American skepticism on AGW soars

posted at 4:30 pm on March 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Gallup has a new poll showing that the ground is eroding under the feet of anthropogenic global-warming advocates.  Skepticism in the US has rapidly increased over the last four years, climbing from 30% in 2006 to almost half of all respondents in their latest survey:

Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.

Except for one year — the presidential election year of 2004 — skepticism had been a fairly marginal response in the US, hovering around the 30% mark.  The scandals of the East Anglia CRU, the IPCC, and the climate-change industry in general appears to have seriously damaged the standing of AGW advocacy.  As the chart shows, though, skepticism had already begun spiking well before the credibility collapse started in November.

Now, the marginalized group is those who see AGW as an existential threat within their lifetimes.  That’s now down to 32% from a high of 40% in 2008, while skeptics on that point have increased to 67%.  And there are even more reasons for skepticism now.  Pajamas Media reports on more exposed e-mail, this time involving NASA, that shows that the government agency was hiding its own skepticism about its own data:

Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.

The reporter never published it.

Why is this important?  Defenders of the East Anglia CRU conclusions, as well as those of the IPCC, insist that their data has an analog in NASA/GISS.  They claim that even though East Anglia destroyed the raw data and that they have been exposed in manipulating results, the end result more or less matches what NASA/GISS has produced.  If NASA considered its data inferior to the CRU effort, that calls both into question.

The effort continues to crumble, and as it does, it produces another hockey stick — a sharp increase not in global temperatures, but in global common sense.

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

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Thanks for agreeing that you are a hypocrite.

chemman on March 11, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Is proof of a prior ice age not proof enough of the cyclical nature of temperature changes? How did it get cold and get hot before cars and industrial pollution?

TXMomof3 on March 11, 2010 at 4:35 PM

But natural changes don’t matter. Only changes caused by mankind matter. There’s also no defense against manmade climate change, even though man has been reducing the harmful effects of natural climate change through creative engineering for centuries.

hawksruleva on March 11, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Oakland, you keep shooting yourself down. Without trying to be a twit, I recommend you sit down, think of all that’s going with this AGW thing, and come to a solid conclusion in you5r own head.

As things are going, you’re not doing well. Tidy up your mind. You have nothing to prove. Just get honest with yourself.

Liam on March 11, 2010 at 5:35 PM

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM

True he is not a research scientist, he has a science background, taught economics and is a political appointee….however he chaired and produced a summary and purportedly scientific report fully knowing their were significant issues with the veracity of said report. Hence, he is no longer chairman.

Fighton03 on March 11, 2010 at 5:39 PM

We must continually emphasize to our friends that the MSM is corrupt and has not told the truth about global warming, or other matters. We must get them to doubt the MSM and turn to talk radio, FOx News, or Hotair to get accurate news.

mydh12 on March 11, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Liam on March 11, 2010 at 5:29 PM

yeah,yeah,yeah…..I fixed that

Fighton03 on March 11, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Sensible people have had difficulty framing the discussion of Global Warming.

Here are the facts:

1. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere may result in a slight rise of temperature.

2. People that believe that emitting CO2 will result in a catastrophe are crazy.

The issue is not Global Warming. The issue is not even Anthropogenic Global Warming. The issue is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka ManBearPig).

People that believe in catastrophic AGW have no place in our government. They do not deserve any more respect than people who believe in Mayan prophesies or any other folklore garbage.

July 10 on March 11, 2010 at 5:47 PM

True, and probably plenty more. I may be wrong, but I don’t think that Pachauri is a scientist.

[oakland on March 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM]

Pachauri is an engineer, so your clarification isn’t.

Dusty on March 11, 2010 at 5:48 PM

You know what that graph reminds me of? A hockey stick.

JohnJ on March 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM

What’s also notable about the NASA emails out of CEI’s FOIA efforts is that the responses to the USA Today reporter were full of red flags that any halfway competent individual of a scientific or engineering background would have ripped apart like red meat.

A reporter capable of understanding his topic would have drilled down into whether a ‘small modeling group’ (what GISS claimed itself to be) could have had the resources and the breadth of background to do any real quality control on their input data in the first place.

JEM on March 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Pachauri put himself up as the front for what purported to be a scientific organization.

He’s an industrial engineer and economist by training. He may not be a degreed scientist, but he’s not ignorant; his background is solid enough that he knows he was selling bullshit.

JEM on March 11, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Why is this important? Defenders of the East Anglia CRU conclusions, as well as those of the IPCC, insist that their data has an analog in NASA/GISS. They claim that even though East Anglia destroyed the raw data and that they have been exposed in manipulating results, the end result more or less matches what NASA/GISS has produced. If NASA considered its data inferior to the CRU effort, that calls both into question.

You’ll also recall that they once claimed that these “scientists” f-ed up when claiming a “hottest October on record”, because the data was actually from September…
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/16/hottest-october-on-record-was-really-a-september/

And arguably one of the biggest exposed scandals in history (which got absolutely no MSM coverage), when a single blogger caught a bug in GISS’s system which lead to GISS silently changing US annual average temperatures, showing that most of the hottest ten years weren’t in the past decade or two, but before WWII!!!
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/09/bombshell-nasa-revises-recent-us-temperatures-downward-after-y2k-bug-fix/

Man, scientists are smart!

RightWinged on March 11, 2010 at 6:17 PM

From a lowly technician’s perspective, this illustrates how science turns into junk science.

midlander on March 11, 2010 at 6:24 PM

The only hockey stick graph I believe anymore is a graph of our national debt v. time.

WashJeff on March 11, 2010 at 4:50 PM

I always thought the debt v. time graph looked more like a line drawing of the Cliffs of Insanity.

Lily on March 11, 2010 at 6:31 PM

By your own definition (a couple of times now), pro-AGW ’scientists’ have patently not applied the scientific method in their work. Quite the opposite

Are you saying that a preponderance of these scientists are not applying the scientific method? How many are involved in the “scandals”?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Imagine what the % would be if the MSM actually reported all the scandals.

free on March 11, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Here we go again. The religion of Global Warming Denial claims “scandal” without bothering to read the actual e-mails. Just like when you said “Aha! A study on sea rise has been withdrawn” without bothering to find out it was withdrawn for a study that claimed higher sea level rises. Oops.

Read the e-mails, Ed. What they’re talking about is what data they use for the modeling. This is unrelated to NASA’s satellite measurements, as Hanson later clarifies. Hanson also notes that all four groups are operating independently and no group should be considered THE authority.

The gist of this is NASA saying, “No, you can not just take our data as the best and ignore everyone else.”

Learn to read sources, guys. It will keep you from making such massive mis-statements of fact.

Assuming, of course, that facts are what you’re interested in.

Hal_10000 on March 11, 2010 at 6:43 PM

Hal_10000 on March 11, 2010 at 6:43 PM

Spin FAIL.

AUINSC on March 11, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Learn to read sources, guys. It will keep you from making such massive mis-statements of fact.

Assuming, of course, that facts are what you’re interested in.

Hal_10000 on March 11, 2010 at 6:43 PM

Been there, read those. Tree rings make REALLY bad thermometers.

Fighton03 on March 11, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Hal_10000 on March 11, 2010 at 6:43 PM

Global Warming is a difficult subject for many people. There are many nuances and interpretations of what the term “Global Warming” means:

“Global Warming” can mean that earth is warmer now than it was in the past. (Very few people argue this)

“Global Warming” can mean that some warming is a result CO2 emissions. (Some people argue this, but many agree with this basic premise.)

But Global Warming can also mean that as a result of of CO2 emissions there will be a catastrophe and something must be done to stop it! (This is where the crazy comes out. No sane person believes this garbage. I doubt that you believe something this stupid. Al Gore probably doesn’t even believe this, although he makes a good deal of cash convincing others of this idiocy.)

In other words, you’re right, not all of “Global Warming” is a scam. But belief in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming is abject lunacy.

July 10 on March 11, 2010 at 7:22 PM

AGW is an intentionally perpetrated FRAUD. There should be criminal investigations into those benefitting from it.

exdeadhead on March 11, 2010 at 7:24 PM

there should be criminal investigations into those benefitting from it.

exdeadhead on March 11, 2010 at 7:24 PM

I nominate Gore! How many billions did he scam from investors? Makes Barney Madoff look like a piker!

chickasaw42 on March 11, 2010 at 7:32 PM

AGW is an intentionally perpetrated FRAUD. There should be criminal investigations into those benefitting from it.

exdeadhead on March 11, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Start with Margaret Thatcher.

July 10 on March 11, 2010 at 7:36 PM

The father of modern climatology said of Gores flick that it “made me want to vomit.”
‘Kay?

Army Brat on March 11, 2010 at 7:47 PM

How many are involved in the “scandals”?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Get a life. Are you a seminar poster? Do you have any other interests? AMERICA THINK YOU ARE A LIAR!! GET IT! you idiots and useful idiots are being seen for the irrational nuts that you are. Britain and NZ agree as well. WE DON’T BUY IT. IF YOU BELIEVE IT…live your life that way …you and I both know you don’t live your life like AGW is going to be catastrophic. You are just a tool. Hilarious how you only show up on AGW threads. You are a BORE.

CWforFreedom on March 11, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Better late than never.Hopefully the peoples’ awakening will finally kill this AGW nonsense.

DDT on March 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM

In other words, you’re right, not all of “Global Warming” is a scam. But belief in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming is abject lunacy.

Given that, as you say, carbon dioxide does have an effect, why is it illogical to say that continued emissions of this gas might be “catastrophic” for some members of humanity? When the climate changed in the past (such as the medieval warming period), how do we know this change (into it and out of it) wasn’t “catastrophic” for some?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

“why is it illogical to say that continued emissions of this gas might be “catastrophic” for some members of humanity?”

It’s not illogical in the abstract pure sense of logic. After all, the set containing continued emissions includes “to the point where CO2 concentration is 99% of the atmosphere”.

However, now you have to use science to establish whether your hypothesis that “emissions of this gas might be catastrophic” is valid. Climate science hasn’t come anywhere near showing that, and until it does, lay off with your moronic lay “just asking questions, ’cause you sound like a Loose ‘Climate’ Change Truther.

Dusty on March 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM

However, now you have to use science to establish whether your hypothesis that “emissions of this gas might be catastrophic” is valid.

I think that it can be seen historically that climate changes have, and therefore can cause catastrophic changes to civilizations. With changes in weather patterns, crops that once grew well might not grow at all, resulting in starvation, and/or mass migrations (and therefore the “catastrophic” end of the local civilization). As an example, the collapse of the Aztec civilization may have been due to a destabilization in the local climate.

If nature does it on its own (as we know it does), do we really need mankind to help it along?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Plus, NASA also skeptical?

Asking a rhetorical question as if you’re presenting a fact about NASA’s position on global warming. Interesting…

The effort continues to crumble, and as it does, it produces another hockey stick — a sharp increase not in global temperatures, but in global common sense.

A lot of science has led to theories and results that defy common sense. Since liberals and conservatives seem to have different types of ‘common sense’, this isn’t the best litmus test to apply to science. At one point is was common sense that earth was at the center of the universe.

bayam on March 11, 2010 at 9:54 PM

do we really need mankind to help it along?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Well, now there’s the rub, isn’t it? By latching on to the premise that CO2 is a significant driver in climatic forcings, it would seem that we’re fantastically lucky to have, really, control over THE ONE THING that will determine our future. Well, sorta kinda. According to the IPCC’s (a political, not a scientific body, but that’s another discussion) own materials, elimination of humankind’s contribution to the planetary carbon cycle will, at best, have a marginal impact on their climate predictions (which, it has come to light, are based on dodgy modeling code, using very questionable data).

Only one slight problem – CO2 is not nearly the influential player that it’s made out to be. Oh, the ver, very basic science is correct – that CO2 does have a very modest ‘greenhouse’ characteristic, but it’s one that is, at most, logarithmic, with the effects maxing out at concentrations substantially less than are currently present. There are two indications that support this conclusion – first, there’s been no appreciable continued warming (in fact there’s been a very slight decline) for about 12 years now, in spite of increases in CO2 ppm readings, and secondly (and this is even more important) there’s been no decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (infrared) at the frequencies that CO2 is postulated to trap since measurements became available in the 1970s. This in spite of significant and measurable increases, above the margins of measurement error or the OLWR studies, of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Now, if you can accept that observations of light being bent during a solar eclipse may serve as observational confirmation of one of Einstein’s theories (one for which he won the Nobel Prize in Physics), then does this serve as direct, by observation, refutation of the central hypothesis of AGW (emphasis on anthro here) that it’s all the fault of increasing CO2, ergo, it is mankind’s fault for introducing more of it into the atmosphere? Cause if it ain’t the CO2 (which appears to only be a bit player, at most), then how in the HECK is it man’s fault?

If CO2 isn’t the culprit then AGW is bullsh*t. And anyone espousing the AGW theory is either ill-informed, or, if they’re in a position to know better, a willful liar. And if you’re Al Gore, a very well compensated and absolutely brazen liar.

Oh, and to preempt the diversionary questions – the material cited is a peer reviewed study accepted by the UK MET office. Interesting they have this sort of contradictory evidence laying about, and don’t really mention it all that much. And if one isn’t sufficient, here’s another, confirming the results.

Wind Rider on March 11, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Doesn’t “common sense” dictate when a significant change occurs in the environment there is also a significant effect?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 10:08 PM

elimination of humankind’s contribution to the planetary carbon cycle will, at best, have a marginal impact on their climate predictions (which, it has come to light, are based on dodgy modeling code, using very questionable data).

Isn’t data always questionable? What other data that you are aware of that isn’t so?

first, there’s been no appreciable continued warming (in fact there’s been a very slight decline) for about 12 years now, in spite of increases in CO2 ppm readings, and secondly

Completely contrary to the data summaries I have read. Do you have a reference for this?

As far as the infrared emissions, please read the article carefully.

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 10:17 PM

First, Pachauri is trained as an industrial engineer? Wow, I’ll have to check on his professional memberships and see if they can’t be stripped.

As an industrial engineering student myself, I am well aware of what industrial engineers are required to know.

Statistical analysis, and specifically statistical validation of models, is at the heart of our discipline.

Oakland: To address your data question directly, some data is very much ‘not questionable’. If you can show that your data is actually representative of the model characteristic (and you do this by statistical analysis of variance), then your data shouldn’t be questioned.

However, when your data is not representative, the data can be considered of questionable validity. And when the data is known not to be representative, and is then presented as representative, you then have ethics violations.

Scott H on March 11, 2010 at 10:22 PM

If nature does it on its own (as we know it does), do we really need mankind to help it along?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 9:03 PM

You’re insane. You obviously are looking for purpose in life and have latched onto AGW. It is quite sad that this is your only interest. We only see you crawl from under your rock when this subject arises.

BTW why haven’t you criticized those that claimed that the bad snows in the NORTHEAST support AGW as they supposedly claimed that AGW causes cooling when in fact the same people have been claiming WARMING for years. You need a new set of heroes there useful idiot.

CWforFreedom on March 11, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Oakland strange how you never address that fact that you know nothing about any other subject and are seriously ignorant on AGW. What do you really know ? Seriously get a life.

CWforFreedom on March 11, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Oakland: ‘Common sense’ dictates that any effect has a commensurate cause. I believe this is sometimes referred to as the Law of Causality.

However, it does not follow in the converse. Let me give you a simple example from physics.

Let’s say there’s a 1 kilogram object on the ground, and I push it with a force of 100 Newtons. The object then accelerates at 10 meters per second squared. With no other forces acting on it, it should have accelerated at 100 meters per second squared. Why didn’t it? Well, if it was resting on a surface, there could be other forces involved.

And that’s the issue you’re facing. You are doing an isolated, single-variable analysis of an incredibly complex ssytem. It is quite possible that CO2 levels increase the temperature on Earth. However, that is hardly the only variable in the system. The effects of water vapor on temperature (as my sister, an environmental engineer, tells me) is very poorly understood, but is known to have an effect. Perhaps the change in atmospheric water vapor due to human civilization is counteracting some of the effect of the CO2 due to human civilization, in a similar way that friction opposes the force in the example above.

The proper scientific approach at this point is to understand the system, not to predict the system.

Scott H on March 11, 2010 at 10:31 PM

oakland, define “significant” – doubling of CO2? What effect has this had which is ‘significant’. Provide evidence and cites.

I’ve read the articles – look at the data graphs. Now, superimpose the 1970 data over the later data – a perfect match, which contradicts the verbiage claiming the detection of the GHG ‘signal’ they expected to see. The reports are padded with pride that the observations match their individual instance predictive modeling, but say nothing of this rather glaring direct comparative evidence.

As for a reference to a lack of continued warming, I’ll refer you to Hockey Team member Tremberth, who stated in the released emails that it was a tragedy that their models could not account for the lack of warming. . .

And no, data meticulously gathered, scrupulously maintained, and independently verified, is not “questionable” or “dodgy”. The surface temperature data sets certainly don’t meet those requirements, but the calibrated machine readouts of satellites, more so. This is why the sat measurements gathered and held by the University of Alabama at Huntsville are at such variance with the CRU/GISS numbers.

Now, to throw an additional monkey at your wrench, explain, if you’d care to, if CO2 is the ‘significant’ climate forcing agent it is reputed to be, the correlational temperature variations observed on other bodies withn the solar system (e.g. Mars, Titan, the Jovian moons) matching those on Earth, and how changes in Earth’s CO2 levels affected these other bodies.

Wind Rider on March 11, 2010 at 11:04 PM

This is why the sat measurements gathered and held by the University of Alabama at Huntsville are at such variance with the CRU/GISS numbers.

Wind Rider on March 11, 2010 at 11:04 PM

and those UAH numbers still get ‘massaged’ for data homogeneity, and then bounced off of a baseline derived from previous surface measurements (That’s how you get ‘anomaly’, by subtracting from a mythological baseline). Since sats have only been functioning for about 30 yrs, significant portions of that baseline were determined from…you guessed it…surface measurements. That same surface system that has more than 60% of it’s sites with a greater inherent measurement error than the so called ‘anomaly’.

Fighton03 on March 12, 2010 at 1:29 AM

And that’s the issue you’re facing. You are doing an isolated, single-variable analysis of an incredibly complex ssytem.

Climate scientists are very much aware of this fact. One can list many factors that could affect climate (solar irradiance, water vapor, albedo, aerosols, the concentrations of a number of atmospheric constituents, the position of earth’s axis, ect.). The challenge has been to determine the effect of each of these and to incorporate these factors into models and attempt to reproduce past, present and future climate.

To make claims, as many seem to do, that past warming (before the industrial age) suggests that the warming we are experiencing now is not anthropogenic is not justified for the very reason that you give in your comments. Certainly, one cannot assert with 100% confidence that the warming is anthropogenic. One should realize that scientists don’t seek proof, but rather a statistical confidence level that data do or do not support a given hypothesis.

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 7:02 AM

I’ve read the articles – look at the data graphs. Now, superimpose the 1970 data over the later data – a perfect match,

Eyeballing graphs is not representative of the best science. Doing rigorous statistical analysis. You will see, by a reading of the literature, a strong statistical correlation between carbon dioxide and warming when other factors (such as solar forcing) are considered as well.

Now, to throw an additional monkey at your wrench, explain, if you’d care to, if CO2 is the ’significant’ climate forcing agent it is reputed to be, the correlational temperature variations observed on other bodies withn the solar system (e.g. Mars, Titan, the Jovian moons) matching those on Earth, and how changes in Earth’s CO2 levels affected these other bodies.

I suggest you refer to what astronomers say about the warming on other planets.

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 7:07 AM

Correction: Doing rigorous statistical analysis is.

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 7:08 AM

Where?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Everywhere

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Are there differences between “then” and “now”?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 4:55 PM

No

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:23 AM

If the sun doesn’t kick it up a notch soon, we’re going to wish we had some global warming.

ZenDraken on March 11, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Here’s another site

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html

It looks like cycle 24 is getting started, though it will take another 6 months to be sure.

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:28 AM

Are you saying that a preponderance of these scientists are not applying the scientific method? How many are involved in the “scandals”?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 6:32 PM

The preponderance of alarmists stopped using the scientific method decades ago.
All of them.

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:34 AM

Here we go again. The religion of Global Warming Denial claims “scandal” without bothering to read the actual e-mails. Just like when you said “Aha! A study on sea rise has been withdrawn” without bothering to find out it was withdrawn for a study that claimed higher sea level rises. Oops.

Do you enjoy making yourself look stupid.
It was withdrawn because in the words of the author, errors were found that invalidated their conclusion.
Studies are never withdrawn because other studies come to different conclusions.

Hanson also notes that all four groups are operating independently and no group should be considered THE authority.

You don’t do a good job of keeping up, do you. The NASA e-mails show that NASA determined that their data was inferior to CRU’s, so they started using CRU’s. Of the 4 groups, it has been proven that three are not independant. Regarding the Japanese data set, as soon as they open up their records, we will be able to determine if they are indeed, independant.

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:38 AM

Given that, as you say, carbon dioxide does have an effect, why is it illogical to say that continued emissions of this gas might be “catastrophic” for some members of humanity?

CO2 is played out, as a greenhouse gas. That is easy to prove.

When the climate changed in the past (such as the medieval warming period), how do we know this change (into it and out of it) wasn’t “catastrophic” for some?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Man, you are really getting desperate.

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:40 AM

I think that it can be seen historically that climate changes have, and therefore can cause catastrophic changes to civilizations.
oakland on March 11, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Cold is bad for life. Warm is good.

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:41 AM

Doesn’t “common sense” dictate when a significant change occurs in the environment there is also a significant effect?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Where is this “significant change” of which you speak?

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:42 AM

Climate scientists are very much aware of this fact.

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 7:02 AM

They are? You’ve talked to all of them?

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:44 AM

Climate scientists are very much aware of this fact. One can list many factors that could affect climate (solar irradiance, water vapor, albedo, aerosols, the concentrations of a number of atmospheric constituents, the position of earth’s axis, ect.). The challenge has been to determine the effect of each of these and to incorporate these factors into models and attempt to reproduce past, present and future climate.

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 7:02 AM

Interesting. Even the people who make the models admit that the models do a very poor job of accounting for all of those things. (How could they, the knowledge of how those interactions work is not there yet.)

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:46 AM

As an example, the collapse of the Aztec civilization may have been due to a destabilization in the local climate.

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 9:03 PM

That could be one of the most asinine historical references ever seen on a message board. Congrats–I had little doubt it would come from a Gaia cultist, but thought Grow Fins or DeathtoWhitey would have submitted it.

Really? Climate led to the downfall of the Aztecs? Nothing due to Cortez, the Conquistadors, the hatred of the Aztecs by rival tribes like the Mayas that the Aztecs enjoyed (literally) having for lunch?

You really are stupid beyond belief.

PimFortuynsGhost on March 12, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Wind Rider on March 11, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Right, more falsification of the AGW hypothesis.Note, BTW, that although there is some agreement that CO2 has a \’greenhouse\’ effect, there are others who disagree even with that. Experiments by R.W. Woods in 1909 and the famous physicist Niels Bohr in 1913 cast great doubt on the Arrhenius principle that is so heavily relied on by AGW proponents today:

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/blog/2009/02/07/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago

And, if the moderators will permit, an advertisement:Cooking the Planet? Or Cooking the Books? New Climate Realist Store: http://www.zazzle.com/climaterealist

MrLynn on March 12, 2010 at 11:12 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/paranoid-planet/2007/03/17/1174080219538.html?page=fullpage

Flashback 2007: Lovelock Predicts Global Warming Doom: ‘Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic’

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-three-of-the-four-temperature-datasets-now-irrevocably-tainted/

Climategate: Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Really? Climate led to the downfall of the Aztecs?

Same general region; wrong civilization and time period. I should have said Mayas (climate change may well have played a part in their demise).

You really are stupid beyond belief.

Not stupid; just named the wrong civilization by accident. I get the Mayans and Aztecs confused a lot.

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 6:50 PM

CO2 is played out, as a greenhouse gas. That is easy to prove.

I’m waiting for the “proof”. Please show it.

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 6:51 PM

When the climate changed in the past (such as the medieval warming period), how do we know this change (into it and out of it) wasn’t “catastrophic” for some?

oakland on March 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Man, you are really getting desperate.

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:40 AM

That’s an answer, Mark? Maybe you could be a bit more constructive in your replies.

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Climate scientists are very much aware of this fact.

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 7:02 AM

They are? You’ve talked to all of them?

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:44 AM

When you do reading into the matter, it is obvious very quickly.

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Interesting. Even the people who make the models admit that the models do a very poor job of accounting for all of those things. (How could they, the knowledge of how those interactions work is not there yet.)

MarkTheGreat on March 12, 2010 at 8:46 AM

Have you talked to them? If so, to whom? Have you references?

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 6:55 PM

To reiterate, NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climategate temperature data. According to NASA.

…not what they said at all in this article.

oakland on March 12, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2