100 Comments

  1. You’re really starting to piss me off, Dana! Man-made global warming — oops, wait, make that “CLIMATE CHANGE” — is settled science.

    Please do keep in mind that ANY type of weather situation is “predicted” by global war, er, uh, climate change models. Snow? Climate change. Heat? Climate change. Rain? Climate change. Pleasant spring day? Climate change. I don’t pay my taxes on time? Climate change.

  2. Uh-huh:

    Experts caution that there may be more winters like this, where snowfall has so far nearly doubled the norm. But that would be only until it gets too hot to snow, they added.

    “l n the simulations I’ve analyzed, you can get some quite big blizzards up until the year 2040,” said Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago. “But between 2040 and 2080, it starts to get too warm to have much snow at all and it gradually sort of peters out.”

    Climatologists say snowfall is more difficult to predict than rain because it depends on a broader range of factors, such as atmospheric temperature and the la nina phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean. What they do agree on, however, is that warmer atmospheres can hold more precipitation.

    But this season’s precipitation levels, combined with atypical temperature fluctuations, reflect what climate experts say will be some of the side effects of global warming. A study released last December by the group Environment Illinois suggests global warming will result in more extreme rain and snowfall as warmer temperatures speed up evaporation and allow clouds to hold more precipitation.

    “Higher precipitation is predicted, and unfortunately it’s supposed to come in extreme events,” said Dave Kraft, committee member at Climate Justice Chicago, a coalition of environmental groups hoping to change public perception of global warming. “Was this (season) it? Maybe it’s a sign, maybe it isn’t.”

    You will note that this is dated in Feb 2008.

    So what we have is the denialists refusing to read the science and predictions, setting up their own strawmen at odds with what the science actually says, and then screaming that the science is discredited because reality doesn’t match those strawmen.

  3. You will note that this is dated in Feb 2008.

    We will note here the distinction between science and wingnut denialism.

    Science works from a theory which is tested through making predictions. Since these predictions have come true (note – Feb 2008), our belief in the validity of the theory can therefore be strengthened.

    The snow storms were predicted by climate scientists two years ago.

    Denialists can’t be bothered reading the actual predictions or understanding the science. And when they find something that, to their ignorant perspective, seems contradictory to what they assume has been said, they regard it as proof positive that the theory has been invalidated.

  4. Wait — you mean the AGW worshipers actually … got one right??? How ’bout that, everybody!! Give ‘em a hearty round of applause!!

    LMAO …

  5. That’s right, Hube – be proud of your ignorance, boy! Don’t let anyone tell you any different – dare to remain stupid!

  6. Wait — you mean the AGW worshipers actually … got one right??? How ’bout that, everybody!! Give ‘em a hearty round of applause!!

    Yeah, Hube, if you blindfold a drunk monkey, give him enough darts, eventually he’ll hit a bullseye

  7. Crap. They’re calling for another 12-14 inches in Willow Grove. I feel like I’m in Alaska already. So far I’ve spent about $2600 on snow removal and salt management at work and another $600 at home. Plus loss of business. This is a killer. Now my wife is home with a broken arm. If you don’t hear from me I had a firearm “accident” while cleaning my guns during the storm.

  8. The snow started early this morning, but hasn’t accumulated fast: about ½ inch on my truck when I cleaned it off for the drive to work. That ½ inch hasn’t stuck to the roads yet, but was just barely beginning to on my way to work.

    I can’t see us doing any business at all today.

    This is supposed to be a wetter, heavier snow than the last few times, the kind that brings down power lines and interrupts internet connections, so if you don’t hear from me today . . . .

  9. That’s right, Hube – be proud of your ignorance, boy! Don’t let anyone tell you any different – dare to remain stupid!

    Dare to keep the faith that is AGW, Phoeny!! Sadly, you’re no different than Falwell, Swaggart and Robertson, to name but three, except instead of their Jesus your dogma is man-made global warming.

    Which makes you JUST as laughable.

  10. Obviously, the difference between Science and Religion seems to have bypassed Hube’s past cognitive mechanisms. One is based on observable reality, the other on faith!

    Here is a reasonable summary of where we are in understanding global warming:

    Our planet’s climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.

    Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

    Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.

    With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.

    And here is a well documented critique of those who would deny the settled science (observable reality) of anthropogenic global warming.

    The first questions to ask about any claim are who is making it, and on the basis of what evidence? Does the claim come from a scientist whose career is dedicated to studying the complexities of the climate or is it the pet theory of one of the many amateurs who think they know more than the experts after a few hours surfing the web? Is the claim mere opinion or backed by publications in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

  11. Obviously, the difference between Science and Religion seems to have bypassed Hube’s past cognitive mechanisms. One is based on observable reality, the other on faith!

    On the contrary. While one is based primarily purely on faith, the religion that you subscribe to, AGW, relies on faith as well — faith that it is still “settled science” despite revelation after revelation that unravels the “faith.”

    At least the former relies just on faith. You and your devotees, Hypocrite, pretend your faith is based on “settled science” for which there is no debate. And despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, your devotion never wavers. That’s not just faith; that’s insanity. Much like continuing to say the same thing time after time (like you do) and expecting a different result (in this case, that the case for AGW hasn’t changed one bit).

  12. Perry quoted this:“The first questions to ask about any claim are who is making it, and on the basis of what evidence?”

    Where is your evidence, Hube?

  13. Where is your evidence, Hube?

    Evidence of what? Do not tell me that you’re asking for evidence that the basis for AGW, climate change, global warming has been unraveling. Because if you are, then you’re merely resorting to your usual pathetic tactics of “citation please?”, “what’s your plan?”, and “where’s your evidence?” despite the fact that such has been provided on this very subject on this very blog more times than a stick can be shaken at.

    So spare me, Mr. Dogma.

  14. Hube, your first reference does not refute AGW, rather it calls for a reexamination of the temperature data by the organization which has been responsible for the submission of temperature data to the IPCC in the first place:

    The Met Office, which supplies the global temperature trends used by the IPCC, has proposed that an international group of scientists re-examine 160 years of temperature data. The Met Office proposal is a tacit admission that its previous reports on such trends have been marred by their reliance on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

    For anyone with any familiarity with the way professional scientists carry out their responsibilities, reexaminations of data and conclusions are standard practice. It is the responsibility of scientists to be skeptical, which is one factor that drives science to strengthen theories or modify them or disprove them. Until these data are reviewed, we can draw no contrary conclusions about them, which you seem to be trying to do, as you posted this as a counter to AGW, in spite of your second thoughts after posting them carelessly.

    Your second citation, Ed Barnes’ opinion piece without substantiated, is hardly evidence to overthrow AGW, because it is obviously a right wing political piece that focuses only on the admitted problems that occurred in the most recent IPCC meeting in Denmark. For example:

    Because the panel was supposed to conduct the most rigorous examination of data possible, one error was bad enough. But the onslaught of sloppiness and errors was so devastating that many of the panel’s strongest supporters called for reform and, in some cases, abandonment of the panel.

    Everyone understands that the IPCC is not perfect, but we don’t dismiss their daunting work because of a couple of errant members. Here is a counter, by the NewScience folks, to the Barnes politically based op-ed piece that you posted:

    The leaking of emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, has led to a media and political storm. The affair is being portrayed as a scandal that undermines the science behind climate change. It is no such thing, and here’s why.

    Read it for yourself, Hube; you might learn something about the science in contrast to the right wing politics that attempts to weigh-in against the science, with cherry picking and hyperbole, which you so much adore!

    Added:

    Is it possible that tens of thousands of scientists have got it wrong? It is incredibly unlikely. The evidence that CO2 levels are rising is irrefutable, and the idea that rising levels lead to warming has withstood more than a century of genuine scientific scepticism.

  15. Perry: You can continue to cite and cite and cite. I can do the same as often as you. Period. Should we next go “nyah nyah!” back and forth that “my link is better”??

    But here’s a little clue for ‘ya — for free: AGW is FAR from “settled science” no matter how much you insist otherwise. Period. And, even if global warming (in general) is accurate, it does NOT warrant the drastic action so often called for by the likes of you, Obama, the UN and others.

  16. This is supposed to be a wetter, heavier snow than the last few times, the kind that brings down power lines and interrupts internet connections, so if you don’t hear from me today . . . .

    Get WiFi, dude! Frees you from phone or cable lines. Got it on my iPhone which I’m using now, and it’s a dream! Can log on anywhere -my house, the airport, even out at my Grandma’s farm out in Ohio (tho the connection there was a little slow at times).

    Right now I’m seriously thinking of calling Comcast and just telling them to take their cable modem back (which they charge up the ass for) since I never use it to log on with my desktop any more.

  17. No, Hube, you showed your hand by choosing a FoxNews right wing political argument against the science. That doesn’t work.

    I also suggest that you didn’t even bother to read my cites, now did you?

    In a certain sense, science is never settled, because there will always be skeptics and critics from other scientists, especially on a matter as complex as measuring and modeling climate, going back using ice core and tree ring data and the like, or going forward with predictions based on the models.

    The fact that a consensus of scientists working in this field regard the science as “settled” makes sense to me based on my own reading, and based on my own understanding and regard for science, having worked as a scientist myself.

    If you are not motivated to cut down on fossil fuels to slow down global warming, perhaps you can be motivated by understanding that certain fossil fuels, crude oil for example, will start to run out soon, in a matter of decades, so we are left with dirty coal, the extraction of which permanently damages the land, and the burning of which creates gasses and ash that pollute the atmosphere and the ground with toxic materials and poisons. Therefore, moving to clean and infinitely plentiful alternate fuels makes a lot of sense.

  18. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    Just like Eric, Hube.

    Ah, lighten up, we’re just funnin’ with ya!

    We laugh at Global Warming because there’s so much goofiness to poke fun at, beginning with the Head Goof, Al Gore. Don’t you love it when Hollywood gives an Oscar, this in the land of the Stretch Hummer limo, the Gulfstream jet, and the 20,000 square foot celebrity mansion? Having them preach about Global Warming is like getting lessons on celibacy from the Playboy Mansion.

  19. Mr C wrote:

    So, to put things in true perspective…the damn rodent of Punxsutawney was right?

    Certainly appears that way. Of course, I don’t know how he can help seeing his shadow, with all of the television lights surrounding him.

  20. No, Hube, you showed your hand by choosing a FoxNews right wing political argument against the science.

    Ah yes, “Fox News.”

    People bring that up when they know they’re being made to look the fool. And you do that quite often, Perry. What was that I said about “nyah nyah”? Thanks for proving me right — yet again.

  21. Eric is right about one thing: Al Gore is so easily — and enjoyably — mocked because he takes himself so deathly seriously. Divinity School was actually the right place for him — though he managed to flunk out — because he takes global warming as seriously as a fundamentalist preacher. Of course, he’s an enormous hypocrite to boot, telling us how we ought to live our lives, while flaunting his own advice with the excess that so often characterizes the nouveau riche.

  22. Hube: “Ah yes, “Fox News.” “

    Hube, your citation was an op-ed piece, i.e., an opinion piece, which focused only on negatives, and without citations. As far as it went, that’s OK, but not as persuasive as are opinions from scientists who have focused on the science, or from non-scientists who make an effort to be balanced. Barnes piece does not measure up, in my view.

    It is obvious to me that you do not understand the processes that operate in science, therefore you fall back on opinion pieces, which emphasize political arguments instead of scientific discussion.

    So I’m saying, I don’t find the political opinion pieces very informative or convincing. You do. Fine!

  23. Dana: “Eric is right about one thing: Al Gore is so easily — and enjoyably — mocked because he takes himself so deathly seriously.”

    No, he is mocked by people who do not wish to face up to the information that he has collected and presented.

    Instead of focusing on his presentations and his film, opponents of AGM science would rather divert to his persona and his alleged hypocrisy, as you have just done. I am not impressed with this approach of attacking the messenger!

  24. Processes that operate in science:

    Collect raw data.
    Throw out the raw data you don’t like, keeping the raw data you do like.
    Fudge the raw data you do like.
    Throw out the raw data you just fudged.
    Further manipulate the new data.
    Refuse to release any data to anyone else.
    Violate FOI laws in two different countries.
    Bastardize the peer-review process.
    Call the bastardized peer-review process “science.”
    Turn anecdotal statements from non-scientists into expert information.
    Turn a piece written by someone who is working for a Masters Degree into expert information.
    Jury-rig computer programs to output graphing according to your desire.
    Ignore all data that refutes your assertion while personally attacking those who provide that data of refutation.

    This is the new scientific process.

  25. Instead of focusing on his presentations and his film, opponents of AGM science would rather divert to his persona and his alleged hypocrisy, as you have just done.

    Perry, I already gave you linkage to a 90-minute video that did, indeed, focus on his presentations and his film. And tore it apart. Upside-down graphing. Correlation between warming and CO2 which, upon close examination, showed CO2 trailing temperature. Many other false-hoods. But you attacked the messenger, claiming he isn’t a scientist so the non-scientist skeptic should not be paid attention to. But pay attention to the non-scientist fanatic who is getting filthy rich by use of his fanaticism.

  26. John H.:“This is the new scientific process.”

    You wish, John. While even in science, there are certainly participants of questionable integrity, as I have personally witnessed it through the years. That said, it is simply crazy to broad brush the scientific community with your partisan political anger!

  27. Perry, your “partisan political anger” meme when trying to refute people who are against you was old long ago, as is your overdependence on the exclamation point.

  28. No, John, just reread your piece. I think I characterized it accurately. You have used a broad brush. That is just so much nonsense, because it is not even nearly accurate; and you know it!

  29. Hube, your citation was an op-ed piece, i.e., an opinion piece, which focused only on negatives, and without citations.

    Hey Perry — I wrote (BTW, the last two above are not in response to Energizer Bunny Perry. Just general links for informational reading!)

    So I’m saying, I don’t find your lack of reading ability very informative or convincing. You do. Fine!

  30. Pardon my interruption, but this Global Warming debate, which comes up here often, seems a lot to resemble all those threads where Blu brings up her “Truther” stuff. She “Believes” this stuff with all the devotion of a religious fanatic, and insists were are wrong for not seeing The Truth. In short, to her, WE are the deniers.

    Isn’t it like that with Global Warming? Blu cites zillions of “Experts” to buttress her case, which makes it sound at least semi-credible. And that’s just what you guys to with GW, then call us Deniers when we don’t accept it, or at least are highly skeptical.

    And Hube has a point, too. I can’t speak for the individual scientists being cited, since I don’t know any of them and have no way to assess their truthfulness. But the people leading the political push on Global Warming like Al Gore and now Prince Chuck are clearly a bunch of hypocritical phonies, whose credibility should be stacked up there with bozo the Clown.

  31. Still coming down. Heavy, wet snow. My wounded wife has had me cooking all morning. First she wanted a frittata. I had some left over chicken breast so I made a chicken and orzo frittata. Then she decided for lunch (as if a fittata for breakfast wasn’t filling enough) she’d like Hallah French toast and scrapple. I now know what we are ordering for dinner…..out.

  32. No, he is mocked by people who do not wish to face up to the information that he has collected and presented.

    No, he is mocked, as Hube has suggested, in large part because he has turned Global Warming into a fundamentalist religion with himself as the Pope. Dissent is not allowed, and anyone who questions the dogma is cast out as a “Denier” and treated by the Church in much the same way the Inquisition treated heretics.

  33. JohnC, your wife would starve if she visited my place. “You want what? How bouts I throw a store-bought chicken and dumplings into the oven? I’ll throw a couple store-bought chimis into the oven later, okay?”

  34. John H.:“But pay attention to the non-scientist fanatic who is getting filthy rich by use of his fanaticism.”

    John: Looks like now you are envious of the wealthy! You folks have accused me of the same, wrongly I might add.

    So you continue to focus on attacking the messenger. That doesn’t work for me.

    I honestly do not recall your 90 minute video, therefore I also don’t recall my comments on it.

    On the issue of CO2 lagging temperature increase, one would have to look at the other greenhouse gases to see if one or more of them lead the temperature increase. I need to look at this issue again.

  35. Instead of focusing on his presentations and his film,

    Well, in fairness to Gore, I haven’t seen his film, but did read his book Earth in the Balance, the book that pretty much started the whole Global Warming thing, then reviewed on this site.

    I’d post a link to that review, but I’m on my iPhone now and not sure how to do it (maybe Dana can help). Anyway, it’s easy to find, just look under “Eric’s Book and Movie Reviews” on this site and click back a few pages till you find it. It is highly entertaining and even fair to Gore in spots, and it generated tons of interesting comments.

  36. I did see the film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, and was impressed. I have not read his book. I was not on this blog, Eric, when you wrote your review. I’ll look for it.

  37. Perry, do drop your usage of the exclamation point. And do quit cherry-picking what I say. Context is obviously your enemy. I have, on more than one occasion on this site, linked to the video. He’s updated his video presentation, but I haven’t seen the update. You can find his updated video presentation and other videos here.

  38. I too saw “An Inconvenient Truth” but I thought the premise behind “Independence Day” was much more believable. Also the special effects and acting were better.

  39. Eric: “I’d post a link to that review, ….”

    Here is a review by Dana, about as long as the book itself. :) However, I did not find yours.

  40. I did see the film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, and was impressed.

    Hopefully with the cinematography or something, ‘cuz if you were impressed by its “facts,” then you’e just proving further still what a devotee you are to the AGW religion.

  41. Isn’t it like that with Global Warming?

    Apart from the teeny tiny minor facts that:

    i, The vast majority of the evidence confirms both climate change and planes smacking into the buildings.

    ii, Both of the above theories also pass the test of Occam’s Razor. For Blu to be right would require a vast conspiracy and is logistically highly improbable. For the denialists to be right would require a vast conspiracy and the assumption that vast amounts of shit being pumped unnaturally into a fairly narrow atmosphere won’t have an effect.

  42. We laugh at Global Warming because there’s so much goofiness to poke fun at,

    Yup. God knows, I bet you were laughing your ass off at the pictures of those bodies floating through the streets of New Orleans.

    You should practically have a hernia from the hilarity of what climate change means to places like Bangladesh. Poor brown people dying is just so *funny*…

  43. and the assumption that vast amounts of shit being pumped unnaturally into a fairly narrow atmosphere won’t have an effect.

    I, for one, have never said that. And you probably purposely excluded “major” or “immense” or some other adjective before “effect” because it suited your, well, purposes. Perry, for example, claims that man is the primary cause of global warmi … er, excuse me, climate change. Do you? If so, where is the definitive proof? Why should we take drastic steps to curb it now when, after all, fossil fuels (the primary source of GHGs at present) are a finite resource and will gradually be replace within this century?

    Yup. God knows, I bet you were laughing your ass off at the pictures of those bodies floating through the streets of New Orleans.

    You should practically have a hernia from the hilarity of what climate change means to places like Bangladesh. Poor brown people dying is just so *funny*…

    Ah yes, the last refuge of the America-hating fool. Gee, I wonder if there were devastating hurricanes and major floods in Bangladesh before Al Gore warned us all!

    LMAO! And you call ME stupid …

  44. Perry:
    Eric: “I’d post a link to that review, ….”
    Here is a review by Dana, about as long as the book itself. However, I did not find yours.
    25 February 2010, 1:49 pm

    I’ll link it tomorrow when I have access to a real computer. Or else just post the damn thing.

    When I figure out this iPhone further, I’ll figure out how to post links.

  45. You should practically have a hernia from the hilarity of what climate change means to places like Bangladesh. Poor brown people dying is just so *funny*…

    Well let’s see. If the experts are right, and oceans are rising about an inch per century, then the only issue in Bangladesh is to move the family hut a few feet further inshore.

    Should be good for the local fishing industry, tho …

  46. Well let’s see. If the experts are right, and oceans are rising about an inch per century, then the only issue in Bangladesh is to move the family hut a few feet further inshore.

    This is why you get called ignorant, Eric – you don’t know the actual science or facts, you can’t be bothered finding out, and you think that beating up on your mistaken strawman view is an actual argument.

    Arguably, few regions in the world are more at risk from climate change in terms of adverse impact on the poor than South Asia. The reasons are easy to see when one pays attention to the possible adverse effects of climate change identified by the panel of world experts working on the 4th IPCC report, which was last updated in September 2007. The possible consequences could include:

    *
    Melting glaciers on the Himalayan-Hindu Kush mountain ranges. According to Oxford University climatologist Mark New, over the past 30 years snow cover and ice cover may have been reduced by 30 percent in the eastern Himalayas. There is now a real risk that these glaciers might disappear altogether in the coming decades.

    *
    The rapid melting of glaciers is initially expected to contribute to excessive water flow and flooding in the region. Eventually, the full loss of glaciers, if it happens, would have a severe affect on the availability of fresh water in the three mighty rivers: Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra (and other smaller tributaries); these rivers are the life-line for an estimated 500 million people in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Much of this population is very poor.

    *
    The associated loss of farm production, water for human needs, fisheries, river transport, and livelihood will be devastating.

    *
    Water loss would also reduce the availability of power, which is already a serious development constraint in South Asia.

    *
    Changing climate patterns are lowering rainfall in arid and semi-arid zones and intensifying floods in other areas.

    *
    The coastal population in South Asia is already facing a serious flooding problem from rising sea level due to climate change. Even under conservative assumptions, the sea level could rise to 40 cm higher than the present level by the end of the 21st century and submerge a huge area of the South Asian coastal belt. Over 70 million people living along the coastal belt will be forced to relocate, causing tremendous human misery. The threat is particularly serious for Maldives and Bangladesh.

    *
    Human health is also at risk from growing incidence of diseases linked to rising temperatures and rainfall variability. Effects may range from diarrheal diseases to increased malnutrition.

    But as long as they’re poor and far, far away – they’re not actually human, are they, Eric?

  47. Perry, for example, claims that man is the primary cause of global warmi … er, excuse me, climate change. Do you? If so, where is the definitive proof?

    Lessee:

    Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009

    A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

    It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[82]

    Being a wingnut, you’ll probably scream that that’s not definitive enough for you. To which, I’d like you to supply definitive proof the sun will not explode next Tuesday…

  48. ii, Both of the above theories also pass the test of Occam’s Razor. For Blu to be right would require a vast conspiracy and is logistically highly improbable. For the denialists to be right would require a vast conspiracy and the assumption that vast amounts of shit being pumped unnaturally into a fairly narrow atmosphere won’t have an effect.

    Uh, Pho, CO2 is a trace gas. I think the total now is about 380 parts per million. That’s like less than a fraction of a fraction of one percent.

    It’s like dropping a single grain of sugar into your cup of coffee.

  49. Uh, Pho, CO2 is a trace gas. I think the total now is about 380 parts per million. That’s like less than a fraction of a fraction of one percent.

    The US is currently putting out about 5,800 megatonnes of CO2 annually. That counts as a “vast amount” by anyone’s standards – about 50,000 Nimitz class aircraft carriers. Every year.

    For the ten thousand years prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were from 260 to 280 parts per million. They are now 387 parts per million, a rise of 35% since 1900. That rate of increase is in itself increasing rapidly.

    It’s like dropping a single grain of sugar into your cup of coffee.

    387 parts per million of aspirin in your body is likely to kill you – the LD50 is 200 mg/kG.

    You are displaying your ignorance once again, and arguing from that ignorance. “I don’t understand how something that small can hurt us, therefore it can’t hurt us.” You don’t have a clue about the science, nor do you pay any attention to the fact that the overwhelmingly vast majority of those who do have a clue think its a problem.

    You are an idiot.

  50. Arguably, few regions in the world are more at risk from climate change in terms of adverse impact on the poor than South Asia. The reasons are easy to see when one pays attention to the possible adverse effects of climate change identified by the panel of world experts working on the 4th IPCC report, which was last updated in September 2007. The possible consequences could include:

    Blah blah blah. Who wrote this shit, a bunch of Klingons? Can’t anyone write a coherent paragraph any more? “Possible consequences”? That means what, exactly? That’s like saying I wanted the Vikings to win the Super Bowl, but the possible consequences of Bret Favre throwing an interception at the last minute changed the data.

  51. Eric: “I’d post a link to that review, ….”
    Here is a review by Dana, about as long as the book itself. However, I did not find yours.

    Well, like I said, when I figure out how to link it, I will do so.

    As for Dana’s review, I have not read it. Indeed, I think he reviewed a different Al Gore book, but the title escapes me.

    Anyway, far be it for me to criticize the propietor of this fine site, but Dana’s reviews tend to be a bit, well, academic. Brevity is the soul of wit, and if you’re going to review a book, keep it short, sharp, and pithy. And inject some wit and humor as well. If the book is tedious and boring, in short, if the book sucks (as in Jimmy Carter’s tome) then don’t waste time on analysis. If the book is shit, just say so, then have fun by ripping into it with a literary buzz saw.

    [Released from moderation -- JH]

  52. The 4th IPCC report has been totally trashed. IPCC had to walk back from all sorts of things in it. That’s a fact. And CO2 has been a trailing indicator and not a catalyst in temperature change throughout history. That’s a fact, too. And CO2 levels today are far, FAR, below historic norms. That is also a fact. And before Perry demands sourcing, he should check out all the stuff on this site first and link-surf from the sourcing already provided all over this site.

  53. Eric wrote:

    Anyway, far be it for me to criticize the propietor of this fine site, but Dana’s reviews tend to be a bit, well, academic. Brevity is the soul of wit, and if you’re going to review a book, keep it short, sharp, and pithy.

    I admit it: I rarely use three words when fourteen will do just as well.

  54. Pho says: Being a wingnut, you’ll probably scream that that’s not definitive enough for you. To which, I’d like you to supply definitive proof the sun will not explode next Tuesday…

    To which I simply point to John’s comment:

    And CO2 levels today are far, FAR, below historic norms. That is also a fact. And before Perry demands sourcing, he should check out all the stuff on this site first and link-surf from the sourcing already provided all over this site.

    But you also make my point with your “sun exploding” point — since it is highly unlikely that such will occur, applying that same line of reasoning to supposed AGW means that we can just let normal [market] forces resolve the issue, i.e. we’ll naturally convert from fossil fuels to an alternative since, after all, FFs are finite and not expected to last much beyond this current century …

  55. Eric: Blah blah blah. Who wrote this shit, a bunch of Klingons? Can’t anyone write a coherent paragraph any more? “Possible consequences”? That means what, exactly? That’s like saying I wanted the Vikings to win the Super Bowl, but the possible consequences of Bret Favre throwing an interception at the last minute changed the data.

    Translation: I’m too ignorant to know the actual facts, and I’m too stupid to understand the science, so I guess I’ll kvetch about the style.

  56. The 4th IPCC report has been totally trashed. IPCC had to walk back from all sorts of things in it. That’s a fact.

    Incorrect. You are lying.

    n this special investigation, New Scientist takes a closer look at these headline forecasts. Our aim is not to uncover a new scandal buried deep in the report. Rather, we explore how conclusions that the IPCC itself regards as key findings reached the top of the heap, and whether the science behind them stands up to scrutiny.

    We focus on three key topics: the impact of climate change on water supplies, food, and biodiversity. The investigation reveals that the IPCC’s broad conclusions were sound. Indeed, the stringent rules of the IPCC means the report sometimes understated the potential impacts of climate change – on biodiversity, for instance.

    And CO2 has been a trailing indicator and not a catalyst in temperature change throughout history. That’s a fact, too.

    Incorrect. Ignorance and misstating the actual science.

    This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.
    [...]
    The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.

    To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.

    What is more, further back in past there are examples of warmings triggered by rises in greenhouse gases, such as the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 millions years ago (see Climate myths: It’s been far warmer in the past, what’s the big deal?).

    And CO2 levels today are far, FAR, below historic norms. That is also a fact.

    Incorrect. A blatant lie.

    Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm (see Greenhouse gases hit new high)

    Why exactly do you lie so often and so blatantly, PB?

  57. Dana Pico:
    I walked into the living room just as Cecily Tynan was saying, on WPVI-TV, that we might have another nor’easter around Wednesday. I immediately yelled at the TV, “Shut up, bitch!”

    Good, we need a few more feet to break our record from ’78.

  58. Dana Pico:
    I walked into the living room just as Cecily Tynan was saying, on WPVI-TV, that we might have another nor’easter around Wednesday. I immediately yelled at the TV, “Shut up, bitch!”

    Dana, tell Autumn to get over to the Earth and Mineral Sciences building tomorrow, I think it’s the Walker Building and yell at the weather guys for bringing so much snow. They have an open house.

  59. Dana, such language! And from a good Catholic boy to boot!

    Get thee to confession, and say a hundred Hail Mary’s for your penance

  60. Translation: I’m too ignorant to know the actual facts, and I’m too stupid to understand the science, so I guess I’ll kvetch about the style.

    Well, if you want to communicate with people, style is important. No one wants to read a bunch of boring bullshit. And if that bullshit is based on mushy predictions that equivocate all over the place, then why bother?

  61. Incorrect. A blatant lie.

    Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm (see Greenhouse gases hit new high)

    Why exactly do you lie so often and so blatantly, PB?

    Because he’s not:

    Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

    Further,

    To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

    .

    In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm

    Wait — did you say recent centuriesplural?? But … how can that be when it’s only been in the last 50-60 years or so that GHGs have really begun to be emitted into the atmosphere due to industrialization? So … what accounts for the CO2 increase prior to that, Phoeny? Not to mention that “CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes — confirming that CO2 is not the primary driver of the temperature changes …”

    Which I guess makes you just a sucker.

    Nah. It means that I’m actually open-minded, and look at various sources instead of just the ones that confirm my personal view-and-then-use-as-”fact.” (Oh, and then insist that others are “lying.”)

    Is that really how they teach you idiot piwis down there?

  62. Hube, Pho is like Blu. He posts some crap from some Internet “Experts” and expects us to bow down and believe it.

  63. Pho, good writing is a sign of clear thinking. I’ve read Richard Dawkins, and while I don’t agree with him about religion, he IS a world class scientist, and the man CAN write.

    In contrast, we have these two-bit government hacks churning out reams of convoluted verbal bumwad, and we’re supposed to give it credence? What mind of scientist takes government money, anyway, with it’s lousy salary and a piitance of a pension? Of course they have to serve their masters to keep their rice bowl filled. And if those masters, like Al Gore and the popinjays who run the European Union demand results, then they dutifully comply.

    In contrast, those who work in the private sector aren’t so supine. The guy who founded the Weather Channel says Global Warming is a pack of shit, and who am I to second guess a guy who has studied weather his entire life, and built his credibility over decades with the public?

    In short, those who can, do. Those who can’t, work for the government.

  64. Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

    Gee, Hube, let’s look at PB’s actual claim, shall we?

    “And CO2 levels today are far, FAR, below historic norms. That is also a fact.”

    For the past 10,000 years – i.e. all of human history – CO2 levels have been between 250 and 280 ppm. So not only is he lying, your claim – if true – demonstrates his lie.

    Further, over the last million years, temperature and CO2 levels track very nicely. What you are claiming is that if we put more C02 into the atmosphere, the world’s geochemistry will suddenly return to what it was 150 million years ago rather than conintuing as it has been for the last million years.

    But, hell, let’s quote actual science from the people doing the goddamned measurements:

    There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 – 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

    And here:

    An atmospheric CO2 record for the past 200 years was obtained from the Siple Station ice core. At shallow depths, atmospheric air still circulates through the open pores (Friedli et al. 1986). The enclosed air was younger than the surrounding ice because the enclosure of air in bubbles occurred only between depths of 64 and 76 m. On the basis of porosity measurements, investigators determined that the time lag between the mean age of the gas and the age of the ice was 95 years and that the duration of the close-off process was 22 years (Schwander and Stauffer 1984). Neftel et al. (1985) concluded that the atmospheric CO2 concentration ca. 1750 was 280±5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and that it increased by 22.5% to 345 ppmv in 1984 essentially because of human factors. Graphs in Friedli et al. (1986) also reported that the preindustrial (pre-1800) CO2 concentration was ~280 ppmv.

    And here:

    The atmospheric CO2 reconstructions presented here offer records of atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios from 1006 A.D. to 1978 A.D. The air enclosed in the three ice cores from Law Dome, Antarctica has unparalled age resolution and extends into recent decades, because of the high rate of snow accumulation at the Law Dome drill sites (Etheridge et al. 1996). Etheridge et al. (1996) reported the uncertainty of the ice core CO2 mixing ratios is 1.2 ppm. Preindustrial CO2 mixing ratios were in the range 275-284 ppm, with the lower levels during 1550-1800 A.D., probably as a result of colder global climate (Etheridge et al. 1996). The Law Dome ice core CO2 records show major growth in atmospheric CO2 levels over the industrial period, except during 1935-1945 A.D. when levels stabilized or decreased slightly.

    And well done screwing up the link so we can’t assess the credibility of your “source”. Absolutely brilliant.

    And if you’d bothered reading this link from a credible source you’d see why the “trailing indicator” argument is invalid.

    To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.

    What is more, further back in past there are examples of warmings triggered by rises in greenhouse gases, such as the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 millions years ago (see Climate myths: It’s been far warmer in the past, what’s the big deal?).

    Ooooops – I guess you must feel like a bit of an idiot right about now…

  65. Pho, good writing is a sign of clear thinking.

    Eric, the writing was of acceptable quality. I’ve read worse, and I’d stake my life on it that I read far far more than you in the course of an average week.

    The simple fact is that you are picking nits about their style because you lack the facst to dispute them or the ability to actually deal with the science. You display your own simple inadequacy with this line of attack:

    “Oh, I don’t like how they wrote it, therefore the science must be false.”

    You’re an idiot. Would you like me to dress that up nicer so you can understand it?

  66. Oh, and there’s this guy at MIT who says CO2 is a damper and not a catalyst. I’m sure he’s basing his findings at least partially on the trailing nature of CO2, like why it rises after the temperature rises and falls after the temperature falls. And let’s not forget water holds less CO2 as it warms than it does as it cools, thus releasing CO2 as it warms up. And since the Earth is at least ten percent covered in oceans… That’s a lot of CO2 release as a result of warmer temperatures.

  67. Let’s see if I have this right. All sorts of people, the old-earth people, say that on a 24-hour clock that humans have been around for a minute. And certain old-earth people want to disregard the previous 23 hours and 59 minutes of earth history as irrelevant, just so they can be right about the omnipotent power of the human. Not only is their position disingenuous (to be polite) but also devoid of scientific reasoning.

  68. Come on, old-earth people, tell me how humans have been around for a minute and the industrial age has been around for a couple seconds and you can disregard everything else in the 24-hour history of the earth to prove how powerful man is. No serious statistical modeling would disregard that much information. No serious scientist would disregard that much information. So, why do you?

  69. The earth has been warmer and the earth has been cooler, yet somehow, some way, human beings have survived and adapted. Humans are the most adaptable and widespread occupants of the planet, living in climates from the frigid Arctic to the equatorial jungles, to scorching deserts. Even if the sky-is-falling global warming people are completely right, human beings will continue to live and to thrive on this planet.

  70. John, can you correct that link for me? The URL was in there when I wrote the thing. If not, it’s http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm [It's "live" now -- JH]

    Ooooops – I guess you must feel like a bit of an idiot right about now…

    Nope, not at all. All you keep using are links to the New Scientist to “prove” your POV, time and time again. You’re just like the devotees of the Church of Gore — the scientists you quote are “real,” “doing the actual science,” blah blah blah. Everyone else’s sources are, essentially, heresy. So, what’s the point?

    What’s funny is your complete inability to cede even the slightest point. (Even when I agree with you — see the Iran nuclear weapons thread.) I’ve stated here time and time again that the Earth, at present may be warming and man may even play some role in it. I doubt the significance of the latter, but nevertheless I just think that there is no reason to drastically alter the economies of our countries and the lifestyles of our citizens to “solve” the problem.

  71. Let’s see if I have this right. All sorts of people, the old-earth people, say that on a 24-hour clock that humans have been around for a minute. And certain old-earth people want to disregard the previous 23 hours and 59 minutes of earth history as irrelevant, just so they can be right about the omnipotent power of the human. Not only is their position disingenuous (to be polite) but also devoid of scientific reasoning.

    Sorry, PB, but you’re either wrong or simply lying about people’s positions. Again.

    To use your analogy, we’re pointing out that it’s now midnight and this sudden rise in temperature is probably a sign that something is seriously wrong (“Hey, do you smell smoke?”). You morons are saying “Not to worry – the temperature was also rising 12 hours ago back at noon…”

  72. Eric, the writing was of acceptable quality. I’ve read worse, and I’d stake my life on it that I read far far more than you in the course of an average week.

    That may be true, pho, but I’d bet I read I higher quality of stiff, everything from philosophy to history, Rand to Marx. And I go for the popular stuff as well, Tom Clancy, Vince Flynn (a local author BTW, whom I’ve met several times. He lives in Edina same as me, and goes to the same church.

    Just finished a book on Rand and also Sarah Palin’s book, which I will review on this Site. You may sneer at her if you like, but personally I find her highly admirable, with many fine qualites, both as a politicans and as a human being. John McCain was wise to choose her, and her husband is lucky to have her.

    But what do I know? I’m only a dumb Aerospace Engineer.

  73. That may be true, pho, but I’d bet I read I higher quality of stiff, everything from philosophy to history, Rand to Marx.

    Oh, Jesus. Not only is this incredibly funny given my job, the fact that you call Rand “quality” demonstrates the problem immediately.

    But what do I know? I’m only a dumb Aerospace Engineer.

    You’re a mechanic for planes?

    Excellent video on CO2 and measurement sources from the NOAA.

  74. The Librarian in a time of Internet wrote:

    Oh, Jesus. Not only is this incredibly funny given my job, the fact that you call Rand “quality” demonstrates the problem immediately.

    Given that Mrs Rand’s works were published in the 1930, 1940s and 1950s, and are still available today, they’ve apparently stood the test of time far better than most published works.

    Of course, I’d point out here that your belief that global warming exists whether everybody chooses to believe it or not fits in quite well with Mrs Rand’s objectivist philosophy. :)

  75. You’re a mechanic for planes

    No, but I’ve worked with a number of then, and they’re highly trained professionals, most whom take pride in their work, since know if they screw up, hundreds of people could die. The best are magicians with their tools, performing precision work that can rival a brain surgeon.

    So, the next time you’re flying, you might want to say a silent word of thanks for their profession.

    Just sayin’ …

  76. Oh, Jesus. Not only is this incredibly funny given my job, the fact that you call Rand “quality” demonstrates the problem immediately

    I’m not here to quibble over Rand’s prose style, since she did all her writing in a language she was not born to. I can’t imagine moving to Russia and attempting to write a job application let alone an entire 1,000 page novel. Her writing had a mostly workmanlike quality; simple, solid, and easy to grasp for her readers. My only major critism of her style were her love scenes – they were neither romantic nor erotic, indeed, they come off as bizarre at times.

    Anyway, I reviewed Atlas Shrugged and posted it on amazon.com. Not sure if it’s still there, but it elicited a lot of responses!

  77. Given that Mrs Rand’s works were published in the 1930, 1940s and 1950s, and are still available today, they’ve apparently stood the test of time far better than most published works

    Bulwer-Lytton published in the 1830s and, God help us, still lives on. I also point out that, by that standard, Marx is far superior to Rand.

    “You’re a mechanic for planes” No,

    I’m sorry – a janitor for plane mechanics, then.

  78. BTW Pho, not only did I review Atlas Shrugs and put it on Amazon.com, I also reviewed The Communist Manifesto there and on this site as will. Simply click on “Eric’s Movie & Book Reviews” located on the sidebar of this site. 

    No snark intended, pho, since you seem be an intelligent guy, I would appreciate your input on one of them, or both if you are so inclined. 

  79. Oooops, that’s Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugs is a blog site I sometimes visit, hence the temporary confusion on my part.

  80. Bulwer-Lytton published in the 1830s and, God help us, still lives on.

    True enough, but I bet he hasn’t sold ten million books, books that are still on the best seller’s list today (check Amazon.com). Nor has anything he wrote affected the culture and political landscape like Rand.

    Is your Mr. Whats-his-name still published, or are they relegated to the most obscure section of the library?

  81. I’m sorry – a janitor for plane mechanics, then.

    Actually, Pho, worse. After college I did pizza delivery, then next had the job of a lineman at a small airport, arguably the lowest possible position offered in the aircraft industry. Your job is basically to push airplanes in and out of hangars, wash them, and keep the gas tanks filled. Since it was summer, it was not uncommon to do 70 hours of work a week, and they didn’t pay overtime either, a remarkable bit of Scroogery when my base pay was four bucks an hour.

    But, much like Dana and John, we’re willing to do whatever we need to earn our own money.

  82. I also point out that, by that standard, Marx is far superior to Rand.

    Superior for inspiring mass murder. In that regard, it ranks right up there with Mein Kampf

Comments are closed.