This is really very good. In times like these true conservatives, like cream, will rise to the top. And the rino’s will reveal themselves and sink. The separation is occurring. Its time for conservative voters to pay close attention. DD

The climate changes. We had an ice age, then it got warm… on it’s own. We had a mini ice age in the middle ages, after an unusually warm period (warmer than it is now) with much higher seas and oceans back then.

And then after the mini ice age it got warm again… on it’s own.

Now back in the 60′s and 70′s, we had all sorts of hoo-haw over ‘global cooling’ and a lot of statist legislation went down the pipe to combat it. Didn’t work because it was never implemented.

Then it was ‘Global Warming’ and we have a lot of statist legislation going down the pipe to combat it.

It won’t work because the threat doesn’t exist.

They aren’t fighting against human pollution behalf of mother earth. They’re fighting against us (and our liberties) on behalf of themselves. This isn’t really about being green enviro-warriors at all… It’s about being reds.

It’s all ‘watermelon environmentalism’– Green on the outside… and being communist Red on the inside.

BTW, does anyone else find it interesting that the folks who are now predicting that human use of fossil fuels will be driving CO2 levels thru the roof for the next couple of centuries if we don’t all stick our heads in the oven immediately are pretty much the same crowd that have been predicting that all the oil was going to be gone by a week from Tuesday for the last thirty or forty years.

Venus is hot because its’ orbital distance from the Sun is considerably smaller than Earth’s. The greenhouse effect depends on solar energy falling on the planet’s surface, and being reradiated in IR wavelengths which are captured by the gases on the way back out to space. Venus’s atmosphere doesn’t operate that way. Mars has very little atmosphere left. IF you could put a copy of Earth’s atmosphere on Mars, with everything except the CO2, you still have a greenhouse effect. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is not THE greenhouse gas, that would be H2O. Even the warmists admit that doubling CO2 over a
century will only give a little over 1C change in global temps. Thay hardly counts as a climate driver. The GCMs that support the AGW fantasy all depend on a positive feedback relationship between CO2 and H2O, which is confirmed by neither observations or logic, since if it existed it would lead to inevitable climate instability.

I would just write this off to the fact that your first paragraph, above, was an exercise in projection. Liberals love projection. It makes them feel normal.

I think this reinforces what I said above, about you being a “politically-driven skeptic” who doesn’t really care to actually understand this stuff.

You seem to be confused about the fact that climate/temperature and CO2 each affects the other. Neither “drives” the other… they both have the capability to affect the other, depending on the situation.

And yes, CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars or Venus works in exactly the same way that it works in ours… its a well-understood physical process.

Stop with the “drives” nonsense. The question is whether increasing CO2 can significantly affect climate. You heard somebody say “drives” and you’re just repeating it. “Drives” has, for quite a long time, been a keyword that is ubiquitous in the rantings of those who are only politically driven skeptics with no real desire to understand what the hell they are talking about.

Huh? Are you just out of your mind? Or, is this some feeble attempt to insult me? Interesting line of attack, I will say. Odd, but interesting.

But the specific reasons I gave–ignoring the fact that it is obvious and small children grasp it better than you do apparently–were two planets which are kept warm by an atmosphere that is almost entirely CO2. That is the most pure proof-of-concept a reasonable person could ask for.

You don’t know what ‘reasonable’ means. Mars and Venus say precious little about CO2 levels DRIVING climate on Earth. But then, I would just write this off to the fact that your first paragraph, above, was an exercise in projection. Liberals love projection. It makes them feel normal.

People would take you more seriously if you spent less time pretending that you didn’t believe/understand incredibly simple science that isn’t in dispute by anyone.

DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 11:17 PM

If you think that CO2′s affect on our climate, or that Mars and Venus prove anything about how CO2 works in our atmosphere, then you are just ignorant.

But the specific reasons I gave–ignoring the fact that it is obvious and small children grasp it better than you do apparently–were two planets which are kept warm by an atmosphere that is almost entirely CO2. That is the most pure proof-of-concept a reasonable person could ask for.

People would take you more seriously if you spent less time pretending that you didn’t believe/understand incredibly simple science that isn’t in dispute by anyone.

Meanwhile, you still haven’t shown me why you think that CO2 might drive climate, other than to cite its naming as a greenhouse gas and to throw out some meaningless references to planets.

I don’t think its an exaggeration to say that this is, possibly, the single stupidest thing I’ve ever seen someone say in these types of discussions.

LOL.

The ignorance of elementary school science is mind-boggling. “Meaningless references to planets”… brilliant.

DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Not brilliant, just sensible. Naming planets has no meaning for this discussion. It is not a proof of anything. But, I’m sure that your concept of proof and mine are quite different.

You still haven’t provided a single specific reason why you think that CO2 drives climate. That’s okay. I didn’t expect you to.

Next thing you know we’ll all be required to wear government approved respirators that wirelessly send our CO2 input/output to the IRS for taxation.

I agree with most of that.

Meanwhile, you still haven’t shown me why you think that CO2 might drive climate, other than to cite its naming as a greenhouse gas and to throw out some meaningless references to planets.

I don’t think its an exaggeration to say that this is, possibly, the single stupidest thing I’ve ever seen someone say in these types of discussions. The ignorance of elementary school science is mind-boggling. “Meaningless references to planets”… brilliant.

No, I think their pretty clear argument is that any human behavior which changes the climate should be altered so as not to change the climate.

DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 7:37 PM

That’s fine, but the fallacy of that argument is the assumption that man has had more of an impact on the climate than other natural forces would lend it to. The constant error is the differentiation between nature and man. Man is part of nature. All that man has created has been through and because of nature. It’s a common misconception that really taints the argument.

When natural droughts occur and massive forest fires take place, how much CO2 is released? When volcanoes or, hopefully not in our lifetime mind you, supervolcanoes erupt, how much CO2 is released? We’re speaking as if we’ve risen above nature, which is a complete and utter falsehood. Tell someone from New Orleans that we’ve risen above it. Tell someone from Indonesia, or anyplace that has earthquakes, tornadoes, flooding, etc.

We are part of nature. The presumption that we are somehow misplaced on this planet is a twisted worldview nurtured by the fevered rantings of misanthropes, animal rights wackos, and environmental extremists. We need to kick that out of the argument and approach the issue from a far more pragmatic viewpoint.

It is not my hypothesis… it’s so well-known that CO2 affects climate that I’m embarrassed for you for asking this question. It is a known greenhouse gas. Specifics? Mars, Venus.

This is a joke, right? “It is a known greenhouse gas”? That’s your answer? Mars, Venus? You’ve got to be kidding me, man.

What the hell does the Vostok Ice Core data have to do with this?

Memory problems? You responded to my post, quoting this part of mine:

Okay, we’re in agreement on the CO2 lagging part. Now, seeing this you have to wonder who the geniuses were who initially thought it was a good idea to use data that clearly shows the opposite of what they are claiming. I mean, that is crazy stupid!

This was all about the Vostok data. It showed the opposite of what the global warming freaks were claiming it showed. The opposite! Which is what led to our little tete a tete, here.

You even already said yourself that that data shows a CO2 increase after warming climate, so I don’t understand how you think that relates to climate warming in response to CO2… it’s an entirely different scenario.

DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 9:16 PM

It doesn’t relate at all, which is what I have said to you over and over and over, and why I have been on your case about talking about that while the whole discussion had been about the Vostok data and what it showed (and climate models, which are jokes beyond belief).

Your statement that Vostok data doesn’t preclude the notion that CO2 might drive climate in an unnatural environment is vacuous. That is what I have been trying to get through to you.

Meanwhile, you still haven’t shown me why you think that CO2 might drive climate, other than to cite its naming as a greenhouse gas (and North Korea is a Democracy because that’s what it’s called …) and to throw out some meaningless references to planets. I suspect that you don’t know, likely because the Vostok data had been the main hinge for the global warming nuts’ “CO2 drives climate” claims.

What the hell does the Vostok Ice Core data have to do with this? You even already said yourself that that data shows a CO2 increase after warming climate, so I don’t understand how you think that relates to climate warming in response to CO2… it’s an entirely different scenario.

However, you are asserting that elevated CO2 cannot CAUSE warmer climates. And that is when you start to sound silly.

DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 8:54 PM

That is not what I wrote. Stop putting your idiotic words into my mouth. I’ve already explained this to you several times.

I said that you made this claim (that CO2 levels might drive climate in unnatural environments) without any reason backing it. Period.

But, prove me wrong. What is your basis for hypothesizing that CO2 levels drive climate and how is that reflected in the Vostok Ice Core data? Be specific.

Using your tortured logic, for example, the ideal gas law (PV = nRT) would not be possible. You would observe pressure increasing as volume decreased and you would declare that “pressure drives volume!” You would then erroneously (and inexplicably) attempt to formalize that as a meaningless logical statement that P->V, and you would argue about it and stick your fingers in your ears.

And you would never realize that you can also change volume and affect pressure, because you are too busy trying to apply inapplicable ideas from some logic class that you just took.

You’ve confused yourself, mostly because you don’t understand logic as well as you think you do (for example, A->B and B->A is possible, but again is not relevant here), and because you are trying to apply irrelevant rules of logic to the CO2/temp relationship.

There is no logical implication here. There are causes and effects…. yes, warmer climates CAUSE elevated CO2. However, you are asserting that elevated CO2 cannot CAUSE warmer climates. And that is when you start to sound silly.

These models have so many fudge factors built into them that it is trivial for the model makers to get any result that they want.

[Their] models fail completely when you attempt to take past data and use it to hindcast historical climates.

MarkTheGreat on May 14, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Those statements are contradictory but the former is true. For example, models could not account for the mid-century cooling period. Adding another parameter (aerosols) allowed them to reproduce the historical data. Similarly, although the models don’t account for temps in this new century, I’m certain that adding a ENSO variable or some such will get them back in business.

Anti-AGWers are playing a losing game. They must change the rules to win. One way is to insist that scientific theories like AGW must have a track record of reliable *future* predictions before being used to formulate policy.

Tortured logic and scientific illiteracy doesn’t make us look good, so I try to convince people to abandon it from time to time.

DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 8:12 PM

You have got to be kidding.

I think your problem is that you are trying to apply particular rules of logic to a situation in which those particular rules make no sense at all.

All scientific reasoning takes place within the language of logic. Now, if you want to argue that lefties aren’t making a scientific argument, then you would be released from the constraints of logic. Is that what you want?

For example, your statement that “A => B (climate drives CO2 levels)” is absolutely meaningless. What are you asserting to be A and B, and how does A imply B?

Er … I put that in the parentheses for you.
A = climate
B = CO2 levels

The Vostok Ice Core data was pulled up and used as the basis for the argument that CO2 levels drive climate (B => A). That was easily proven to be a false analysis of the data, which, instead, showed that CO2 levels lagged climate changes and seemed to imply that climate drives CO2 levels (A => B).

If you don’t understand this way of translating the simple statements to logical implication, then I can’t figure out how you could have the audacity to be making any scientific arguments, at all. That would be as if someone who couldn’t count to 100 was lecturing on the number of people in the world.

What you ARE clearly trying to argue is that since thing A affects thing B, that thing B can’t affect thing A,

No. Read my post again. I never said anything like this. What I did say was that just because A affects B doesn’t say anything about whether B affects A. NOTHING. You cannot just turn implications around. That is illegal, in the logical world, where all scientific discourse takes place.

and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

I have no idea how you even came up with that idea.

Nobody is arguing with you over the fact that in long, natural cycles climate drives CO2… there is no logical rule (since you seem to want to apply those) by which you can go from that fact to the conclusion that CO2 can’t affect climate.

DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 8:10 PM

I said that your hypothesis that the implication from a “natural environment” might just be reversed in an unnatural environment is without any basis in reason. You might as well have just said that chocolate cookies are expensive, because the Vostok data supports that as much as the idea that CO2 drives climate.

If you let the politicians get away with this, everyone’s a criminal and the government will have an excuse to take all you have and imprison you whenever it wants.

I’m putting you in the neo-Malthusian camp…
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 8:05 PM

Why would you put me in that camp? I’m on your side, I’m just apparently less tolerant of stupidity than some people here. Tortured logic and scientific illiteracy doesn’t make us look good, so I try to convince people to abandon it from time to time.

I think your problem is that you are trying to apply particular rules of logic to a situation in which those particular rules make no sense at all. For example, your statement that “A => B (climate drives CO2 levels)” is absolutely meaningless. What are you asserting to be A and B, and how does A imply B?

What you ARE clearly trying to argue is that since thing A affects thing B, that thing B can’t affect thing A, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Nobody is arguing with you over the fact that in long, natural cycles climate drives CO2… there is no logical rule (since you seem to want to apply those) by which you can go from that fact to the conclusion that CO2 can’t affect climate.