Consensus collapses: APS re-opens debate on global warming; Update: APS “reaffirms” stance

posted at 8:34 am on July 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The American Physical Society had been a proponent of the “consensus” on anthropogenic global warming/climate change — until now.  While the main organization has not addressed its position — yet — a major unit within APS has declared global warming unproven and that the IPCC’s conclusions unsupportable.  The APS will re-open the debate on global warming with a new paper accusing the IPCC of deliberate obfuscation (via Memeorandum):

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.” …

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity — the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause — has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling.   A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton’s paper an “expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and “extensive errors”

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, “I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central ‘climate sensitivity’ question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method.”

The paper points out that the warming seen on Earth during the period under question matched the warming seen on other planets in the solar system, a point repeatedly made by skeptics over the last few years.  Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and one of Neptune’s moons experienced the same climate shift at the same time, and Monckton assigns the blame not to SUVs or belching smokestacks, but to the only energy source all have in common: the sun.  Solar activity during the past seventy years, Monckton states, exceeded what had been seen for 11,000 years, which led to the warming activity here on Earth and elsewhere in the system.

At the same time, one of the authors who built Australia’s compliance protocol for the Kyoto Accords admits what most of us suspected all along — that the scientific community jumped to conclusions:

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

In other words, the science community had reasons to jump to conclusions.  They got grants, they got attention, and they started getting all the hot chicks — well, at least they got money and felt important.  Those are powerful motivators to reach conclusions that keep money and attention flowing, instead of concluding that they aren’t terribly necessary at all.

And governments had powerful motivations to believe them.  It gave politicians reasons to impose greater control on energy production, and to increase the power of the state.  That creates winners and losers, which begets lots of lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Unfortunately, the recent data argues against anthropogenic climate change, and in fact its advocates never really proved anything.  For one thing, as David Evans points out, the “greenhouse” model should have produced an atmospheric hot spot — which no one has ever found, despite years of looking.  Despite ever-increasing production of carbon, the last seven years have produced a cooling trend.  And more recent data shows that carbon increases at the end of warming cycles, not at the beginning, which demolishes the cause-and-effect assumptions for climate-change advocates.

In short, the Earth is not in danger of “getting a fever”, and the global-warming theory has been shown to be a Chicken Little scenario with no real scientific basis.  Even those who helped lead the hysteria now have serious doubts.  It’s time to stop wrapping public policy around a fraud.

Update: As I noted in the first paragraph, the APS has not changed its position on anthropogenic global warming, at least not yet.  This effort comes from a subgroup within APS.  They “reaffirm[ed]” their November 2007 position, but momentum is shifting away from them, and the debate will occur regardless.  (via Rick Moran and Jonah Goldberg)

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Most scientific theories end up being wrong.

Ptolemaic theory.

Phlogiston theory.

Celestial Spheres theory.

Spontaneous Generation theory.

Caution should be the rule before you panic the nations of the world into the unintended consequences (potential disaster and ruin) of any theory by trying to “solve” a “problem” based on “models” which may turn out to be as mistaken as every other debunked and defunct theory in another few years of better research.

Whenever “scientists” (and their laymen flacks and enablers) start talking about “CRISIS” -which requires everyone to immediately change their behavior- hold on to your wallet.

It is always safer to proceed slowly and carefully and rationally in such realms rather than to risk the stability of your civilization and to depend on the 20 (or 50 or 100) years predictive “science” of those who cannot accurately forecast the weather this coming Tuesday.

Three questions for all of these Human-Caused Global Warming Climate Changer advocates:

Who caused the Ice Age?

Who ended it?

And what are we going to do about it?

profitsbeard on July 18, 2008 at 12:29 PM

rain in Antarctica is a totally new phenomenon. As a result, penguins are literally freezing to death.”
J_Gocht on July 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Is that suppose to be a joke? Could you explain how it could be so cold that penguins are freezing, yet it is raining? Are these poor freezing penguins out in the rain, the same ones that dive into the Antarctic ocean to catch fish to eat? Do you have a link for the freezing penguins?

Maxx on July 18, 2008 at 12:36 PM

freshly frozen penguins keep there nutritional value,,im all for it

rico101 on July 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Maxx I think J_G is talking about this:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24013207-954,00.html

Only problem is…. how do they KNOW rain hasn’t been around for centuries? It is like asking the question of Whales and ice. How do they know it is becoming colder? Kind of like the whales who got trapped in a Ice Snap here in Alaska and the Inuit people make holes for them out to the ocean… because they would die due to not being able to take a breath if traveling more then two hours.

Hey J_Gocht…. same CONCEPT that everyone in the world has seen… WARMING and COOLING that even HAPPENS during Winter. or maybe you live on a island and have no clue about the real world. hell it even has snowed on Hawaii!

upinak on July 18, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Does this mean that HOTAIR will stop promoting alternate energy sources no matter what the cost?

burt on July 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM

The risks of deliberate human interference in climate change to counteract a perceived ignorant human interference in climate change are enormous and arrogant.

The earth’s climate is far too complex a system to be modeled in the detail needed to start twisting dials.

Hell, even man made systems can be too complex to understand, with mistakes easily made.

At least there are now some scientists willing to restore some faith in the scientific process.

desertdweller on July 18, 2008 at 1:07 PM

I watched the documentary on the History channel called “Crude”. They stated that by lookong at cells on fossils from the cretacious period of the same plant on the earth today, that the CO2 levels in the Sea and in the air were 4 times greater than what they are today. They had a very compelling arguement that it is fact that CO2 has a direct effect on how warn the planet is. Too much = too hot. Too little = too cold.

They explained how hypoxia (no oxygen) happened in the ocean and huge plankton die offs with no oxygen at the ocean floor that was needed for decay created the source for crude.

They also went into great detail on how the planet naturally reduces CO2 when it gets too high. These plankton absorb sunlight and CO2. Huge plankton blooms then sucked up billions of tons of CO2. When the plankton die offs sunk to the bottom of the oceans, they took tons of CO2 with them and out of the atmosphere.

These huge plankton blooms started from volcanic activity that poured lots of CO2 into the atmosphere that warmed the planet and created the plankton blooms. The increased warmth melted the ice caps, so no ocean current circulation slowed from no cold water at the poles to sink oxygen into the water. Hence, no circulation, no oxygen, then the die off.

I think it is fair to say too much CO2 is trouble, but it is a stretch to say human activity is massive enought to trigger the switch toward a warming event. But, it sure doesn’t help, so that is where the science world is at right now.

saiga on July 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM

Sooo, Gore is just an opportunist looking to make a fortune with this scam? This, is possibly the biggest scam EVER perpetuated in the history of mankind. I just hope we can stop these chumps before they start controlling every aspect of our lives “FOR THE PLANET”. Puke.

marklmail on July 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM

And it is wrong on multiple levels. Science — by definition — is a public activity!

Sure to the extent that the average person is able to determine if scientists are right or wrong about the effects of smoking on lung tissue at a cellular level. Or perhaps you’d like to push aside your nefrologist and handle your kidney failure prognosis and treatment regimen.

It’s funny that people are so offended when its suggested that a community of scientists and experts who individually have each studied a field over the course of decades cannot be trusted. Of course, it’s healthy to have skepticism- there’s nothing wrong with that- but this level of mistrust reeks of America’s general anti-intellectualism.

I notice that it’s equally offensive to suggest that everyone’s opinion doesn’t count. Yes, we live in a society that values everyone’s opinion, but at the end of the day I will turn to the scientific community for advice on preventing heart disease, not the right-leaning blogosphere for their commentary.

However, if Ed would like to offer some advice on whether my overweight neighbor should worry about the formation of cancer cells in his man-breasts, I’ll be glad to post a note on his door…

bayam on July 18, 2008 at 1:27 PM

The time for debate is over! Let the Democrats do what they want, for Gaia’s sake!

Kensington on July 18, 2008 at 1:33 PM

It’s funny that people are so offended when its suggested that a community of scientists and experts who individually have each studied a field over the course of decades cannot be trusted. Of course, it’s healthy to have skepticism- there’s nothing wrong with that- but this level of mistrust reeks of America’s general anti-intellectualism.

bayam on July 18, 2008 at 1:27 PM

You are confusing soft-science with hard-science. Climatology is as much a hard science as sociology or economics. And anyone who proposes the physical runs of computer models to accurately predict the long-term evolution of a highly chaotic system (while ignoring many of the obviously important variables) does not deserve the title ‘scientist’. I’m sure Lorenz would have a word or two for these folks.

progressoverpeace on July 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM

saiga on July 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM

I saw that, and was unconvinced. They left out a very simple fact.

The ocean itself stores a LOT of CO2… as it increases in temperature, it cannot absorb as efficiently, and more CO2 remains in the atmorphere.

It can also only store so much at a given temperature. So, if there is more CO2 it can essentialy “fill up” for a given temp range.

Its a chicken and egg arguement… ie… is there more CO2 in the atmosphere because its warmer? or is it the CO2 that is causing the warming?

Latest data seems to show that CO2 historicly LAGS temp increases… but its still inconclusive IMO.

Add in that the amount of CO2 generated by man is dwarfed by natural processes… and especily seismic activity… and you really run into problems.

I read one article that postulated that most of the CO2 increase we’ve seen is NOT from man, but from the undersea activity in the Pacific rim, putting CO2 into the ocean, which cannot then absorb CO2 at the same rate as before… because it is essentialy full for our temp range. Add in undersea activity warming the sea water itself (which means it can store less CO2), and you end with a loop that has NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN driving the increase in CO2.

Hypothesis worth looking at, if even to only disproove it… because you know, thats how science works.

Romeo13 on July 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM

It’s funny that people are so offended when its suggested that a community of scientists and experts who individually have each studied a field over the course of decades cannot be trusted. bayam on July 18, 2008 at 1:27 PM

.
If the conference scientists actually had credentials, it might count for something. I am not a meteorologist, but I have more bachelor’s level meteorology hours than the majority of those on the panel. The actual scientists who have relevant training are the ones who dispute the ‘consensus’.

Think_b4_speaking on July 18, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Just because I still could, I sat in my car this morning, windows down, AC cranked (it was an ungodly 78° at the time), listening to Tammy Bruce on AM radio. That’s Freedom baby!

kirkill on July 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM

As for SCIENTIFIC FACTS: the ‘anthropomorphic climate change’ vs. the ‘supply of oil’? Well the first is hypothetical, the 2nd can be mathematically proven. Which one should we tackle first?

kirkill on July 18, 2008 at 2:41 PM

bayam on July 18, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Condescension, snobby and pretentiousness is all liberals have to run to once they’ve run out of anything meaningful to say. Tell me bayam, if your intellectual global warmers are so smart why have they been wrong about everything? Why after nearly a trillion dollars and thirty years of research, all they have to show for it is a bunch of climate models that have been dead wrong? They have not even nailed-down what it should be called, global warming or climate change. I expect more for my money.

According to you, I suppose the unwashed masses should gleefully give them another trillion and thirty more years for more of the same? You see bayan, at some point the people paying the bills have to speak up and tell the “intellectuals” to get a real job and stop wallowing at the public trough.

Are you on the global warming gravy train bayan? If so, I suggest you get off because its swiftly coming to the end of the line.

Maxx on July 18, 2008 at 2:53 PM

From the Daily Tech:

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

Can’t we logically conclude, now, that since the Physics and Society Forum is a unit within the APS which disagrees with the APS position, that the views of the APS itself do not reflect those of the society at large?

That’s my gripe about all of the “consensus studies” that show X% or scientific organization officially support the “consensus” (as if they even know what the consensus is). They don’t represent their members views any more than the typical union.

DaveS on July 18, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Ed hits it outta the park again.
…”the science community had reasons to jump to conclusions. They got grants, they got attention…And governments had powerful motivations to believe them. It gave politicians reasons to impose greater control on energy production, and to increase the power of the state. That creates winners and losers, which begets lots of lobbyists and campaign contributions.” Pigs to the trough. Oink oink, Al, oink oink.

Oh happy day…I don’t have to take the environment to the doctor after all.

Christine on July 18, 2008 at 3:05 PM

Here’s another blasphemous scientist who says there is no science to support the theory that carbon emissions cause global warming. Send him to the gallows!

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

Buy Danish on July 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM

Hypothesis worth looking at, if even to only disproove it… because you know, thats how science works.

Romeo13 on July 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM

thats the ‘old’ view of science…now its just another political enterprise…with the goal of a socialist state, to impose the ‘scientific’ findings of liberalism.

right4life on July 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM

Buy Danish on July 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM

Thanx for the link!

Ordinary1 on July 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM

at the end of the day I will turn to the scientific community for advice on preventing heart disease.
bayam on July 18, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Without asking a single question?

Like “why?”

Or “doctor X says you should do this

You wouldn’t even be curious? You wouldn’t discuss it with friends to see what experiences they’ve had?

You’re an outlier, dude. An extreme case.

But we knew that.

jeff_from_mpls on July 18, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Check out the Petition Project:

“The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

“Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

“It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

“These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.”

petefrt on July 18, 2008 at 4:16 PM

“The truth will out…” and expose algore and his bevy of disciples as idiots and money grubbers.

ultracon on July 18, 2008 at 4:29 PM

Buy Danish on July 18, 2008 at 9:53 AM

;-)

I’m not good at smilies. Let’s say it was implied.

Jaibones on July 18, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Buy Danish on July 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM

Yes, that is a terrific link. Thank you!

I liked this quote:

As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

And this is especially maddening:

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

INC on July 18, 2008 at 4:53 PM

I’m not good at smilies. Let’s say it was implied.

Jaibones on July 18, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Phew. I thought maybe it was a slight to our Democracy to call the Queen of England, well, the Queen of England, or something…

And, for the record, I love the fact that Lord Monckton is a Thatcherite, and I’d pay rock star prices to see him debate Sir Al Lardass Gore one on one.

Buy Danish on July 18, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Seven top scientist saying CO2 does NOT causing global warming.

If you take CO2 as a percentage of all the gasses in the atmosphere, the oxygen, the nitrogen and argon and so on its .054% [.00054], its an incredibly small portion and then of course you’ve got to take that portion which supposedly humans are adding which is the focus of all the concern and it gets even smaller.

The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases, a small percentage of them we call greenhouse gases, and of that very small percentage of greenhouse gases, 95% of it is water vapor, its the most important greenhouse gas.

The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have here, they said, if the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas then the temperature will go up, but the ice core records shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.

Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology University of Winnipeg

[There have been periods] in earth’s history when we had three times as much CO2 as we do today, times when we had ten times as much CO2 as we have today, if CO2 has a large effect in climate then we should see it in the temperature reconstruction.

Professor Nir Shawiv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem

We can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainty never did in the past.

CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, its a product of temperature, its following temperature changes.

Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2.

Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, by far the most important greenhouse gas.

Humans produce a small fraction in the single digits, percentage wise of the CO2 that is produced in the atmosphere.

Professor John Christy, Lead Author, IPCC, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Anyone that goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.

Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

CO2 began to increase exponentially in about 1940, but the temperature actually began to decrease 1940, continued until about 1975.

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Center

Watch their entire presentation HERE.

Maxx on July 18, 2008 at 6:22 PM

Here’s another blasphemous scientist who says there is no science to support the theory that carbon emissions cause global warming. Send him to the gallows!

Those who say that a majority of top scientists question the basic sciene behind global warming are just as dishonest as those on the left who say that global warming is accepted by every scientist in the world.

But if you go to any major research university in the United States- Stanford, Michigan, Duke, MIT- you’ll find a solid consensus behind global warming.

To me, much of this argument is misdirected. Global warming is about risk management. What is the probabilty that global warming is occurring, and based on the likely consequences, what level of investment to curtail its effects can be warranted?

If global warming concerns mean following the advice of T. Boone Pickens and investing massively in nuclear, solar, and wind to greatly reduce US independence on foreign oil, it may turn out to be far less of a devisive issue than some people imagine.

bayam on July 18, 2008 at 6:54 PM

The risks of deliberate human interference in climate change to counteract a perceived ignorant human interference in climate change are enormous and arrogant. ignorant

desertdweller on July 18, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Sorry, my version.

If humans mess with the climate, which future species of plants and animals will never exist? Is that an EPA issue?
Something called pre-extinction?

Speakup on July 18, 2008 at 7:03 PM

Solar activity during the past seventy years, Monckton states, exceeded what had been seen for 11,000 years, which led to the warming activity here on Earth and elsewhere in the system.

No sh*t……………….?

Seven Percent Solution on July 18, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Global warming might kill me, this I know,
Though my thermostat is turned down, oh so low.
Though my lights are all set on dim,
Still Al bids me to scrimp more for him.

Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.

Though my Honda is oh, so slow,
With my brain in his hands I’ll go.
On through life, let come to me what may,
He’ll be fling in a private jet going his own way.

Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.

Though I am no longer young,
I have learned so much which He’s begun.
Let me live in a cave like my ancestors did for the Oracle with a smile,
Go with him the extra carbon credit pile.

Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.

When the days are hot and long,
In my hand He puts a bong.
Telling me in words so clear,
“Have no fear, I am the Oracle and I am near.”

Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.

When his work in America is done,
And his bank accounts weigh a ton.
He will take my roof above,
Then I’ll understand all about his love.

Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.

I praise the Goracle, does he know?
Have I ever told Him so?
The Goracle loves to hear me say,
That I will buy his carbon credits every day.

Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.

MB4 on July 18, 2008 at 7:15 PM

As I noted in the first paragraph, the APS has not changed its position on anthropogenic global warming, at least not yet. This effort comes from a subgroup within APS.

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
- Charles Mackay

MB4 on July 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM

I’d pay rock star prices to see him debate Sir Al Lardass Gore one on one.

Buy Danish on July 18, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Just tweaking your nose on his Lordship, or whatever. I would kill to see that debate, but Fat Albert wouldn’t debate a high school kid on GWH*.

(Global Warming Hysteria)

Jaibones on July 18, 2008 at 8:21 PM

“The truth will out…” and expose algore and his bevy of disciples as idiots and money grubbers.

ultracon on July 18, 2008 at 4:29 PM

But, but, but … we’ve spent billions of dollars on combating global warming – and it’s now getting cooler! It worked .. right? Case closed. /

OldEnglish on July 18, 2008 at 9:00 PM

At my school (middle school) lots of teachers didn’t buy into the whole global warming hoax. Not everybody was bamboozled.

Mojave Mark on July 18, 2008 at 9:01 PM

“(George Bush) betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!” — Al Gore

Seven Percent Solution on July 18, 2008 at 8:55 PM

And, of course Al also said this -

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

MB4 on July 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM

well, ya’ll can say what u want. it’s been really hot this week here in socal and that’s all i need to know. i’m buying some carbon credits first thing monday morning. i need some cool air soon or i’ll go mad, mad, mad i tell u.

TheCulturalist on July 18, 2008 at 10:19 PM

It is important to remember that climate science is not a public debate carried out on the opinion pages of newspapers (and blogs). What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouring over countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climate works and scrutinizing every aspect of each other’s work.

bayam on July 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Of course there is no agenda. Is there? Even when it is getting colder? Is there?

Johan Klaus on July 19, 2008 at 12:56 AM

bayam-

Good thing scientists are so good at predicting the future is other fields, too.

Oh, wait…

profitsbeard on July 19, 2008 at 1:09 AM

Does this mean that HOTAIR will stop promoting alternate energy sources no matter what the cost?

burt on July 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM

Of course not. Give me a link to the water-fueled car and I’ll go buy it now.

Squiggy on July 19, 2008 at 7:47 AM

Give me a link to the water-fueled car and I’ll go buy it now.

Squiggy on July 19, 2008 at 7:47 AM

http://www.steamcar.net/lsr.html

Will this do, Sir?

OldEnglish on July 19, 2008 at 9:38 AM

http://www.steamcar.net/lsr.html
Will this do, Sir?
OldEnglish on July 19, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Interesting. Steam engines have come a long way.

I remember my grandfather telling the story about the first car that he ever had seen. It was a Stanley Steamer clanking, clattering down an old dirt, West Virginia road. He was 6 years old (1896) and it scared him so much that he hid in the woods while it drove by.

MoCoM on July 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM

To me, much of this argument is misdirected. Global warming is about risk management.

bayam on July 18, 2008 at 6:54 PM

This is a silly argument, because the wild estimates of the effects of a small amount of warming have even less science behind them than the now-discredited Global Warming hypothesis itself!!! These range from provably wrong assertions that melting of floating ice packs will flood dry land (only if Archimedes’ principle is repealed) to unscientific and unproven assertions that Polar Bears will drown and Caribou will suffer when in fact there is evidence that both have been shown to like warm pipelines and oil exploration sites: they actually seek them out!!

The main point is that consensus is not evidence and is definitely not science: if it were, the earth would be flat and Columbus would have fallen off the edge instead of discovering America.

Strong evidence of scientific validity includes “predictive validity”: something which the Anthropological Global Warming theory totally lacks!!!

A foundation of Anthropological Global Warming Theory is the totally unwarranted and silly assumption that the Global Warmists know what the “ideal temperature” of the planet is!! They also make wild claims that they know how to control the global temperature: a totally wild and unproven claim which is completely unsupported by any facts or controlled experiments. The truth is that changing temperatures simultaneously present benefits and challenges to all life forms: there is no “correct global temperature” and the planet has routinely undergone many large temperature changes over the ages without the involvement of man. Successful life forms simply adapt to these changes!!! And I don’t remember a world-wide election where Al Gore was elected world dictator in charge of “correct temperature”.

So if you don’t know where you’re going and you don’t know how to steer toward your destination anyway, isn’t it grossly premature and totally ridiculous to spend time, energy, and tons of money to get there?? Under these circumstances, isn’t mandating drastic changes in everything in the name of “doing something” the riskiest course of all???

landlines on July 19, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Look, it is all very simple. Obviously, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (and/or Change) crowd consists of the best computer modelers ever to have existed on the face of the Earth. They have, quite easily, developed computer models to predict the long-term evolution of a highly chaotic system (even without anything near perfect information) so accurately that we should redirect a huge amount of capital and resources on its say-so.

Well, any group that possesses such brilliance never needs to ask anyone for anything. All they have to do is turn their efforts to modeling much simpler systems, like the S+P500, oil prices, … and then they can earn as much money as they want with their amazing abilities to predict the time series and use that money to fund and implement their policies – privately. Problem solved. People that smart never need to ask others for anything.

progressoverpeace on July 19, 2008 at 12:23 PM

One thing I love about being a “Global Warming Denier” is that I am in such good company.

George Carlin on Threats to the Planet

(content warning)

Maxx on July 19, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Glen Beck and John Coleman (founder of The Weather Channel) on why scientists go along with the global warming hoax.

Maxx on July 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Ordinary1 on July 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM

upinak on July 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Maxx on July 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Do you have a link for the freezing penguins?

Here it is Maxx

Thanks for the input folks, geezer that I am, it slipped my mind I’d been posting on this thread earlier…? Have no fear your day is near…

Any who…there’s some good news…

Arctic Sea Ice Narrowly Missed Record Low In Winter 2007…

However…

Arctic Sea Ice Still At Risk Despite Cold Winter, NASA Says…

…and then some not very good.

The massive Wilkins Ice Shelf in the Antarctic is collapsing!

J_Gocht on July 19, 2008 at 8:36 PM

J_Gocht on July 19, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Thanks for your link on the freezing Penguins, actually I had already found it and read it yesterday. I’ve got major issues concerning the truthfulness of the story. (1) why is it that the average global temperature is getting colder since 1998 but the article claims a 3C rise in temperature over the past 50 years for an average of -14.7C in Antarctica, seems very strange. (2) Wiki says both mommy and pappa penguins keep little penguins warm while the other does fishing, did global warming make them become uncaring parents? (3) Also –14.7C is still well below freezing for an AVERAGE temperature, how can it be RAINING half the time, once again, (4) just another fantastic story from the advocates of global warming, protecting their grant money.

This is nothing more than another “tug at your heart-strings” the polar bears are dying story, which of course was confirmed lie number 65,658 from the global warming hucksters. Your problem J_Gocht is that you want to believe this stuff no matter what, no matter how many times the global warmers are show for the pathological liars they are, you still continue to believe them. Unreal.

And I told you why the Arctic ice is melting, but you ignored it. Underwater volcanoes Dude…. more eruptions going on right now than at any time in the recorded past. When you warm the water the ice melts, that’s the way it is, has nothing to do with CO2 or Al Gore global warming.

It’s also a fact that we are STILL coming out of the Little Ice Age which is when most of the glaciers and large masses of ice were formed. Yes, the ice has been melting for 400 years and it will continue to melt unless we go into another ice age. Do you really want to go into another ice age just so sea ice won’t melt?

Maxx on July 19, 2008 at 10:52 PM

Maxx on July 19, 2008 at 10:52 PM

I certainly appreciate your reasoned thoughts concerning the continuing debate about global warming. Your points are well made, especially the issue of undersea volcanoes with respect to the recession of the Artic ice field.

The issue of the Wilkins field in Antarctica however; may be a broken egg from a different bird?

The study of atmospheric and earth science is truly a vast field of differing theories and hypothesizes. Politics per se should not be the final arbiter; the scientific method should prevail. With that in mind, we should embrace the objectivity of science and lay our personal subjective political inclinations aside.

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 7:54 AM

Physicists forced to reaffirm that human-caused global warming is “incontrovertible”

“The evidence is incontrovertible” and “We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

“…[The] editor who single-handedly smeared the good name of the American Physical Society and the 50,000 physicists it represents is one “Jeff Marque, Senior Staff Physicist at Beckman Coulter Corporation, 1050 Page Mill Rd., MSY-14, Palo Alto, CA 94304…
“…Apparently Marque hasn’t quite caught onto the scientific method. Aside from the fact that he doesn’t name a single scientist who does not agree with the conclusion, it is quite irrelevant as to whether there are some scientists who don’t agree with the scientific understanding. As I’ve written, “What matters is scientific findings — data, not opinions…

The scientific method must in the last analysis, be the final arbiter.

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 9:54 AM

bayam on July 18, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Consensus does not a fact make. Scientist had a consensus on the makeup of Uranus and Saturn which was not even close. Would it be that T. Boone is trying to line his own pockets. It is easy to make money when the government gives a mandate, versus relying on the market.

Johan Klaus on July 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM

The scientific method must in the last analysis, be the final arbiter.

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 9:54 AM

These scientist still have not explained away previous warmer centuries.

Johan Klaus on July 20, 2008 at 10:02 AM

“…Consensus does not a fact make. Johan Klaus on July 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM

I made no mention of “consensus”.

These scientist still have not explained away previous warmer centuries.
Johan Klaus on July 20, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Scientists and technicians do “not explain away” they rely on empirical evidence and results of reproducible protocols. These specific requirements, until they are settled, often give rise to controversy; such as we witness in the “global warming” debate we are discussing today.

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 10:47 AM

we should embrace the objectivity of science and lay our personal subjective political inclinations aside.

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 7:54 AM

See, you’ve got it backwards. Obviously you believe that it’s the peoples duty to serve science. That’s wrong. Its the job of science to serve people and especially in those areas of science where the taxpayer is footing the bills for science as in the case of the global warming. Taxpayers have every right and in fact a duty to speak up when they believe their hard earned money is being wasted on a boondoggle, and the global warming myth is obviously exactly that.

And there is no objectivity in the big science community on this issue. How many times have we heard the proponents of global warming call for the decertification, or more recently the arrest and prosecution of those who disagree with the hopelessly flawed global warming models? The global warmers are up to their eyeballs in politics on this issue, they have their own paid political spokesman on this issue, Al Gore. Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician and a leftist politician at that.

In fact, this very article that you linked is proof positive that science has lost all objectivity on this issue. Note that the article states that Monckton paper has NOT been peer reviewed, yet their immediate reaction is to smear Monckton rather than review the paper. How exactly does that fit in for any type of objectivity?

Science does not want any debate on this issue, they simply want the public to bow down and pay their bills. That’s not going to happen. And in the end, somebody is going to be accountable for all this wasted money and for frightening our children into sleepless nights.

Maxx on July 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM

“…Note that the article states that Monckton paper has NOT been peer reviewed, yet their immediate reaction is to smear Monckton rather than review the paper. How exactly does that fit in for any type of objectivity?
Maxx on July 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM

“…yet their immediate reaction is to smear Monckton rather than review the paper.”

Maxx, they are purely commentators as are we.

It is not their preview to review Lord Mockton’s paper. What they are stating is…that those competent to do so…have not yet done so!

They are being entirely objective; by not attempting to review Lord Mockton’s paper…!

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 12:08 PM

“…and for frightening our children into sleepless nights.
Maxx on July 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Gosh Maxx, even I must admit that may be just a bit over the top…?
Have you been spending to much time listening to Rush?

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Gosh Maxx, even I must admit that may be just a bit over the top…?
Have you been spending to much time listening to Rush?

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Its not over the top at all. You know this, or should know it. Kids are propagandized endlessly with global warming fear mongering in schools. Here’s and article about it, but I’ve read several along these same lines. Propagandizing children is about as low as you can go in order to promote your political agenda, but the global warmers do it with glee.

Maxx on July 20, 2008 at 2:18 PM

[skeptics] should embrace the objectivity of science and lay our personal subjective political inclinations aside.

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 7:54 AM

Maxx, they are purely commentators as are we.

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Firstly they are not merely “commentators” like us, climateprogress.org is a devoted site to climate change propaganda and those who post there are obviously true believers in this nonsense. So where is your criticism of them and why do you tell us “skeptics” to shut up, but at the same time reference this propaganda site?

Maxx on July 20, 2008 at 2:33 PM

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Here’s a question for you. Why do you believe global warming is true? If you had one item of science to stand on as the rock of your belief, what would it be?

Maxx on July 20, 2008 at 2:38 PM

Maxx…
Rush, likes to regularly set up the “strawman, of “scientific consensus” with respect to global warming, that John Klaus alluded to earlier.
Consensus is a word scientists and technicians don’t use as evidence of reproducible scientific proof; unless it actually is… included in a corroborating peer review.

Listen to the scientists Maxx, not to Rush.

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 2:49 PM

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I don’t listen to Rush. Probably haven’t heard one of his programs in six years or more.

And I didn’t ask you about “consensus.” I ask YOU personally what you thought the best evidence is for man made global warming.

Maxx on July 20, 2008 at 2:54 PM

I am not a meteorologist, climatologist, or psychic purveyor of the future with respect to remote viewing.

How do I feel about the “preponderance of evidence”?
My thought would be; “we’re in a definite warming cycle.” for whatever underlying reason or circumstance.

Anything we as citizens of the world can do to curtail or slow the progression of an undesirable environmental catastrophe for all the plants, animals, and people of this “great blue ball” is definitely worth both our sacrifice and our best efforts!

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM

I don’t listen to Rush. Probably haven’t heard one of his programs in six years or more. Maxx on July 20, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Hey Maxx, I’ll leave you with this…

Ok, if you don’t listen to the “wingnut” and you don’t read the “nut roots”…

What do you do for entertainment; post on HA and write the definitive autobiography of a man who has made his mind up and no one is going to change it…dammit?

Just asking…

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 3:54 PM

My thought would be; “we’re in a definite warming cycle.” for whatever underlying reason or circumstance.

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM

We are not in a warming cycle, we are currently in a cooling cycle, the earth’s temperature has been decreasing for ten years now, where have you been?

And as you say “for whatever underlying reason or circumstance.” The reason the earth varies slightly in average temperature is because the sun’s output is not constant. It’s a normal and well know cycle, its not man made.

Anything we as citizens of the world can do to curtail or slow the progression of an undesirable environmental catastrophe for all the plants, animals, and people of this “great blue ball” is definitely worth both our sacrifice and our best efforts!

J_Gocht on July 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM

I might agree with you if only FIRST there was some evidence of such an impending disaster and man was indeed able to do something about it. But this is clearly not the case. The sun’s cycle is beyond our control and Al Gore doesn’t even acknowledge this is the cause.

I’m sure we will debate this again sometime. I hope you open your eyes a little. I’ve tried not to be dismissive in what I’ve said because I know that only turns people off. I can back up everything I’ve said with multiple references but that is a lot of effort when you are not sure the person you are talking to is prepared to listen.

There is no such thing as man made global warming J_Gocht and I’d be happy to point you to all the evidence, but first you have got to achieve and open mind about it.

It’s been fun…. until next time.

Maxx on July 20, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2