I loved the first paragraph: expectations were modest, and reality fell short even of that.
Climate Deal Announced, but Falls Short of Expectations
By Helene Cooper and John M. Broder, The New York Times
Published: December 18, 2009COPENHAGEN — Leaders here concluded a climate change deal on Friday that the Obama administration called “meaningful” but that falls short of even the modest expectations for the summit meeting here.
The agreement still needs to be approved by the 193 nations gathered here.
The accord addresses many of the issues that leaders came here to settle — and if signed, will represent an unprecedented effort by the nations of the world to take concerted steps to address global warming.
But the agreement appeared to leave many of the participants unhappy.
Even an Obama administration official conceded, “It is not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change, but it’s an important first step.”
“No country is entirely satisfied with each element,” the administration’s statement said, “but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress.”
The statement added, “We thank the emerging economies for their voluntary actions and especially appreciate the work and leadership of the Europeans in this effort.”
But many of those emerging economies are likely to express displeasure. Europeans said the deal does not require enough of the United States, China and other major emitters and could put European industries at a competitive disadvantage because the European Union is already subject to a carbon emissions constraint program.
The accord drops the expected goal of concluding a binding international treaty by the end of 2010, which leaves the implementation of its provisions uncertain. It is likely to undergo many months, perhaps years, of additional negotiation before it emerges in any internationally enforceable form.
“We entered this negotiation at a time when there were significant differences between countries,” the American official said.
“Developed and developing countries have now agreed to listing their national actions and commitments, a finance mechanism, to set a mitigation target of two degrees Celsius and to provide information on the implementation of their actions through national communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines,” the official said.
The money paragraphs, much further down:
The agreement contains several enumerated points asserting a general commitment to the idea that “climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time” and that “deep cuts” in global emissions are required.
In at least one earlier version, the agreement included a collective agreement among nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050 — with developed nations pledging as a bloc to reduce emissions by 80 percent over the same time period.
Those numbers were no longer present in the version circulated after Mr. Obama’s announcement.
There remain dangers, of course, since the US Environmental Protection Agency has declared CO2 to be a pollutant. When you exhale these days, you are harming the environment; to save te planet, you should inhale only.
I do wonder, of course, about how this can work. Many endangered species exhale carbon dioxide; when we take actions to save these endangered species, are we not taking action to increase their production of greenhouse gas? If we let the ice caps melt, and kill all of those polar bears, won’t that eliminate the polar bears’ greenhouse gas emissions? 
Snarkiness aside, we have to worry about the Obama Administration simply imposing costly, job-killing regulations in the name of protecting the environment. What will be signed in Copenhagen will probably be far short of a treaty, probably nothing but platitudes that won’t require Senate ratification. But that will leave open the door to unilateral executive action.
Here is the .pdf file of the Copenhagen Accord.
I must admit: I find President Obama’s inability to keep his promises quite encouraging!
My biggest fear is that EPA will write onerous regulations that only need posting for 30 days for comment that Congress wouldn’t even pass. With CO2 regulated by EPA, we have nameless, faceless bureaucrats writing regs and enforcing them. What is to stop the EPA from making powerplants put in filters and scrubbers to breakdown CO2.
Remember BO’s campaign promise that if a utility wanted to build a coal fired plant, they could, but he was going to take them broke with his polution control equipment and regulations.
Good, then the One World Government advocates didn’t make any headway.
If President Obama actually tries to emplace the more extreme parts of his campaign promises, he loses the support of the congressional Democrats who have to face the voters in 2010, and perhaps his own job in 2012.
Yorkshire wrote:
That’s because the existing less-than-whole-world-governments basically said, “Fornicate this!” when it came to imposing upon themselves costly programs subject to international verification, and non-compliance penalties.
the longer you deny the science the MORE ridiculous you look. If you cared so much about your children and grand children and the earth that God created for you your tune would be different. But, much like many Republicans, talk and action are two separate issues.
Mr Viti, even if we assume that the science is completely accurate, that global temperatures are increasing, the notion thaqt we should impoverish ourselves to try, try, mind you, to change it seems foolish to me. The human race certainly survived slightly warmer weather before; a warmer earth is a natural part of our planetary cycle.
We have a wealthy country, but not everybody in the US is wealthy. If we were to impose all of the greenhouse gas reduction programs some people think need to be put in place, most of the people in our country would see a definite drop in their standards of living. Everything would cost more, because we’d have to pay for more expensive modes of manufacture and transportation, but the end products we’d be buying would be neither better nor more plentiful. If you have to pay $50 more a month for your electric bill, that’s a real loss, $50 you don’t have available to buy other things, $50 of your labor gone, used up for no greater benefit for you and your family.
Nothing is free, and no one escapes the costs.
Dana concludes:“I must admit: I find President Obama’s inability to keep his promises quite encouraging!”
Right, a dysfunctional government, held hostage by the minority radicals and deniers, is just what we need at this juncture of war escalation; rogue nation nuclear bomb making; health care system collapse due to uninsured, under-insured, and sky rocketing costs; mortgage foreclosures continuing; job loss inordinately high; global warming/climate change inaction; growing deficits and national debt; still frozen credit market for small business and individuals!
Yeah right, let’s just return to the hands off free market system that put us into this hole to begin with.
You people are grossly ideological and ignorant, having NO concept whatsoever how to approach the challenges we face as a nation, as part of the globe we share with others.
“If we were to impose all of the greenhouse gas reduction programs some people think need to be put in place, most of the people in our country would see a definite drop in their standards of living.”
That’s exactly right, Dana, because we have let our problems go this far without being addressed. And with the obstructions, obfuscations, and denials of reality led by the ideologues on your side, our standard of living will continue to decrease, right into the lap of your daughters and their children. This is the legacy we are destined to leave them.
You big business types ought to understand the concept of investment. Well investment is exactly what is needed right not, to put this nation back on its feet, and to meet the obligations that we have for the generations to come. Problem is, you current minorities cannot see past the tips of your Pinocchio noses, moreover, you have the power to prevent the rest of us from taking necessary actions.
The future I envision does now look promising, in my view. I think we can do much, much better than this!
Yorkshire whines some more:“My biggest fear is that EPA will write onerous regulations that only need posting for 30 days for comment that Congress wouldn’t even pass. With CO2 regulated by EPA, we have nameless, faceless bureaucrats writing regs and enforcing them.”
Right on, Yorktown. The denying and obstructions on your side have forced us into the postion that we have to rely on the EPA to effect sane policy to combat global warming/climate change.
In spite of everything, the science remains solid and we have to respond. The original international agreement to do so was made in 1992. Seventeen years later, eight of which were under you know who’s administration, we have done virtually nothing to fulfill our commitments. Meanwhile, our CO2 emissions have continued to increase. This situation is simply IRRESPONSIBLE, sorry, there is simply no other word to describe our behavior. It is like our neglecting the many treaties we have made through time with our American Indians, same thing, same attitude, same neglect!
Where is our shame, our contrition, our resolve to behave better, accept our responsibilities and meet our commitments? Where is our long range planning, or is all we care about is making wars and making the wealthy wealthier?
Perry doesn’t seem to like democracy:
So, since President Obama couldn’t persuade the other nations of the world to go along with a draconian wealth-reduction plan, you think the unaccountable bureaucrats of the EPA should do it for them. Since the Congress would never pass such major poverty-increasing laws, you think that the President should just impose such restrictions by himself.
Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol for the United States in November of 1998, despite the unanimous passage in the Senate of the Byrd-Hegel Amendment, which said the United States should not do so. President Clinton, knowing that the Kyoto Protocol would be defeated, by a very wide margin, never submitted it to the Senate for ratification.
Two things are obvious: the people would like to have clean air and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and the people don’t want to pay for clean air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. When it comes right down to it, if, given a choice between wealth reduction right now and two degrees of warming avoided fifty years from now, or keeping their money, the public would choose the latter. The problems of global warming fifty years from now seem a bit remote compared to the problems of putting food on the table today.
Perry wrote:
If you have the majorities, you ought to be able to pass your agenda, whether we minorities oppose it or not. You have the presidency, a substantial majority in the House of Representatives, and a filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate. If you have a real majority of public support behind these government majorities, then don’t blame us poor minority Republicans for stopping you.
“settled science comes only in the form of physical laws while the causes behind specific phenomena are sometimes never definitively settled. And the more complex the system being observed, the longer it takes to reach a consensus about the causal mechanisms.
Even Al Gore can probably remember being introduced to Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion in high school, F=ma. This is usually our first introduction to settled science. That’s why it’s called a LAW of physics. It didn’t matter that Einstein generalized its form in the theory of relativity or that in the 1920′s it had it be replaced with a new mechanics valid at the atomic scale. At velocities small compared to the speed of light and for macroscopic objects, F=ma is settled science.
Despite Al Gore’s foolish protestations, there is no law of global warming. To the extent that global warming exists at all, it’s a complicated phenomenon with multiple inputs (human and natural), and its cause is speculated upon, but hardly known with certainty. Global warming is unsettled science, and honest investigators use settled laws of physics along with models to try to unravel its origins and implications.
To appreciate how unsettled global warming science really is, the book Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery is an indispensible and relentless handbook. Published in 2007 and stuffed with over 500 references, it shatters almost every common global warming myth.
The authors begin by pointing out eight specific “failures of the greenhouse theory” and then bludgeon global warming true believers on almost every page. For Singer and Avery, exhaustive review of the scientific literature, leads to the conclusion that global warming is natural and defined by the 1,500-year solar Dansgaard-Oeschger super cycle. The cumulative effect of the volume is to convince us that man and CO2 have little or nothing to do with the temperature changes observed through human history.
In one of many startling conclusions in the book, Singer argues that increases in CO2 levels throughout recent geologic history, are the result of global warming not the cause. Increases in global temperatures (for extraneous reasons) cause CO2 to outgas from the oceans, increasing its concentration in the atmosphere. And there’s much, much more debunking.”
Part of an column by Claude Sandroff in American Thinker, 12/19/2009. Global warming is not “setteled science”, it is a theory. And like all theories is undergoing costant revision. “Just 34 years ago settled science was manifest in Newsweek, with the declaration that the world was entering into its latest ice age, and we had better do something now or else we would all starve.” (same column).
Mr. Sandroff concludes:
“In general, the “warmers” movement, can be grouped neatly into several powerful and well-defined blocs.
Mostly liberal politicians want access to unlimited tax revenues; for scientists and pseudo-scientists global warming victory is a path to prestige and grants; for large corporations it’s a billion dollar market for trading in carbon credits, a market pioneered by Enron; for the hard left it’s a new path to dictatorial power and control; for venture capitalists like Kleiner Perkins and green start-ups at the public trough, it’s a path to alternative energy funding bonanzas; for the radical greens it’s equivalent to the unquestioned adherence to a religious faith with analogs to God (the earth), priests (Al Gore), indulgences (carbon offsets), guilt (western affluence) and penance (conservation).
But none of these things can justify or excuse upending our entire financial system or tossing our economic vibrancy, freedom and very sovereignty into the cesspool of global government. That much should be settled fact.”
AGW my or may not have certain credibility. But the problem as I see it is that with AGW the left has turned it into a matter of religious proportions. Any disagreement or questions and you are a heretic. The same can be said of health care reform. To the left it’s a matter of dogma. No compromise can be tolerated. Therefore, if you seek to think outside the box you are one of those despicable “deniers”. Or perhaps a stupid, lying idiot. I think our health care is great. I think our health insurance system needs help. But if you differentiate between the two you are a pariah. There is no room to keep the best of what we have and improve the rest. Oh no, all must be thrown out and the all-loving government will take care of us.
Translation: We’re all going to die, but at least we’ll look like we tried to do something useful.
Well, he likes the part of democracy that agrees with him, Obama, and liberal politicians. What he doesn’t seem to like is opposition politics. It drives him nuts that millions of us question Global Warming, gov’t run health care, higher taxes, or any of dozens of other items on the liberal agenda. He thinks we should all march in lockstep with his preferred ideology. I could be rude, and call this attitude of his un-American, but I’ll be nice and say it is merely childish and naive. It’s basically a two year old who won’t eat his vegetables, and instead pouts, stamps his feet, and throws his food at the wall if he can’t get his way.
JohnC, brilliant post on every level. Too many great lines to quote from, although a few of the best are:
“settled science comes only in the form of physical laws while the causes behind specific phenomena are sometimes never definitively settled. And the more complex the system being observed, the longer it takes to reach a consensus about the causal mechanisms.
Despite Al Gore’s foolish protestations, there is no law of global warming.
Global warming is unsettled science, and honest investigators use settled laws of physics along with models to try to unravel its origins and implications.
Global warming is not “settled science”, it is a theory. And like all theories is undergoing costant revision.
for the hard left it’s a new path to dictatorial power and control … for the radical greens it’s equivalent to the unquestioned adherence to a religious faith with analogs to God (the earth), priests (Al Gore), indulgences (carbon offsets), guilt (western affluence) and penance (conservation).
But none of these things can justify or excuse upending our entire financial system or tossing our economic vibrancy, freedom and very sovereignty into the cesspool of global government. That much should be settled fact.”
AGW my or may not have certain credibility. But the problem as I see it is that with AGW the left has turned it into a matter of religious proportions. Any disagreement or questions and you are a heretic. …. No compromise can be tolerated.
Again, bravo on a brilliant post. Perry, read it and learn!
And that was probably Gore’s last science lesson, i.e., in high school. He seems to have no grounding in science beyond that, after all, he got a liberal arts degree from Harvard, then dabbled in divinity school before going off to make a career in politics. When he talks about science, he sounds like a clod. He says the “Debate is over”, thus ignoring the role of enlightened skepticism in any genuine scientific endeavor, and he compares Globall Warming theory to the Law of Gravity, not realizing of course that one is proven and in the words of JohnC “Settled”, the other is still in the speculation stage at best.
Even Al Gore can probably remember being introduced to Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion in high school, F=ma.
He thought it meant filibuster.
“Settled science” is always subject to becoming unsettled. Skepticism is what drives science, but when the skeptic has not made his case, as judged by the peer review process, the science remains settled. That is the state of the science on AGW, it is settled science, since the theory has not been overturned, in fact, it has been substantiated, now for over 15 years.
There is a distinction between law and theory. Law is settled science as can be theory, but either is subject to change. For example, Newton’s laws of classical mechanics did not explain the behavior of light when near a strong gravitational field or passing through closely spaced slits. Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity did not cover the microscopic or sub-atomic particle world.
But until overturned, we go with the settled science we have, which is where we are with AGW. That there are skeptics does not constitute overturning the theory. But that is just exactly what people like Fred Singer and Dennis Avery are attempting to do, as they permit ideological arguments to creep in to their allegedly scientific treatise of cherry-picked observations.
Singer has long been a denier of AGM and has had consultant contracts with Big Oil, and in fact, in 1998 plotted with the American Petroleum Institute to launch an anti-AGM propaganda campaign which was dropped when it was leaked to the press. He also aligned himself with the tobacco industry regarding the second hand smoke issue on the side that turned out to be wrong. Thus one can hardly regard Singer as an unbiased and credible source for positions on scientific issues.
Dennis Avery is not even a scientist, has a background in the agriculture industry, and is a member of the conservative think tank The Hudson Institute. He is most famous for his opposition to organic farming, since his employer is funded by pesticide manufacturers such as Monsanto, DuPont, and Sandoz. He could hardly be called an unbiased observer and commenter, especially on the subject of AGM.
Claude Sandroff also is not a scientist, rather, he is a right wing political commenter. His latest piece is on Virtue and Sarah Palin, so yes, you can pretty well size him up wrt credibility on anything to do with AGM.
Yet these are the people that JohnC decides to rely on to make his case. I don’t buy it! I rely on scientific treatments like this one, which is presented in easy to understand terms for the non-science lay person.
John, you might consider to expose yourself to the AGW science instead of the political polygamists who exhibit ideological motivations in concert with the corporate interests whom they are being paid to protect!
Eric claims:“Perry doesn’t seem to like democracy:”
No, Eric, but democratic elections do have consequences, which you must acknowledge. When the Repubs continue to say no to everything, and obstruct legislation at every turn, what would you expect any leader to do, Repub or Dem? In this case, Obama is forced to turn to the EPA to carry out the mandate that his election has earned him the right to do. The EPA does have jurisdiction over air pollution issues; in the sense of greenhouse gases and AGM, CO2 is a pollutant.
Dana says:“If you have a real majority of public support behind these government majorities, then don’t blame us poor minority Republicans for stopping you.”
To the great consternation of the base, Obama has stretched his hand to the Repubs, solicitous of ideas and support, yet has gotten nothing in reciprocation.
To you folks, it is all about politics, all about getting Obama to fail, even if it takes neglecting the priorities of the needs of the American people. To me, this is reprehensible behavior by those on your side.
In a time of crisis, the Dems stepped up and supported a Repub President. Why don’t you do the same? Again, the answer is obvious.
Sounds to me that you don’t have a clue how science works. Just because GW theory hasn’t been “Overturned” hardly means it is “Settled”. That’s like saying the defendant is guilty because the jury hasn’t voted to acquit, never mind they’ve only been deliberating a few minutes.
But those consequences don’t involve getting to play the role of dictator, meaning no political opposition and using the Federal government (in this case, the EPA) to rule with no input from either the people or their elected representatives. You lefties objected to Iraq, but even Bush had to get the consent of the Congress, including large numbers of Democrats, to approve his actions there. You would have the president rule as an absolute monarch, which goes against everything this country stands for.
You seem to know enough about debate tactics and terminology to recognize these for what they are, ad hominem attacks, namely, smear the person’s character or motives rather than address their arguments. So what if they are conservative? That doesn’t discount the FACT that GW theory is highly speculative at best, and certainly unproven in any scientifically sound sense of the term. Your adherence to GW theory has more in common with religious belief than scientific reasoning.
Parry said:
Because we are not in a crisis situation, and the solutions President Obama has proposed to the problems we do have would make matters worse: they would not improve things, but would make us poorer in the attempt.
If the theories concerning global warming are accurate, and absolutely nothing is done to change matters, we will still survive. We may see sea levels rise of 16 inches by 2100. If so, we will adapt, as we always have. The linked article said that parts of New York City may be put at risk; if so, so what? The people of New York will adapt, and figure out ways to keep the city intact.
What the global warming alarmists would have us do is to impoverish ourselves, taking actions which might not even make a difference.
Dana prevaricates:“Because we are not in a crisis situation, ….”
On just which planet do you inhabit, Dana? That is, without a doubt, the lamest statement I’ve ever read from you on this blog.
Your side even voted against funding the troops, yesterday, just to delay the proceedings in the Senate on HCR! And you support this crappy behavior? If the move were to protest the escalation in Afghanistan, I would understand it. But to vote against the funding to delay the Senate, that’s outrageous!
The “global warming alarmists” are acting on settled science, science that you deniers have not refuted with essentially anything other than the partisan ideological attacks you are waging right here, cherry picking a few skeptics who may be honorably motivated, but turning their skepticism into a partisan ideological screed.
I have put up citations referring to the science, and not one of you deniers on here have put up a credible refutation of the science contained therein.
You people are beyond partisan, assuming that’s possible! I’d better stop right there!
Concurrent with the AGW crisis, we have an impending crisis in the supply of oil, since we are due to reach the tipping point in supply, with demand exceeding supply, in about five years, which means that energy prices will begin to rise continuously. Does it not make sense, then, to meet the AGW crisis and the pending oil supply crisis by investing heavily in alternative energy sources? This will also provide the benefit of increased jobs. But no, you folks cannot see past your noses. Instead, you prefer to continue the neglect of these problems, emblematic of the GWB years.
Eric moans:“But those consequences don’t involve getting to play the role of dictator, ….”
No playing dictator here. As I said before, the EPA is authorized by law to look after air quality. If you don’t like their policies, then you need to win the next election. That’s the way it is done in this country, you know?
Eric groans:“You seem to know enough about debate tactics and terminology to recognize these for what they are, ad hominem attacks, ….”
Wrong again, Eric, there were no ad hominem attacks. I merely pointed out the backgrounds and affiliations of these three, and gave an example of the attempt at propaganda later withdrawn when leaked. Besides, tell me, if you need to have a root canal, are you going to go to a pediatrician to have the work done. Get real!
Eric prevaricates too:“Sounds to me that you don’t have a clue how science works. “
No, Eric, I’ve recognized for a long time that you have no clue about what drives science. I gave examples to illustrate my point. Your analogy to a defendant being declared guilty is not an analagous situation, because settled science is achieved when a large body of evidence supports the settled science statement, as is the case with AGW. Your attempt to use this false analogy serves instead to illustrate your utter ignorance of the way science advances. There is no legitimate question at present that AGM is real; what is in some dispute, however, are the details of the projections into the more distant future.
Have you ever once even bothered to look at the references I have been posting here? Never mind, I know the answer; you’ve never referred to any of them! If you need me to repost one or two, let me know.
Well, Perry, if we assume that everything the AGW people have said is completely accurate, that the temperature will rise by about two degrees Celsius, do you believe that the human race will somehow become extinct because of it?
The facts are simple: the world has been as warm as the AGW people have said it will become, in the past, and we survived. If the two degree change can increase desertification in places, it can also increase the amount of arable land as we approach the poles; Greenland once supported agriculture you know!
Human beings have survived, and thrived, in arctic wildernesses, on temperate zones, in equatorial jungles and in bone-dry deserts. The adaptability of man is astounding. If the average temperature rises by two degrees, we’ll adapt and survive.
That says a lot right there that Perry would rather nobody read. And then there’s this video using GISS data, Perry:
Who are you to deny GISS data?
It’s FAR from settled, you Dumb Ass! Global Warming is speculation at best, pure alarmism at worst. There’s little evidence that global warming is real, and it’s really far more about ideology and politics than science. The global warming kooks are invariably Left Wingers who want more gov’t control over everything, and GW theory gives them the perfect excuse to do just that. If you want to live in a cave and eat worms and grass, have at it. The rest of us want a civilized life, including heat, air conditioning, and cars. Global Warming theory is just an excuse to turn us all into cave men!
Actually, you have put up nothing. When challenged by the fact that the Earth has only warmed up a mere half degree C in the past century, your response has been absolute silence.
Sorry Perry, but I suspect my background in science (as an engineering grad) is much more extensive than your own. You see science as religion, in which dogma rules, and skeptics are to be banished. I see science as a process in which facts are observed, and theories developed from them. There are no “Facts” from which to derive Global Warming theory. The Earth’s temperature may have risen a slight amount in the past century, but that rise (If real) is well within the natural fluctuation of global climate. And it may not even be real, given that our means of measuring temperatures a century ago were far less precise than today.
Face it, Perry. Global Warming is ideology, not science.
And if the next admin decides to reinstate slavery, you’ll agree to it because they won an election? Sorry, but basic principles don’t disappear because of partisan politics. An elected gov’t is accountable to the people, and nobody elected the EPA to tell us how much energy to use.
Eric lies:“Actually, you have put up nothing.”
I understand very well by now, Eric, that you are lazy, and neither put up citations nor read them yourself. I certainly have put up citations.
Moreover, you have this inflated idea that you understand science, when your comments reveal otherwise, so you fool nobody but yourself with your undeserved/unearned arrogance.
The ideology as a religion is yours, for the same reason just stated, that you make no attempt to back up your claims, none whatsoever.
As far as the EPA is concerned, your side lost the election. If you want to make a change, then get out there and campaign for your favorites the next election. You’re probably too lazy to even do that: all talk, no action. You can do better! Obama and the Dems won fair and square. I know how hard it is for you to acknowledge that fact, not surprising, because you acknowledge only the talking points that the extremists on your side throw out.
You need to expose yourself to all sides, instead of allowing yourself to be coddled like an infant by only the words you like to hear. Moreover, you need to work on your critical thinking skills, skills which depend on reliably factual information in order to be operative. I assume you’ve had others say the same thing to you; again, the signs are all there, so it’s quite obvious.
Sorry Perry, but I suspect my background in science (as an engineering grad) is much more extensive than your own
Eric, the general impression you give is as a deeply ignorant immature idiot in love with his own words. Every time I read exchanges involving you I am struck by how much goes over your head and how little you actually grasp.
You are a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Let me demonstrate:
Eric: It’s FAR from settled, you Dumb Ass! Global Warming is speculation at best, pure alarmism at worst. There’s little evidence that global warming is real, and it’s really far more about ideology and politics than science.
Reality: “Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what is most interesting is response rates compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn’t publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively published research on climate change responded yes.”
Eric: When challenged by the fact that the Earth has only warmed up a mere half degree C in the past century, your response has been absolute silence.
Reality: “Since the mid 1970s, global temperatures have been warming at around 0.2°C per decade.”
Eric: There are no “Facts” from which to derive Global Warming theory. The Earth’s temperature may have risen a slight amount in the past century, but that rise (If real) is well within the natural fluctuation of global climate.
Reality: “So we see multiple lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels, which is confirmed by the trend in carbon isotope ratios. The warming effect of CO2 is confirmed by satellite measurements of outgoing radiation and surface observations of downward radiation. The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by ocean heat measurements and summations of the planet’s total heat content.”
There’s the pot calling the kettle black! What “exposure” do you have to anything beyond what the left wing thinks? All you do is repeat their talking points, and you also seem to think winning an election means there can be no opposition to the party in power, that we opponents should just shut up and go away. Sorry, but that’s how dictatorships work, not democracies.
Phooey, you really ARE a bore. Now be a good little troll and just go away, please ..
Citations are fine, but where are the actual FACTS? You know, the stuff science is supposed to be based on? You give facts like the sea level has risen 1 1/2 inches as “Proof” of GW, when such a meager rise actually supports the skeptics like me. The average depth of the oceans is about two miles, so such a tiny rise in sea levels is practically meaningless. And that’s the problem with this “debate”. You throw out loaded statements like “The science is settled” and your side routinely engages in name calling (“Deniers”, with that term’s not-so-subtle link to Holocaust deniers) but when it comes to discussing actual facts, your side is all wet.
Well, it might be unseemly to brag up oneself in cyberspace, but I did manage to earn straight A’s in physics all through high school and college, so yeah, I do know a thing or two about how science works. Call it “arrogant” if you want, but as the saying goes, if you can do it, it ain’t bragging!
Yeah, yeah, you keep repeating that. We “Got” it already! No one denies that the Obama Admin and the EPA can’t pull off this stunt if they want, but we can also point out that it is undemocratic to use an unelected Federal agency to push through potentially sweeping changes that will impact every aspect of our economy and our lives. Like you said, you guys won, so use the power of elected office to actually vote this stuff into place., i.e., with the consent of the House and Senate which your side controls. Or could it be that such a move would prove deeply unpopular, hence Obama wants to use the Federal bureaucracy to force it on us instead?
Eric revealed:“Well, it might be unseemly to brag up oneself in cyberspace, but I did manage to earn straight A’s in physics all through high school and college, so yeah, I do know a thing or two about how science works. Call it “arrogant” if you want, but as the saying goes, if you can do it, it ain’t bragging!”
Congratulations on your “straight A’s”, Eric, but that is only the beginning to understanding science. The fact that you do not understand that fact is what is so revealing.
Let me just say that my entire career, up until the teaching part, has been spent doing scientific research and development in chemistry, resulting in numerous peer reviewed publications and patents.
You have just had more information posted, with citations, by Phoenician, which you have totally ignored, another revelation about the weakness of your personal position on this issue.
Until you make more effort to understand the science behind AGW, Eric, you are out of your league on this topic, as you yourself have so clearly demonstrated on this blog!
Perry, I gave you a video using your sacred GISS data to destroy your sacred GISS-supported AGW alarmism and yet you, as usual, continue to ignore the truth.
You didn’t even have to follow a link (which you are well-known not to follow) but just click “play” to see it.
John, your GISS data is a cherry picked piece that alone is meaningless. Father and son were very wise not to make any conclusion about the global picture based on their very limited study in the US. I’m surprised that you did not understand the inherent limitations displayed by this little project. That you did not, says something about your limited knowledge of scientific methodology.
Now you go check out my previous link, which contains answers to most questions, in layman’s terms, or check out the important evidence that Phoenician just presented. Then come back and tell us what you think.
But I do understand the “Science” behind Global Warming, what I’m looking for is the evidence! So far, it is quite weak, a very mild increase in overall temperatures combined with an even milder rise in ocean levels. I know the theory, which is that, if you put enough extra CO2 (or other greenhouse gasses) into the atmosphere, the temperature of that atmosphere will go up. But that really applies best to a dead planet like Mars or Venus. On a living planet like Earth, the number of variables is much higher, indeed, close to infinite. To come up with a theory that can take into account all those variables and then make an accurate prediction based on them, is next to impossible. At best, Global Warming theory can give us broad approximations, not precise forecasts. Nobody knows if temperatures will go up a little or a lot, or whether they’re all part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling. In short, there’s far more uncertainty than certainty in the whole thing, which is why people get annoyed when the GW advocates insist that the science is “Settled” and the debate over. That’s not science, that’s dogmatism.
Perry, I refer you back to your own statement in another thread, which went something like “cherry-picking in abundance”. I, at that point, pointed out your statement to be oxymoronic. And here, I’ll emphasize the “moronic” portion of it. How much abundance of cherry-picking of the inconsistencies of the AGW alarmists will convince an AGW religious fanatic such as yourself that there is nothing “solid” or sound or valid in their argumentation? The fact you throw away GISS data of areas very nearby heat islands just like the Manns of the world is telling. The fact you ignore GISS data that shows 111 years of zero heat growth outside heat islands is telling. The fact you accept the cherry-picked tree ring circus (you know, a single tree out of a limited group of trees in a very specific spot) while ignoring all the factual data surrounding that is telling. The fact you ignore the thuggery of the AGW alarmists is telling.
In the classic form of the Founders: You, sir, ignore the facts in support of your religious fanaticism.
Citations are fine, but where are the actual FACTS?
I gave them and the links. You avoided them like a pussy because they showed how ignorant you are.
Eric raises a good point:“In short, there’s far more uncertainty than certainty in the whole thing, which is why people get annoyed when the GW advocates insist that the science is “Settled” and the debate over. That’s not science, that’s dogmatism.”
Here is a short piece on the question of chaos and resultant uncertainty, a question that has consumed a lot of effort over the past several decades. As you can see, researchers have successfully generated models that replicate seemingly chaotic global temperature changes for over 150 years, like here, therefore, reasonable confidence in predicting global temperature in the future century is demonstrated.
When you then correlate this temperature increase that has been measured, with such observable phenomena such as rising sea levels, melting arctic ice and the Greenland ice sheet, more retreating glaciers than advancing, and various climate anomalies, it is pretty hard to ignore the trend that we are observing and measuring, and duplicating with models.
To build on Phoenician’s citation on ‘settled science’ or ‘scientific consensus, here is a list of scientific institutions globally who generally support the IPCC report on climate change.
In my view, this is not dogma!
But not John H:“The fact you ignore GISS data that shows 111 years of zero heat growth outside heat islands is telling.”
John, I already pointed out to you the cherry-picking going on in your citation. That you do not understand that elementary point is on you!
I suggest you follow up on the references given by Phoenician or by me, then come back with your response.
And on your ‘thuggery’ charge, the misbehavior of a few scientists at the CRU does not reflect on the massive body of evidence and measurements made for well over a century by a large number of competent scientists whose work is published in peer reviewed scientific journals. I understand that the ideologues on your side have latched onto it for political fodder, but to scientists this is a shame but virtually meaningless. You ought to check this out.
http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/darwin_zero7-500×292.png
So much for AGW alarmist integrity.
More evidence of fraudulent GISS adjustments to the raw data.
More evidence that we are not now as warm as in the past. And, in fact, we are coming out of an unusually cold cycle.
Fudge factor increasing as time goes on in an effort to “prove” the unprovable goreball warning.
John. No matter what you will not convince terrorist sympathizer Perry. His religion is belief in man-made GW. Period. He’s like a global warming bin Laden!
It’s garbage like this which causes most people here to either ignore you, write you off as a troll, or else simply respond in kind with insults. Perry, at least, is polite and considerate, and thus is worthy of debate. You, OTOH, resemble John Cleese’s famous remark of “You’re a Waste of Space”.
‘Nuff said.
Well, the Vikings game is about to start (after an amazing come from behind win by the Steelers), so I will have to review this information a little bit later and then get back to you. I understand to some extent how computer modeling works, since it is now widely used in aerospace to predict the airflow over various wing designs, among other things. Whether this can work successfully on something as fully complex as Planet Earth is something I have my doubts about, but like I said, I’ll look at your info and respond in more detail later.
Until then, have a good night (And GO Vikings! Favre Rules!!)
It’s garbage like this which causes most people here to either ignore you, write you off as a troll, or else simply respond in kind with insults
Yes, Eric, we know you regard scientific citations and factual evidence as garbage, which is why you ignore it so often.
Perry wrote:
Accepting every word of that as accurate still leaves you with two problems: a trend is not proof and not a guarantee, and even if the trends continue there is no proof that the warming trend is caused by man. The earth has had slightly warmer and slightly cooler phases throughout its existence, and these are perfectly natural occurrences. For most of our history, as nearly as we can determine the poles have not been iced over for the better part of earth’s history. We are in an ice age right now, defined by the existence of permanent ice packs. We have receded from the extremes of ice age glaciation that used to exist, but our climate undergoes changes quite naturally.
And we have survived, and thrived, despite all of those changes. It seems ridiculous to me to impoverish ourselves to try to stop Mother Nature.
Accepting every word of that as accurate still leaves you with two problems: a trend is not proof and not a guarantee, and even if the trends continue there is no proof that the warming trend is caused by man
I refer you to the third of my links which Eric was too chicken to face, Dana.
When you start out a post with the usual insults and snide remarks, you can expect to be ignored. Seriously, you’re just not worth the time. Like I said – a Waste of Space.
OK, I’m back (horrible game BTW. Less said the better, but I digress). I read that article, and while it was interesting in a general sense, it didn’t really explain how or why these computer models of the atmosphere work.
Right now, it seems from what I’ve heard that Global Warming theory has several components. First, there’s what science can actually measure, i.e., hard data that can be verified and thus not subject to argument. That data seems to indicate the Earth has warmed – slightly, that glaciers have retreated – a bit, that sea levels have risen – a minute amount. I don’t see where this points to something we need to be alarmed about, at least not for quite a long time.
Second is what science can predict. That’s where the computer modeling and other techniques come in. I still remain skeptical that these can predict long term climate trends with any real degree of precision, even if the models can be worked in such a manner as to account for past temperature variations with some accuracy. It’s a lot easier to explain the past than to speculate on what has yet to happen.
Lastly is the political dimension, which I think is much more real than you do. When politicians like Al Gore insist that, not only is Global Warming real, but they can guarantee that it will be catastrophic, that’s where my skepticism meter hits the peg. I don’t think it is unreasonable to take past trends and posit that temperatures may rise by a modest amount in the next century or two, but when Gore & Co tell us the Earth is doomed if we don’t take drastic action now, well, a lot of us find this sort of rhetoric to be alarmist, and even bordering on the hysterical.
Anyway, that’s my take for now, and as it’s getting late, I have to hit the sack. Will continue this tomorrow if you’re still interested.
When you start out a post with the usual insults and snide remarks, you can expect to be ignored
Uh-huh.
The facts were given. If you can’t face them, it’s because you’re too scared to face your uignorance.
Pooter, I gave facts. If you can’t face them, it’s because you’re too scared to face your own ignorance or because you’re an AGW religious fanatic like Perry.
Well, when you routinely attack people here, you can expect people to fire back. And the part about you hating Christianity and people seems to be dead on. You come off as the classic misanthrope, indeed, as I recall, when Art fell ill, you were the only person not to wish him well. That spoke volumes.
Anyway, I’m done with this. Like I said, you’re a waste of space, and quite frankly, not worth spending any more time on.
“The future I envision does now look promising, in my view.”
Another apocalyptic prediction. How many is that now, Perry?
Look at it this way: no one really wants to let the house burn down just to drive the vermin out into the open. But if worse comes to worst, it pays to look for the silver lining.
Perry:
It’s true that I’m a conservative writer and am very fond of Sarah Palin. Exactly how that’s relevent to my scientific critique you left unanswered. I consider myself a scientist first. You can see my bona fides as a scientist on my LinkedIn profile or just google my name with any of the following subjects: surface chemistry, Raman spectroscopy, GaAs devices, semiconductor crystal growth, nanotechnology, etc. Though I haven’t been an active published scientist for a decade or so some of my work is still cited regularly, including the high pressure chemistry studies I conducted with the 1986 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry. No, not Al Gore, though my post-doctoral adviser is an Emeritus Professor at Harvard.
Just try for a second to be rigorous, not ideological. If a graduate student came to me and asked if she could choose “The role of man-made CO2 in global warming” as a thesis topic, I’d tell her she was crazy. How could a trace gas with weak absorption bands in the infra-red possibly play a major role in atmospheric warming which is likely dominated by macroscopic processes like convective heat transfer? Especially since man’s contribution to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere amount to just 0.1% of the total. The whole anthropomorphic global warming model just doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Claude Sandroff
How could a trace gas with weak absorption bands in the infra-red possibly play a major role in atmospheric warming which is likely dominated by macroscopic processes like convective heat transfer?
If you were seriously interested in the answer, you could read the science. You are, of course, just attempting rhetorical doubt when you admit that you are not a climotologist.
Case in point: Especially since man’s contribution to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere amount to just 0.1% of the total.
Reality:
Your claim to objective scientific assessment doesn’t pass the sniff test.