Romney: I won’t back down on AGW

posted at 10:49 am on June 9, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Mitt Romney may have enraged the GOP base with his answers on anthropogenic global warming, but as Politico reports, he won’t back down from them in the face of withering criticism from conservatives.  Instead, he appears to be offering a compromise.  He’ll continue to declare his belief in AGW, but promises not to do anything about it:

Mitt Romney won’t be doing any apology tours on climate change.

The early GOP presidential front-runner has broken with his party’s conservative ranks to declare global warming a real threat to the planet that merits some sort of action to curb heat-trapping emissions.

But the former Massachusetts governor is also quick to trash cap and trade, carbon taxes and other controversial policies that have been kicked around over the last decade in Washington.

In a sense, Romney’s initial global warming stance sounds a lot like that of  former President George W. Bush, who during his two terms reluctantly accepted climate science while fighting Democrats and environmentalists over what to do about it.

Er … okay.  If one accepts the premise of AGW, doesn’t that more or less make it incumbent to craft policies that address it?  After all, the theory states that AGW is cumulative, which means that the longer it goes, the problem increases in at least an arithmetic projection, if not an exponential one.  It’s a bit like saying that the federal budget deficit is a real problem, but continuing to propose budgets with trillion-dollar annual deficits.

You know … like Barack Obama did this year.  Twice.

Of course, one hint that AGW isn’t a threat is that its predictions of arithmetic and exponential catastrophes have utterly failed to materialize.  We don’t have 50 million climate-change refugees, as the UN predicted for this year.  Sea levels haven’t swallowed up whole populations.  The modeling from AGW advocates have repeatedly and routinely failed at predictions, which for normal science would mean an end to the theories they claim to prove.

In fact, former AGW advocate and scientist David Evans drove the point home last month in his debunking of AGW:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

Physicist William Happer writes about the AGW “science” in First Things this month:

The earth’s climate has always been changing. Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere. Indeed, there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years (the “Phanerozoic” period). The message is clear that several factors must influence the earth’s temperature, and that while CO2 is one of these factors, it is seldom the dominant one. The other factors are not well understood. Plausible candidates are spontaneous variations of the complicated fluid flow patterns in the oceans and atmosphere of the earth—perhaps influenced by continental drift, volcanoes, variations of the earth’s orbital parameters (ellipticity, spin-axis orientation, etc.), asteroid and comet impacts, variations in the sun’s output (not only the visible radiation but the amount of ultraviolet light, and the solar wind with its magnetic field), variations in cosmic rays leading to variations in cloud cover, and other causes.

The existence of the little ice age and the medieval warm period were an embarrassment to the global-warming establishment, because they showed that the current warming is almost indistinguishable from previous warmings and coolings that had nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. The organization charged with producing scientific support for the climate change crusade, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), finally found a solution. They rewrote the climate history of the past 1000 years with the celebrated “hockey stick” temperature record.

The first IPCC report, issued in 1990, showed both the medieval warm period and the little ice age very clearly. In the IPCC’s 2001 report was a graph that purported to show the earth’s mean temperature since the year 1000. A yet more extreme version of the hockey stick graph made the cover of the Fiftieth Anniversary Report of the United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization. To the surprise of everyone who knew about the strong evidence for the little ice age and the medieval climate optimum, the graph showed a nearly constant temperature from the year 1000 until about 150 years ago, when the temperature began to rise abruptly like the blade of a hockey stick. The inference was that this was due to the anthropogenic “pollutant” CO2.

This damnatia memoriae of inconvenient facts was simply expunged from the 2001 IPCC report, much as Trotsky and Yezhov were removed from Stalin’s photographs by dark-room specialists in the later years of the dictator’s reign. There was no explanation of why both the medieval warm period and the little ice age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later. …

The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations—even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well.

Indeed, the computer programs that produce climate change models have been “tuned” to get the desired answer. The values of various parameters like clouds and the concentrations of anthropogenic aerosols are adjusted to get the best fit to observations. And—perhaps partly because of that—they have been unsuccessful in predicting future climate, even over periods as short as fifteen years. In fact, the real values of most parameters, and the physics of how they affect the earth’s climate, are in most cases only roughly known, too roughly to supply accurate enough data for computer predictions. In my judgment, and in that of many other scientists familiar with the issues, the main problem with models has been their treatment of clouds, changes of which probably have a much bigger effect on the temperature of the earth than changing levels of CO2.

Scientifically, Romney is on weak ground.  Politically, it’s even worse.  He took a beating for his reversal on abortion in the 2007-8 campaign cycle, acquiring the sobriquet of “flip-flopper.”  As a result, Romney simply can’t reverse himself on RomneyCare in Massachusetts, nor will he be able to reverse himself on AGW.  He’s stuck with both positions, and the best he can do on either is to promise to end up doing nothing as President — which isn’t a credible stance, either with the base or with the moderates he seeks to attract.

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 3 4

Why isn’t Myth running as a Dem? He could do the country huge favor to make it official and switch parties. The Ds need a squish in the worst way. Someone to balance the lunes.

james23 on June 9, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Mitt, fork, DONE….
Bye Bye.

ouldbollix on June 9, 2011 at 1:36 PM

If Republicans go for another McCain type of moron again, then I will help them elect Obama who is actually their first choice anyway. No AGW’ers or Cap and Traders…they are wasting their time looking for my vote. If they are not tired of Obama, then they can have him for another 4 years. I’ve already cashed out…downsized bigtime, and collect SS, Medicare, and have just qualified for food stamps and Medicaid assistance (apparently they will pay my Medicare monthly payments, plus more stuff).

Karmi on June 9, 2011 at 11:33 AM

My children, grandchildren, and I all thank you for your principles. We’ll be choking on them along with our double dose of socialism.

While Romney is definitely last on the list for my desired Republican candidate, the argument that he is equivalent to Obama is asinine in the extreme. Yes, he’s a RINO, but a radical socialist? C’mon. Get real.

JSGreg3 on June 9, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Romney’s candidacy is finished. Having said that, does his view on AGW really differ materially from the official Republican party position?

Knott Buyinit on June 9, 2011 at 1:38 PM

They just sent me a donation envelope. I’ll write on it “Ask Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and George Soros for funds. This scientist does not support Agenda 21 (aka “Smart Growth”, and obviously you do.”

What an incredible disappointment. Sickening, really.

NTWR on June 9, 2011 at 1:46 PM

OT: Mitt reminds me of Gary Hart.

Geministorm on June 9, 2011 at 12:43 PM

No, at least Mitt seems to be faithful. Chalk it up to restraint and “magic underwear.”

bw222 on June 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM

I was always an AGW skeptic based on the highly questionable assumptions built into the theory, but I don’t blame folks who were believers at some level until the gross manipulation of the data was revealed.

Romeny’s ream fumbled this one badly. It isn’t a flip-flop to say the discrediting of much of the research has given him reason to reconsider, and until more is understood, radical and costly “solutions” don’t make sense. No flip flop, no controversy. These guys are so busy looking over their shoulders they don’t pay enough attention to the situation at hand.

novaculus on June 9, 2011 at 1:52 PM

My children, grandchildren, and I all thank you for your principles. We’ll be choking on them along with our double dose of socialism.

While Romney is definitely last on the list for my desired Republican candidate, the argument that he is equivalent to Obama is asinine in the extreme. Yes, he’s a RINO, but a radical socialist? C’mon. Get real.

JSGreg3 on June 9, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Mitt is more likely to assist in dragging out the socialism even longer by lending it bipartisan cover.

fossten on June 9, 2011 at 1:53 PM

You sure picked a hell of a time to decide that you couldn’t afford any more flip-flops.

Way to go, Mitt …

RedPepper on June 9, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Over on the Palin thread watching the Palin supporters …

csdeven on June 9, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Stop right there. No need to go any further.

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Why isn’t Myth running as a Dem? He could do the country huge favor to make it official and switch parties. The Ds need a squish in the worst way. Someone to balance the lunes.

james23 on June 9, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Agreed. If Mitt really cared, he’d run as a D.

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 2:10 PM

I just don’t get how people aren’t embarrassed to support this creep.

wheelgun on June 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Time for Willard to go home. Romney Care and now endorsing AGW. Enough is enough. Romney seems to think he’s “paid his dues” and “waited his turn” and is now entitled to the nomination and can therefore say any stupid thing he like. If we wanted another McCain we’d renominate McCain. I hav en’t made my decision who to support but I do know it will not be Mr. “Too Slick by a half.”

LCT688 on June 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM

csdeven on June 9, 2011 at 1:22 PM

I can’t believe I’m agreeing with your statement here.

odat on June 9, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Please don’t use religious arguments against any candidate. Disparaging one disparages all. Leave the religion out of it. That is why the founders insisted there be no religious test for public office.

csdeven on June 9, 2011 at 1:22 PM

What a foolish comment…if someone wanted Sharia Law, don’t disparage that?
You are saying that if their was a religion for pot smoking, don’t “disparage” that?
Of course you look at someones beliefs, that is part of their persona…and BTW, you don’t know the difference between something that happened 2 or 4 or 8 thousand years ago, and just 150 years ago? You don’t think just 150 years ago that it would be easier to trace the truth? That 150 years ago their were much better ways to communicate, document historical events?

right2bright on June 9, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Mitt is more likely to assist in dragging out the socialism even longer by lending it bipartisan cover.

fossten on June 9, 2011 at 1:53 PM

…which is all that we could possibly expect from a RINO. However, he will not be pushing radical change through Congress. It would be the mere drip, drip, drip creep of socialism we’ve been experiencing since FDR. Like I said, he should be last on the presidential list for any conservative, but even Romney is *way* better than Obama.

Hell, Donald Duck would be better than Obama.

JSGreg3 on June 9, 2011 at 2:43 PM

SKYFOX on June 9, 2011 at 1:05 PM

I did the no vote in 2008. It was not as gratifying as I was hoping. I am still happier to have Obama as the President of the United States of America than I would have been with McCain. That, after I actually broke down and sent McCain money after he picked Palin.

When John McCain backed the TARP bailout. What is for me starting to look more and more like a preplanned bribe to get banks to buy all the risky home mortgages to make the government look better by increasing home ownership and a few other perks. That was when I chose to stay home. Not that my Texas vote would have made a damned bit of difference, my vote never seems to, now I am in Arizona, and the likely hood of R losing this state is pretty low, so another pointless protest vote. But the reason I now feel the obligation to vote for the Democrat is that morally, it feels like the right thing to do. Not a supporting vote for the Democrat, but a protest vote for the progressive liberalization of the Republican party.

Years ago, it was pretty bad, so much so that Reagan was an outsider, and things have only progressively move more liberal in the time since. It has been vote for the progressive liberal Republican ever since I gained the right to vote in 1987, in those years I have been forced to look at Bush Sr, Bush Sr, Dole, Bush Jr, Bush Jr, McCain. Is there a single non progressive liberal among that list? Bush Sr made a terrible wartime president and an even worse economic conservative. Dole was put in line because he was able to live long enough to be next in line, and that is not the way to chose a president. Bush Jr was a wonderful wartime president and a terrible economic president. McCain, like Dole, just happened to live long enough to be next in line. All this time we have been forced to vote for the person who will slow the ride to end of times, it was all we could hope for. I am sick of, and it does not matter any more. We can see the end of the road. Between here and 2020 there will be a greater depression regardless of which progressive is in office. Inflation if not hyper-inflation caused by the government trying to monetize a debt that cannot be monetized. A default on our commitments to not only our creditors, but to the babyboomers and beyond. (Not that I give a damn about the babyboomers and their self granted political bribes anyways, but it will still happen and it sucks that it is forced by circumstance rather than moral fiber of the American people.) If we are not careful during this coming self destruction we could be up in arms, American vs American in another civil war. It is what has to happen, with the only caveat being, unless we elect a person who will stop the deficit spending, period, completely stop it in the next presidential term. Put that person on the ballot, and I will vote for them. Leave them off the ballot, and I will vote for the person that will get me to the end of the road sooner than 2020 so I am in much better physical condition to help the winning side of the civil war be the conservatives.

astonerii on June 9, 2011 at 2:53 PM

right2bright on June 9, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Nothing like using strawman arguments to prove your point. Your idiot pot-smoking minister is not running for president, and Sharia law was not in the context of that statement. The issue was Mormonism, and yes, we should not be using that to disparage Romney. Since he has a knack for always being on the wrong side (i.e., the liberal side) of an issue, we don’t have to resort to phoney baloney arguments to disparage him.

JSGreg3 on June 9, 2011 at 2:53 PM

I can’t believe I’m agreeing with your statement here.

odat on June 9, 2011 at 2:24 PM

You can’t believe you are agreeing with me? Or the statement?

csdeven on June 9, 2011 at 2:54 PM

right2bright on June 9, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Smoking pot and Sharia law employ illegal activities. What that person did was say that the absence of witnesses proves the believer is untrustworthy. Now you want to build a straw man argument in defense of that? Nice try, but I’m onto that tactic from you.

csdeven on June 9, 2011 at 3:00 PM

In a sense, Romney’s initial global warming stance sounds a lot like that of former President George W. Bush, who during his two terms reluctantly accepted climate science while fighting Democrats and environmentalists over what to do about it.

I think we can all agree that unnecessary pollution should be reduced. I also don’t believe in AGW but I was very aware that George W. Bush accepted the premise and I know he appointed better judges than Reagan, so pick your poison. He also didn’t create a must treat patient X for free mandate like Reagan did to hospitals. (Thus socializing medicine further) I don’t think the Hot Air gallery understands we’ve never had the perfect president, and probably never will.

scotash on June 9, 2011 at 3:00 PM

astonerii on June 9, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Pfft … yeah. That’s just what we need. Another civil war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

JSGreg3 on June 9, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Over on the Palin thread watching the Palin supporters turn it LMAO! tactic to defend her.

csdeven on June 9, 2011 at 1:24 PM

LMAO…that one’s getting long!

Tim_CA on June 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Mitt does well in the polls when he keeps his mouth shut.

Amjean on June 9, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I think we can all agree that unnecessary pollution should be reduced. I also don’t believe in AGW but I was very aware that George W. Bush accepted the premise and I know he appointed better judges than Reagan, so pick your poison. He also didn’t create a must treat patient X for free mandate like Reagan did to hospitals. (Thus socializing medicine further) I don’t think the Hot Air gallery understands we’ve never had the perfect president, and probably never will.

scotash on June 9, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Please turn in your TRUE CONSERVATIVE badge at the security desk on your way out.

/sarcasm/

The Ugly American on June 9, 2011 at 3:17 PM

If Palin doesn’t jump in and Perry does, she will plow the road for Perry. Palin get’s that Romney is a weak front runner. Palin observes the Republican commandment, not to attack another Republican. That said, she stepped on Romney’s announcement to run for President of the U.S., there are many ways to send a message.

Dr Evil on June 9, 2011 at 11:01 AM

From what I read Palin never strikes first. Palin announced her bus tour and Romney in turn announced his presidential run on the day she would be in New Hampshire.

Unfortunately for Romney that didn’t turn out so well.

Amjean on June 9, 2011 at 3:19 PM

JSGreg3 on June 9, 2011 at 3:01 PM

I am not in a position to start one and not in a position to prevent one. It is all up to the situation of the day. We cannot sustain our current direction. That is clear. It is also clear that the people on the welfare dime are not going to accept being taken off the dime. It is clear that the politicians in power are not going to accept that they cannot spend money bribing the people to vote for them. It is also clear that the people who produce the wealth of this nation are already at the breaking point of how much they can support these two groups of people.

If we hit another recession, we are already below the GDP we had in 2007/2008 time period, our fiscal position will get worse. Worse than increasing debt by a measly $1.6T a year, closer to $2.5T a year. We are the biggest country on the planet by economic standards, who is going to loan us that money? No one, and once the realize that we can never pay it back in non inflation adjusted money worth less than their principle plus interest, no one will even loan us part of it. This will force one of two things: cut back on spending to our income, raise taxes to cover spending or a combination, Romney will not do that, no Republican that is being foisted on us will, they are all wedded to the big government and we must do something mentality. The other choice is what they will do, they will print money. This will set off inflation of around 12% to 20% a year, causing interest rates to skyrocket, this will cause them to print more money, leading to eventual hyper-inflation. It does not matter if it is progressive little or progressive big at this point, one thing about progressives is that they never ever confront reality. So if it is progressive Romney, he just prints the money a bit slower hoping for better economic position later on, which never arrives. If it is progressive Obama, he buys another hundred billion dollars worth of printing presses and adds a few 0s to the notes. Does not matter, the end result is the same. Destruction.

When this destruction comes, many more people are going to be out of a job. It will become Government employees, welfare recipients and politicians who will make out like bandits having all of their compensation planned to be paid inflation adjusted against every producing person in the country. Anyone think that does not spell the opportunity for a civil war? Look no further than Wisconsin for your answer as to whether public employees will stand down.

astonerii on June 9, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Anyone listening to Rush? What book was he talking about? I missed the author and title. He said this book is the best weapon for the GOP in 2012 because it lays out exactly why the banks melted down because of the CRA, Frank, Dodd, Acorn, etc.

karenhasfreedom on June 9, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Here you go: Fanniegate: Gamechanger For The GOP?

…and it’s from al New York Times!

slickwillie2001 on June 9, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Scientifically, Romney is on weak ground. Politically, it’s even worse.

Agree on the science but when 51% of Independents “worried about global warming” …I wouldn’t exactly call that weak ground.

The Ugly American on June 9, 2011 at 3:27 PM

@JSGreg3,

I’ve already mentioned I’d prefer to have the country fail quickly than to continue dragging out the inevitable with a RINO in place. The part I can’t stomach is watching so called conservatives either lead the way (Grahamnesty) or sit by and watch as the liberals do as they wish simply because they are too gutless to stand up to their destructive ideology. In essence, they are no different than a liberal because they allow it (they don’t stop it or fight it when they are specifically in a position to do so) and therefore taking up the space from someone that could have possible done something or made a difference. The RINOs are complicit and just as much to blame for the liberal policies because they don’t do enough to point out how dangerous they are.

1. I don’t want the country to suffer a slow death, I know it would be better to die quickly and begin to rebuild from the ashes than to drag this out for many more years. RINOs like Romney will merely drag this out longer, not divert the course we are on.
2. I can’t stand to see these feckless, spineless, Democrat-lite candidates pretend to represent me and conservatism.
3. Any candidate that derives their political positions based upon polling data isn’t a good candidate or worthy for office.
4. As long as the GOP pushes forward candidates that are more center than right, in an effort to appeal to more voters, we will continue to drive right off the cliff and individual liberty will suffer as big government grows bigger. Learn from the libs, put forth a distinct difference to your opponent to give the voter a clear choice.

When faced with an uber-liberal vs. a RINO, I’d rather go with the guy I know will do what I hate than to watch in disgust as the RINO bends over because they have no principles to defend and in the end the conservative gets the blame…

Geministorm on June 9, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Bottom Line …it’s the economy stupid.

IF he becomes the nominee …I doubt most voters will give a rats ass what Mitt thinks about global warming or abortion.

He’ll roll over Obama on economics.

The Ugly American on June 9, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Bottom Line …it’s the economy stupid.

IF he becomes the nominee …I doubt most voters will give a rats ass what Mitt thinks about global warming or abortion.

He’ll roll over Obama on economics.

The Ugly American on June 9, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Yes, in the general. The problem Mitt has is that he seems to think he has already won the primary and is positioning himself for the general. Every primary teh candidates run to the right and then move back to the center in the general (and vice-versa for teh dems).

So, we can assume one of two things. Either Mitt is so arrogant that he thinks he’s got this in teh bag and is setting his “centrist” positions up now – primaries be damned – which I think demonstrates a lack of judgment; or

This is actually Mitt running to the right and he is going to move even farther to the left in the general. Which means he will be about as conservative as Clinton when governing. (I admit, even Clinton would be a large improvement over Obama).

Either way though, he is not a very smart candidate. I think he is pretty much an empty suit with no beliefs. He just wants the job.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Stay home.

Frankly, that you would help doom the country to another four years of Obama – given all the damage he’s done – tells us plenty about the type of person you are.

catmman on June 9, 2011 at 1:09 PM

and if the GOP nominates Romney, that tells me they don’t care if the damage continues. Romney will not save this country from the current problems. Unfortunately we need someone of Reagan’s vision and so far none of the candidates appear to be anything other than politicians.

Honestly, I don’t think we can save the US. Demographics, societal values regarding work and the amount of government give-aways doom us. I’m preparing my children to recognize opportunity may lay overseas. I want to be wrong, but year by year I fail to see facts that point in any other direction. Oh, the US will be here, but functioning at the level of France or Italy.

Over50 on June 9, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Er … okay. If one accepts the premise of AGW, doesn’t that more or less make it incumbent to craft policies that address it? After all, the theory states that AGW is cumulative, which means that the longer it goes, the problem increases in at least an arithmetic projection, if not an exponential one. It’s a bit like saying that the federal budget deficit is a real problem, but continuing to propose budgets with trillion-dollar annual deficits.

I think chances are good that smoking causes cancer, but that does not mean I want to make smoking a crime.

The thing is I honestly do not care what people believe, if they leave me alone..and the truth is we don’t know exactly what the truth is.

The climate has been changing forever. There was a time when there were no polar ice caps. So, even if the earth’s temperature is warming it might be inevitable..or not. But I don’t think there is much we can do about that.

You could also claim that genetically modified crops and farm chemicals are bad…but without the use of them there would be more hunger and there would also be a need for a lot more farmers and a lot more farm ground.

There is much in life that is a trade off and I for one would rather see a warmer planet than another ice age..which will probably happen sooner or later too.

And besides, I can not believe most conservatives care about this all that much…after all when Mitch Daniels’s name was being floated around as a possible candidate I don’t remember hearing conservatives giving him a lot of credit for calling the Waxman Markey bill economic imperialism… The only guy who gave him credit where credit is due is Ed Morrisey. Even Palin flirted with the whole green house gas emission thing when she was Governor of Alaska.

So, as long as people think that Romney will not try and drive up energy prices, I don’t imagine they really care what he thinks in terms of global warming.

Terrye on June 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Meanwhile, he’s gaining support from the moderates and swing voters.

In 2008 I said early on that I would never vote for McCain, but in the end, when it can to a choice in the voting booth, I voted for him rather than Obama.

I don’t much care what Mitt believes about AGW if he’s not going to do anything about it. His priorities are making the U.S. energy independent and getting us back to work in real jobs that create real wealth. He’s uniquely qualified to do that. He has the best chance to beat Obama. That may change, but for now, I’m supporting Mitt.

flataffect on June 9, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Romney is not the man for a Republican victory in 2012. As a conservative and MA native, he just doesn’t have the conservative stones. Nice guy but not THE guy.

thegreatbeast on June 9, 2011 at 4:52 PM

I can’t believe I’m agreeing with your statement here.

odat on June 9, 2011 at 2:24 PM
You can’t believe you are agreeing with me? Or the statement?

csdeven on June 9, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Yes

odat on June 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM

You can’t believe you are agreeing with me?
csdeven on June 9, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Yes

odat on June 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Please stay away from anything sharp! :-)

csdeven on June 9, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Listen, we have to understand that this country can no longer handle the truth. The Urban Myth makers (the left/media) have so deluded people that you can not say the truth about most things.

It is very sad…we no longer have an informed electorate. So maybe Romney is a decent hope…maybe once in office he will at least stop the raging leftists…that would be a start

r keller on June 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM

csdeven on June 9, 2011 at 5:02 PM

My oncologist tells me that a lot. I don’t listen to him, either. I’m just careful.

odat on June 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM

He’ll (Romney) continue to declare his belief in AGW, but promises not to do anything about it:

It’s guaranteed that, if elected President, Mitt will one day embrace his rinoness and sign Cap & Trade and more.

RJL on June 9, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Yeah, we’ll hold our nose and vote for this blockhead like we did for McCain, but we won’t like it, and maybe not enough of us. His only hope is if the entire Osmond Family campaigns for him. Maybe do a TV special or something.

curved space on June 9, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Listen, we have to understand that this country can no longer handle the truth. The Urban Myth makers (the left/media) have so deluded people that you can not say the truth about most things.

It is very sad…we no longer have an informed electorate. So maybe Romney is a decent hope…maybe once in office he will at least stop the raging leftists…that would be a start

r keller on June 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Well, you are a prime example of a “squishy Republican”. Please vote for the clueless Romney if you wish but don’t pretend you can cover your own gutless foolishness by smearing the American people.

You, sir, are simply looking for an excuse to pull the lever for one more lying POS RINO. It’s ironic you smear Americans with the same quote that Pawlenty used positively to praise American voters. He is telling the truth in spades because he believes America WANTS the Truth. I’m not a T-Paw guy but I am impressed. Please notice that Hot Air was too busy tugging on Weiners to cover the speech same day. MM wouldn’t have allowed that.

It’s a free country for awhile. Go ahead blow off Palin, Cain and T-Paw who are facing the truth straight up. Make your excuses for being a gutless RINO but stop blaming us for your cowardice.

rcl on June 9, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Romney destroyed his chances of winning this primary with his statement about man caused global warming. The man let his mask slip off for that moment and what we all witnessed is an establishment politician rather than a man who will represent the American people.

F**k this wipe…

Keemo on June 9, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Does everyone agree that engines and energy producing plants and other modern technologies create heat from sources that didn’t normally do so, like oil and gas and coal? These are fuels for sure, but not until they’ve been processed and refined and then burned to expend their pent up energies, but in their natural state they aren’t bad for the environment per se.
.
Did mankind have engines and energy plants prior to the 1860′s or so?
.
No, he didn’t, at least not in any appreciable numbers, but we do now… And the numbers of them are increasing exponentially across the planet as the knowledge and the “how to” of them is spread.
.
All engines create heat and our actions have consequences, and when we burn fossil fuels the reaction results in heat and pollution. Nobody with a rational mind can deny this.
.
I’m sure I’ll hear all kinds of equivocations and mealy mouthed explanations as to how this doesn’t add to global warming but the one fact we can’t get away from is that over the last few hundred years the numbers of humans on this planet has increased exponentially.
.
We’ve taken over this planet in ways that we haven’t seen before. We’re now using technology that wasn’t available to our ancestors which simply DOES create heat and pollution, and the numbers of these devices continues to increase as I write this, and the added contribution of those engines to the numbers already working today contributes to AGW.
.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and to deny AGW is to deny the truth. There is just no way around it folks, we can argue about the extent of the reaction but whether it’s a little or a lot, we DO contribute to AGW.
.
Think about it and face it.

SauerKraut537 on June 9, 2011 at 6:29 PM

My oncologist tells me that a lot. I don’t listen to him, either. I’m just careful.

odat on June 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Sorry to hear that. Hope you get better.

csdeven on June 9, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Romney is not electable and neither is Gingrich.

kmarie on June 9, 2011 at 8:28 PM

The climate has been changing forever. There was a time when there were no polar ice caps. So, even if the earth’s temperature is warming it might be inevitable..or not. But I don’t think there is much we can do about that

Not “much we can do about that” – other than not add to it.

oakland on June 9, 2011 at 8:28 PM

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and to deny AGW is to deny the truth. There is just no way around it folks, we can argue about the extent of the reaction but whether it’s a little or a lot, we DO contribute to AGW.
.
Think about it and face it.

SauerKraut537 on June 9, 2011 at 6:29 PM

SauerKraut,

I don’t think that the third law is applicable here, but I like your post.

There is simply no way that the extra 100 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age is inconsequential.

oakland on June 9, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Instead, he appears to be offering a compromise. He’ll continue to declare his belief in AGW, but promises not to do anything about it:

Sorry Mittens but I don’t have any reason to believe you.

Not “much we can do about that” – other than not add to it.

oakland on June 9, 2011 at 8:28 PM

We’ve been through this before oakland. Your lifestyle adds to it so until you are willing to change then you shouldn’t post like this.

chemman on June 9, 2011 at 8:35 PM

There is simply no way that the extra 100 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age is inconsequential.

oakland on June 9, 2011 at 8:34 PM

The agreed upon change for the 20th century is .7 C. with error bars in the 1-2 C range. I would call that inconsequential since the change is as likely to be noise as it is to be real.

chemman on June 9, 2011 at 8:38 PM

SauerKraut537 on June 9, 2011 at 6:29 PM

And because most of those heat engines exist in the urban areas they are part of the UHI effect. Our cities hotter most definitely. If this is how you define AGW then I have no beef with you.
Since you are passionate about this what have you done to quit contributing in AGW or are you like the others who whine and cry but continue their sinful AGW lifestyles?

chemman on June 9, 2011 at 8:43 PM

I would call that inconsequential since the change is as likely to be noise as it is to be real.

chemman on June 9, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Good. Now take a peek into the 21st century. Come back and report to me.

Nine of the last ten years are among the top hottest years in world recorded history.

The average temperature is setting an a positive trend line that is unmistakeable.

We have no idea how much small (but increasing) positive anomalies in average temperature will affect rainfall patterns, but climatoligists think that the changes could very well severely impact crop production. This is where the whole thing gets very personal.

The amount of melting ice in the Arctic and Greenland is massive. This has deeply disturbing consequences in terms of possible positive feedbacks. One is the release of methyl hydrated clathrates in the tundra (methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas). The other is the loss of albedo which moderates the earth’s temperature by reflecting much solar radiation into outer space.

Inconsequential? I don’t think so. And neither do the propendance of scientists think so.

oakland on June 9, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Hotair,

Why is my rebuttal to Ed’s argument in the article worthy of being moderated out?

Maybe you should also expunge all ad hominen attacks leveled at folks who disagree with the majority opinion on this site (to be fair)?

oakland on June 9, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Not “much we can do about that” – other than not add to it.

oakland on June 9, 2011 at 8:28 PM

We’ve been through this before oakland. Your lifestyle adds to it so until you are willing to change then you shouldn’t post like this.

chemman on June 9, 2011 at 8:35 PM

So, I shouldn’t have an opinion? What makes your opinion worthy but mine not?

Or, are you one of those folks who believes that if he simply doesn’t buy into it (i.e., AGW), then he isn’t responsible for doing anything about it?

oakland on June 9, 2011 at 8:49 PM

SauerKraut,

I don’t think that the third law is applicable here, but I like your post.

There is simply no way that the extra 100 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age is inconsequential.

oakland on June 9, 2011 at 8:34 PM

It doesn’t directly apply, but the law works for the metaphorical purposes of what WE as people do with our energy consumption. More to the point though is that to deny AGW is to deny the consequences of our actions.

There can be no doubt that we as humans have grown from 1.1 billion people in the early 1900′s to over 6 billion at the turn of the millenium. In the early 1900′s, JUST from the perspective of being humans alone and taking into account the amount of CO2 we exhale, we weren’t putting out nearly the amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that we do today. Add to that the increase in fossil fuel consumption, and there can be no doubt that we contribute greatly to the greenhouse gases that do make for warmer climes.

As the population of this planet continues to grow and technology becomes more prevalent all those people will use more and more energy in order to survive. That will only result in more pollution and heat transfer.

Don’t focus too much on the whole carbon dioxide argument. If you do then you’re not seeing the forest for the trees. We all know that polluted environments make for less capable places to live.

If you run a car engine in a garage for long enough and sit there and inhale it, it will kill you. The earth is our garage. Keep emitting carbon and heat into the atmosphere and nothing good can come from it but death for our way of life.

This next comment is a bit generalized but I think we can all agree that this planet needs some serious birth control. There are too many of us as it is and if we want to make poverty and hunger and other terrible tragedies like those to go away then we need to have less people. People go hungry because there are too many people and not enough resources. People live in poverty because there are too many people and not enough resources to sustain them.

SauerKraut537 on June 9, 2011 at 9:38 PM

RINO Romney taking lessons from Dan Rather w.r.t AGW: “Fake, but Accurate”.

Dandapani on June 9, 2011 at 9:53 PM

Since you are passionate about this what have you done to quit contributing in AGW or are you like the others who whine and cry but continue their sinful AGW lifestyles?

chemman on June 9, 2011 at 8:43 PM

I’m not particularly passionate about it but I hate to see people not being honest with themselves. Everyone zeros in on the particulars of the argument and the big picture is lost. Sure the devil is in the details but as oakland stated, nine of the hottest years on record were in the last decade.

As the population increases and more and more fossil fuels are burned, heating the atmosphere just by being burned and polluting the atmosphere with the particulate matter and gases, our overall temperatures will increase. The plants and animals that normally need hundreds and thousands of years to adapt to the slow change of mean global temperatures will be unable to adapt fast enough and will wither away and die.

This planet works in a symbiotic fashion. Plants need the right temperatures and environment to thrive, plant eating animals need those plants to survive and the predatory animals need the plant eating animals in order to survive. Knock enough of those cogwheels out of the overall environment and bad things can happen.

Lately scientists have worried about the notable absence of honey bees in areas where they normally thrive. Plants need bees to pollinate other plants and if we lose the bees then the whole system breaks down. Einstein and other scientists back in the middle of the 20th century spoke on this I believe.

In the far east they are dealing with increased populations of giant jellyfish and they’ve wondered why they’re populating in record numbers like they are. It has to do with slightly increased ocean/sea temperatures and the effect that has on the environment. Japanese/Chinese/Korean fisherman are experiencing serious droughts in fishing ventures and the jellyfish are wreaking havoc on the ecosystem there. There are other examples like this which prove the theory of GW as true.

There ARE lynchpin species that are needed and if we aren’t careful enough we could very well cause our own undoing.

Something needs to change or the system WILL break down.

SauerKraut537 on June 9, 2011 at 9:56 PM

SauerKraut537 on June 9, 2011 at 9:38 PM

One question. Don’t you think that it’s too late to do anything anyway?

blink on June 9, 2011 at 9:45 PM

It’s never too late and we as humans will survive because we’re “different” and able to fashion environments to survive but the rest of the planet isn’t so lucky.

We can SEE it coming, we are aware of long term consequences. Other animals are not.

Its never too late, but lets be honest with ourselves. Do you really think having 10 billion people or more on this planet, that is struggling with 6.5 or so, is a good thing? Do you honestly believe everything is going to be all right if we keep up as we are?

SauerKraut537 on June 9, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Since you are passionate about this what have you done to quit contributing in AGW or are you like the others who whine and cry but continue their sinful AGW lifestyles?

chemman on June 9, 2011 at 8:43 PM

As for me changing my ways… I’m not changing my ways but I’m not driving gas guzzlers and jet setting across the planet either.

We WILL get past fossil fuels eventually. Technology will progress enough that we will stop contributing as much to pollution. I believe better technology will eventually surface to make our footprint less noticeable.

Personally I’m not that big of a believer in AGW being a HUGE contributor but I have to be intellectually honest with myself too.

6 billion+ people, and that number increasing daily, all contributing to more energy usage? Yeah, it can only get worse unless we find a better way to create energy but I don’t think Draconian regulations to stem usage of fossil fuels is the way to go.

Like the race car driver is supposed to drive THROUGH the wreck and smoke he sees in front of him, we need more of the same until we find that silver bullet.

SauerKraut537 on June 9, 2011 at 10:15 PM

One of the reasons I throw up my hands on this debate is the refusal of Ed and others to drop long-debunked anti-AGW talking points. It’s been shown pretty clearly that David Evans does not know what he has talking about. And yet his fact-challenged diatribe keeps showing up. It’s like he Keynsians who won’t shut up about 1937.

Hal_10000 on June 9, 2011 at 11:19 PM

blink on June 9, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Why does making things personal somehow make debating more fun?

I hadn’t attacked anyone at all and you come back to all that I said with ad hominum attacks. When did I attack you personally?

blink said “The big question is whether we have adequate reason to believe that human activity will cause catastrophically negative consequences to the earth.”

Well I think the recent Fukushima event dispels any notion that human activity can’t have catastrophic negative consequences for the planet. Not necessarily relevant to this discussion but your comment is clearly fallacious and we humans can do more damage to the planet than any other animal on it.

blink said “It’s interesting that you pretended not to see my comment to oakland about this. Again, the “record” is terrible and dates back less than 200 years. Surely, you’re not referring to any proxy data, and surely you’re not referring to the Mann Hockey Stick…..right?”

I dismissed your comments to “oakland” about the temperature readings because it’s a spurious claim at best. Facts are facts and the numbers don’t lie, and facts aren’t changed by our feelings about them. I never once mentioned the Mann Hockey Stick but since you brought it up… It’s unfortunate for us all that some scientists decided to let their emotions and zeal for the topic get the better of them. Scientists are supposed to be prided on their impartiality in dealing with the data but as we all know, scientists are humans like the rest of us. The climate proxies aren’t as hard a science as the pure numbers we have for the last 100+ years but they still tell a tale. When dealing with paleo numbers it’s like a detective coming onto the scene and having to take disparate facts/evidence and putting together a narrative, so that’s more of a soft science, I’ll admit that much. But the cold hard numbers that we have for the last 100+ years or so? We are clearly on an upward slant and out of the top 25 hottest years in the last century, 12 of them have been since 1990 with 2006 being the hottest on record.

Your comments about the bee and jellyfish anecdotes I brought up are fallacious blink and do nothing to belittle my credibility. You said you’re not losing sight of the big picture yet not only is there evidence of temperatures increasing, we see biological phenomenon happening all over the earth with red algea blooms killing off fish in the sea, water temperatures allowing jellyfish that are normally kept in check by cooler waters now growing to massive proportions and in huge numbers not seen before. We hear stories of bees having social disorders that end up in the colonies dieing off (they think it’s a result of high megahertz communications and cell phone functions with magnetic field interference from human activity (they think bees rely on magnetic field to know when to go out and pollinate in the spring, etc)). When enough colonies die off in an area then the plants there suffer as they don’t mate without the bees doing the delivering.

Don’t believe me? (apparently you dont) but Google is your friend. Go google giant jellyfish and bee colony problems and see what else is happening in the world around you.

In regards to my overall energy usage, it’s average at best. I drive 12 miles round trip to work daily, I fly once every couple of years, average my a/c at 78 and my heat at 68 and have a very small personal energy usage footprint. Of course there are other things that count into my overall footprint like the delivery of products I eat to stores, etc… but those are much harder to calculate. But you could really care less because you’re jsut more interested in changing the subject and pointing fingers and making fun of people… I know chatroom

We have more power to destroy this planet today than we’ve ever had before and you can’t escape the cold hard truth that we are definitively adding to the temperature increases on the planet.

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 1:18 AM

@ blink

to finish that last sentence in the second to last paragraph. got sidetracked for a second… I know chatroom/forums can be fun for doing things like that (berating your political opponents on a chosen topic). I understand the human psychology of trying to beat down your political opponents mentally and berate them… It’s fun and I used to do it a lot more (I still do it on occasion but mostly in response to some of the more childish debaters)

The truth is that people are going to believe what they want to believe and confirmation bias is a reality for us all. Confirmation bias, in case you didn’t know it or still can’t use Google ;-), is the tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Michael Mann and his buddies were guilty of confirmation bias and I’m fully aware that I can be as well, but knowing that I could be guilty of it I tend to be a bit more honest with myself… I could still be wrong and I’m willing to admit it when and if I find some evidence to suggest I’m wrong on this count, but I don’t think I am with all that I know and have read on it so far.

I know the talking points on both sides of the argument and I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We are contributing to global warming, but not to the extent that the Michael Mann’s and others like him think. We definitely have warming going on. More time will tell us for sure what is causing it.

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 1:35 AM

Romney is toast.
Romney is not conservative.
Romney believes in man-made global warming, a hoax to
redistribute wealth which will cripple industry and
cause energy bills to skyrocket.
Romney doesn’t realize 30,000 scientists signed a petition
disputing man-made global warming,calling it bad science
We need a REAL CONSERVATIVE:
Palin, Bachmann, or Cain!

Mark7788 on June 10, 2011 at 1:35 AM

Romney doesn’t realize 30,000 scientists signed a petition
disputing man-made global warming, calling it bad science…

Mark7788 on June 10, 2011 at 1:35 AM

Just a quick Google about those 30,000 scientists brings up this…

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on "unverifiable mess" below].

This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.

When I think I’m having chest pains I don’t go to the dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.

In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn’t surprising given its questionable beginnings.

The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].

Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson’s group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 2:16 AM

@blink

You’re laughable my friend… I’M guilty of confirmation bias but you’re not… LOL!

in regards to the distance I drive daily… I said 12 miles round trip which means 6 miles from work… duh

My anecdotes relate to energy usage in that we humans are polluting the planet at a record pace and warming the planet as a result of our actions… These biological phenomena are a result of our actions. We kill off certain species that keep in check other species that are more harmful, the warming of the planet results in outbreaks of jellyfish which kill off other species excessively. Algea blooms eat up all the oxygen in the area affected and the fish all die off, the jellyfish kill EVERYthing in their path and ned up raising the cost of fish due to the lack of normal fish supplies, etc… Warmer waters are what make these phenomena possible.

As I said with the third law metaphor earlier… Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Do you think these biological phenomena are unrelated somehow?

I ignore your 9:37pm comment because it doesn’t warrant a response.

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Blink, They are going to start calling you a heretic. How dare you question the religion of AGW!!!
They are the “Flat Earther’s” of old. No Matter how many facts you put out there they will stick with the notion that there is AGW.
You can point to every FACT out there about climate change being a natural phenomenon and they will ignore the facts because their mind is made up and full of the erroneous data and mental “pollution” from the Priests of AGW.

ColdWarrior57 on June 10, 2011 at 12:37 PM

blink…

Ever heard of Potholer54 on YouTube before? He has an excellent series of videos on global warming that I think you should watch. He thoroughly debunks the claims of climate change deniers.

Here’s his playlist of videos. Take some time to learn a little more than your talking points you got from the local conservapedia website…

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#g/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Here’s his primer video…

Climate change – the scientific debate

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Oh, and don’t let the “trigger” words you’ve been taught to react to trigger immediate skepticism on your part… Just watch the freaking videos and learn something from an actual climate scientist (Potholer54) instead of it being ingested by people like Rush, et al and then regurgitated on their talk shows… Which AREN’T scientific forums hosted by real scientists but by political pundits who have political goals in mind to protect their constituents.

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 3:48 PM

LOL@blink

OK, you think what you want to think blink. Everyone always does, because everyone’s an expert. Including you. LOL!

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 5:05 PM

LOL! Show me your credentials blink. Who are you? What qualifications do you have to make the claim that you’re an “expert”.

I’ve never claimed to be an expert, but the scientists who seem to me to be the least biased about the data all say pretty much the same thing I’m saying here. That we do in face contribute to global warming, that millions to billions of cows contribute massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere and we have more cows today than ever before. Who’s raising all these cows? Oh yeah, humans, because after all, we do eat our meat.

Are there overzealous scientists who let their emotions on this topic get the better of them? Sure they do, but imagine this… You’re a scientist who has spent your entire life trying to understand the minutia of climate science, and two bit political pundits and armchair scientists come along trying to interpret massive amounts of data that even the best brains on the planet have a hard time understanding and tell them that their life’s work is shit and wrong and unfounded.

Wouldn’t YOU get a bit emotional about it?

Are there scientists who fudge numbers on occasion? Sure, but just like Piltdown man and Nebraska man were finally proven to be frauds in the realm of evolution, those scientists who fudge the numbers eventually get found out and marginalized in the scientific community.

The simple fact is this blink, we do inject massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere that our ancestors didn’t, and paleoclimate history shows trigger events where things like this happen and eventually our planets climate flips.

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Climate Change – Anatomy of a Myth

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 7:05 PM

LOL@Blink. A genius in his own mind. You bested me in your own, and those of like mind as you. That’s the best you got.

I don’t believe in religions any more blink. Instead of being born again, like I had been before in life, I decided to grow up and stop believing in man made religions. They’re all irrational, including the one I grew up in, so no, I don’t have a any religion any more.

I’m more interested in the truth of things, not myths.

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 8:22 PM

but I noticed you failed to provide your credentials…

blink = armchair climate scientist who thinks “besting” opponents in political forums makes him a winner…

ROLMFAO!

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 8:25 PM

You shouldn’t cling to silly opinions.

Now, are you finally willing to admit that the Mann Hockey Stick has been debunked?

blink on June 9, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Remember, Blink? You don’t know the definition of Mann Hockey Stick.

oakland on June 10, 2011 at 9:09 PM

blink = armchair climate scientist who thinks “besting” opponents in political forums makes him a winner…

ROLMFAO!

SauerKraut537 on June 10, 2011 at 8:25 PM

He’s not the only one, SauerKraut. There are dozens of them that haunt this site. And almost none of them is interested in the scientific aspect of the problem.

oakland on June 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Btw, it’s also quite funny that you readily dismiss the opinion of:

113 Atmospheric Scientists;

93 Climatologists;

Please give references for even one of these.

Climatologists and Atmospheric Scientists do research and publish through peer review in refereed journals. They also use basic laws and relationships that have been tried and proven through years of empirical support.

oakland on June 10, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4