO MITIGATE. The two can’t be seperated, by definition.

      1. AztecBill says:

        We must adjust to environmental conditions because we can’t cause them to become less harsh or hostile. Adaptation will occur because Mitigation is impossible. But, it seems, we will have to Adaptate to the results of the attempts to Mitigate. That may be harder to do.

  44. ReMarker says:

    Global warming or not, climate change or not, scientist or not, all life on earth has a “footprint”. Humans have the most profound footprint, short of volcanos and meteors. Unless someone is as dumb as a stump or doesn’t think about it (the difference is debatable) they realize that fact.

    One of the main ways humans obsolve themselves from the responsibility of mitigating the negative effects (also debatable) of their “footprints” is to believe God is controling earthly things, so humans don’t have to fault themselves. (God is doing it so it’s 1. OK and 2. not my bad).

    I choose to believe there are things I can do to help my home, my county, my state, my country, and the “spaceship earth” be a better place for all of us (dumb or not) by embracing the fact that I leave “footprints” and taking actions that 1. mitigate my negative impact and 2. aid improvement.

    I believe the NY Greenfest participants want to 1. mitigate their nevative impact and 2. aid improvement.

    It’s probable the anti-global warming faction of the “global warming pissing contest” DON’T.

    1. Montag says:


      I defy you to name one species that ever appeared on this planet that did not 1, change the environment, 2) cause the extinction of some species, 3) make new homes for other and newer species.

      Humanity is doing nothing that Nature, all by herself, doesn’t do, bigger, badder, dirtier, and more brutally. Oil spills are often natural occurrences resulting from seepage under the sea. Where are the nice folks in their white moon suits and their Dawn detergent to clean up those messes?

      1. Green Man says:

        Montag, your note shows the same lack of sophistication as someone who says, upon reading a story of people being burned alive, says, “So what? The sun comes up every day and increases the temperature, so what’s happening to those people is just like what happens in nature.”

        1. Montag says:

          Green Man…

          Your comparison is warped and twisted, besides being weak at best. The first life on this planet was anaerobic, gradually poisoning its environment with oxygen. It almost totally wiped itself from the Earth, but it left room for aerobic life to flourish. This is but one example of what I was trying to say.

          Put another way, one can make the case that, other than differences in scale, Manhattan Island today is no different than a termite hill on the plains of the Kalahari: Both emit gasses that can be considered pollution, both change wind patterns, both create heat island effect, both change the landscape.

          Trying to compare this line of thought to burning people alive is, itself, a lack of sophistication. Surely you can do better than that!

          1. Green Man says:

            Actually, Montag, with all those words, you didn’t take a single step toward refuting my critique of your own argument.

            Try again.

          2. Montag says:

            What you did, Green Man…

            …was set up a straw man (people burning alive) to refute my argument that Mankind is only doing what Nature does bigger, badder, dirtier. What you did is impugn an argument to me that I never made and then refuted that.

            That is why your comparison was warped, twisted, weak and unsophisticated. It took no stock of what I was actually saying, while claiming what you wanted to hear to me.

            Again, I’ve come to expect such rhetorical dirty tricks from folks on the Left. It happens every time they can’t refute my argument.

  45. Kevin says:

    whoa… lots of crazy on this post..

    “The big boys, Tamino, Joe Romm, Steve Benen, Matt Yglesias, P.Z Myers, all deleted or banned me instead of refuting me..”

    yea think? why would they ban someone who put up only 15 consecqutive posts of illogic and lies? hmmm.


    El Nino will dominate and we will once again set new temp records.

    If you look at the basic science of CO2 emission, absorbtion by the oceans, and greenhouse effects, you can see a clear trend that we have added huge amounts into the atmosphere and most of it has been absorbed into the oceans. Once they are sturated/supersaturated we will have acidic oceans and rapidly increasing atmosperic co2. temps will rise dramatically…

    I think its already too late to avoid severve dislocation of food, water and housing resources. I have a place up in the hills of PA where it is cool and we have lots of water. The Adirondaks and parts of Maine look good…

    1. AztecBill says:

      Don’t count on El Nino to change the data much. El Nino’s are shorter and have less effect during PDO’s negative phase. During a positive PDO phase El Ninos are longer and have more effect (see 1998).

    2. Montag says:

      Kevin, I have a question: What is the “normal” temperature of the Earth?

      We know that climate has changed radically in the past, even before our technological development. It is an historical fact that when the climate was much warmer than it is to day (the Medieval Warm Period, for instance) folks live quite well. In fact, that was when Greenland got its name.

      Here’s another question: Why is it, in Algore’s graphs of temperature and CO2 levels, the CO2 peaks about 800 years AFTER the temperature peak? Could it be that the oceans, like a warm bottle of seltzer, releases more CO2 into the atmosphere when it’s warmer and dissolve more CO2 out of the atmosphere when it’s cooler?

      Face it, Boys and Girls! Humanity only covers a tiny percentage of the Earth’s surface. Nature does everything — without exception — that humans do and does it bigger, badder and dirtier. Nature doesn’t send out those earnest young folks in their white moon suits and Dawn detergent to clean up after itself. And we puny humans cannot possibly have a greater effect on our planet than the Sun, cosmic rays, ocean currents or anything else that might really affect the climate.

      To think otherwise is an exercise in hubris that would shame even the alleged god-kings of the ancient world. Our meteorologists can’t even tell us the weather next week. And we’re going to trust computer models and their predictions for 100 years in the future?

      Talk about unsophisticated thinking!

      1. Green Man says:

        More weird reasoning, Montag. You claim that, because humanity “only covers a tiny percentage of the Earth’s surface”, humanity can’t be to blame for climate change, although the main channels of human influence on climate are not related to surface area, but to changes in the way that resources are exploited. You might as well say that a man holding a smoking machine gun didn’t have anything to do with all the corpses around him, because he only covers a tiny percentage of the surface area of the field where he’s standing.

        Are you truly unaware of the depth of nonsense that you’re writing?

        1. Montag says:

          Again, Green Man! A straw man argument.

          Regardless of how populous we are or how we use our resources, we cannot do anything that would obviate the effects of things like the Sun, vulcanism, orbital mechanics, cosmic rays, and ocean currents.

          The simple fact is, no matter how many “machine guns” we have, we are just not powerful enough to do that!

          To believe otherwise is hubris and unsophisticated thinking!

  46. chicken little says:

    The people with the most to gain from Global Warming are groups like the Sierra Club who have seen donations skyrocket. So of course they are going to (and do) promote climate fears and misinformation. Climate lobbyists out number oil companies reps by 1,300 to 1.

    1. AztecBill says:

      And the government has given $79 Billion to those who promote AGW. If you are on the side of truth, you must fight for very small amounts that some evil oil company shells out :> Wanting another $79 Billion, those firmly attached to the government teat, fight to keep the current mental state of “crisis” intact. Those in government, the press, and entertainment who are statists see this “crisis” as a means to an end they have always desired. So, of course, they are on board.

  47. Les Evenchick says:

    What is going on is more extremes in weather, higher highs, lowere lows, more and stronger tornadoes, hurricanes, and blizzards.

    Human intervention in the climate has caused greater instability.

    So its not specificly global warming though the rise in temperatures has been enough to cuase massive glacial melting.

    Sick your heads in the sand if you wish but greater weather problems are ahead of us.

    1. Montag says:

      Hey, Les!

      So why are there fewer hurricanes? Why are there fewer tornadoes in the Midwest? And why, as noted by geologist Robert Felix, are 90% of the worlds glaciers growing?

      The problem with the claim that human activity is destroying the climate is that we are simply too small and insignificant to be capable of it. How can we even hope to compete with the Sun, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, and ocean currents?

      And what of all the climate change that went on long before we even existed, let alone had an Industrial Revolution? How did we do that?

      Face it, Les! We just don’t have that kind of power!

      1. Green Man says:

        Fewer than when, Montag? Can you conceive of the concept of weather variation within larger climate changes?

        1. Montag says:

          Well, Green Man…

          …I clearly recall Hurricane Katrina being blamed on Pres. Bush and his environmental policies. We were told (I believe that Algore said it, although I could be wrong) that we will see more and stronger storms of that ilk. None of which has come true as yet.

          Mann’s various “hockey stick” graphs have been thoroughly debunked, so we can’t find any help there.

          Yes, weather varies within a given climate, just as climate varies. And nothing we as humans do is powerful enough to counteract the various cycles of the Sun, orbits, vulcanism, ocean currents, and even climate variation. To believe otherwise is hubris of the highest order.

      2. Jim says:

        Not to be too picky, Montag, but the pace of hurricane formation was faster over the last decade than at any time for a thousand years.

        1. Montag says:

          Alright, Jim!

          Then why is it that we are only up to Anna and Bill in this year’s hurricane season, which is almost over?

          1. Jim says:

            Because you’re using a different unit of time. Duh.

          2. Montag says:

            This reasoning is thoroughly circular.

            AGW must be right, therefore any evidence, one way or the other, is proof that AGW is right. The fact is, no hurricane expert will dare say that AGW contributes to more and bigger hurricanes Since 2004, the frequency and severity of hurricanes had decreased, rather than increased. Further, average temperatures have declined since 1998 (Dr. Roy Spencer, using NASA data) and the Arctic icecap is at or exceeding 1979 levels.

            Furthermore, no one has demonstrated that mankind has a greater impact on Earth than the Sun, vulcanism, ocean currents, cosmic rays or even the climate itself.

            I stand by my statement that AGW is nothing but a myth put forward by those who would separate you from your money and your Liberty. You see, green really is the new red!

  48. Kevin says:

    who wants to warm the earth? no one has billions to promote emitting even more CO2 except teh oil and fossil fuel companies.

  49. ron from Texas says:

    Um, Green Man. Not all volcanos are constantly erupting or erupting with the same intensity. Secondly, how many times may have Larsen B broke off even a little bit and we didn’t know it because we didn’t have satellites or observers down there? This one documented case of Larsen B breaking off doesn’t constitute proof of AGW. See, that’s science, as opposed to religion. In science, you don’t always assume something just because it’s convenient to your weltanschauung.

    1. Green Man says:

      So, for example, I wouldn’t have to come up with a scenario in which volcanoes never observed to be related to Larsen B ice sheet breakup are nonetheless responsible for it, on the basis of an assumption that Larsen B has been doing certain things while people aren’t watching, with no evidence left of these events?

  50. ron from Texas says:

    Les, what increased storms? I live in tornado alley and though we’ve had a few this year, it is actually below average. I live in Texas, so we also suffer from hurricanes. And we haven’t had a named atlantic storm this year, yet. By the way, hurricane season starts June 1. So, you might try watching the news before you declare that we’ve had more outbreaks of severe weather. The biggest storm in recent memory was Katrina but it hit the Grand Isle, not New Orleans, as a cat 3 downgrading to cat 2. In 1954, New Orleans was hit by Bertha, a cat 3. Same problem then as this time. The levees broke and Lake Ponchartrain flooded the city. The Army Corp of Engineers re-built the levees to cat 3. In the years before 2006, they mentioned that the levees needed repair and should have been upgraded to withstand cat 5. In 2005, New Orleans had a bond hearing to vote money to beef up the levees. The leaders and citizens decided against it.

    70 hours before Katrina’s landfall, Pres Bush had signed over fed disaster money and guard units and red cross were already stationed. After the storm, Mayor Nagan of New Orleans and Gov. Banco of Louisiana both denied the Guard and Red Cross access to New Orleans for fear of drawing more people into the city. Yet, people want to blame Bush for it. Then again, those are just facts. What do I know?

  51. Dubld says:

    Here’s an idea. If people who DON’T believe in Global Warming DON’T believe in Global Warming, and people who “DO” believe in Global Warming DON’T believe in Global Warming, then maybe you few stragglers that actually truly do, are just incredibly stupid. I know that’s a tough reality to face, but the fact is there are those who lie outside the bell curve, and it has to be someone. Given the absolutely hilarious “proof” of global warming that some of you are offering, I’m quite inclined to believe that its you.

    I am a chemical physicist. If I even felt any of you die-hards had the capacity to understand them, I could give you a thousand reasons why Global Warming is a laugable idea. But of course none of you would believe it because you are convinced that some evil military industrial new world order oil company has brainwashed me. An idea that ties in nicely with the conspiracy theory that explains why you are stupid and complete failures in life. It’s not because you are ACTUALLY stupid, its just that well funded forces beyond your control are throwing obstacles at you. Is that about how it goes?

    Newsflash. You’re ACTUALLY stupid. The best thing you can do is trust the overwhelming majority of scientists who REJECT Global Warming wholesale. It is a hoax and it will cost you dearly. So you have to believe that, despite the contempt I harbor for your ignorance, that I am in fact telling you this for your own good. Take it or leave it, but you better be ready to own the outcome. Because you certainly will be paying for it.

    1. Jim says:

      Can I sum up there, Dubld? You are really smart, you have proof that global warming isn’t happening, and you could show us that proof if you wanted to, but you don’t want to show us that proof. And we’re all stupid.

      I’m bowled over.

      1. PJM says:

        Global Warming is a hoax: The optical depth of CO2 is measured in single digit meters at 390ppm and increasing CO2 levels impact change in absorbtion at a logarithmic rate, the most prevalent greenhouse gas is H2O and its prevelence attenuates CO2 impact, and every single GCM model requires the fantastic to point of absurdity positive feedback level of about 400% to ‘jack up’ CO2 impact from a nominal 1.2C/doubling CO2 to much higher, mainly by incorporating positive feedbacks from clouds and water vapor … that are not based on realism, and indeed multiple studies (Spencer, others) have data contradicting these assumptions.

        The models predict temp changes levels that the temperature data over the past 50 years does NOT confirm, indeed contradicts. They predict increases of 0.2C/decade, but CO2 increases about 40% in the past 60 years and the temperature increase was about 0.4C TOTAL, far below the model predictions.

        Data has a funny way of contradicting bad models, and the data is disproving the bad IPCC models over time.
        You can go to to get educated as to the holes in the pseudo-science behind the AGW religion, or you can bask in your ignorance.

        1. PJM says:

          Ooops, that should be:
          Climate Audit.

        2. Victor Erimita says:


  52. David Harrington says:

    The information campaign is much better funded than the “misinformation” campaign.

    Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified1 for giving around 23 million dollars, spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to about $2 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year. The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

    Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.)

    As an example for comparison, nearly three times the amount Exxon has put in was awarded to the Big Sky sequestration project2 to store just 0.1% of the annual carbon-dioxide output3 of the United States of America in a hole in the ground. The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaign4 , “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but don’t think about the details).

    Perhaps if Exxon had balanced up its input both for and against climate change, it would have been spared the merciless attacks? It seems not, since it has donated more than four times as much to the Stanford-based Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP).5, 6 Exxon’s grievous crime is apparently just to help give skeptics a voice of any sort. The censorship must remain complete.

  53. pauls says:

    I do not believe CO2 is a climate driver, I believe that if the SUN didn’t shine t-morrow no amount of CO2 would keep us warm for more than 2 days… I believe in energy self sufficiency because of the enormous cost increases force on to individuals from our Govt, Energy that comes from renewable Hydro. So the Math goes out the window when a renewable power source is being exploited purely for more and MORE MONEY to pay the Money changers. Something does not add up. Skeptic.

    1. Green Man says:

      The Math? The Math?!?

      You don’t have any math, Pauls. The 2 on the end of CO2 doesn’t count.

    2. Jim says:

      I do not believe that demand is a driver of price on the stock market. If stock markets were declared illegal I don’t think you could sell anything on a stock market, no matter the demand!

  54. Ralph says:

    I do not believe that electric ovens heat anything, I believe that if the ELECTRICITY were cut off tomorrow no electric oven would heat anything.

  55. Craig Goodrich says:

    “… in the polar regions, where there are no cities at all”

    … and hardly any actual thermometers…

    Any cause of general average warming will warm the poles more than the tropics, and the Arctic winter varies year-to-year with storms and currents. The Antarctic, mostly sitting on solid rock, has much less variation. Penguins and polar bears have been around for at least half a million years and done fine in global climates 2 deg C warmer than today. Relax.

    1. J. Clifford says:

      Craig, the fact that you think there are hardly any thermometers in the Arctic only shows that you’re ignorant of polar research programs. Why don’t you try to actually study the science before you take a position against it?

      1. Brian H says:

        Oh, there are lots of thermometers, all recording dutifully. But their output has been almost entirely ignored since 1990 in favour of the much more “convenient” process of extrapolating measurements from a few more comfy installations around the fringes.

        1. Green Man says:

          Are you joking, Brian? Not only are thermometers at the older stations still being monitored, additional systems for assessing present and past temperature have been established and tested and retested. Current understandings of temperature trends are based upon multiple consistent sources of information, not just “extrapolating measurements from a few more comfy installations around the fringes.”

          Goodness me, where did you hear this nonsense?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!