Where’s the warming?

posted at 6:00 pm on June 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Carbon emissions over the past decade actually exceeded predictions by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), no thanks to the global economic recession.  According to their anthropogenic global-warming theories, global temperatures should have risen significantly as a result.   James Taylor at Forbes wonders what happened:

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

Be sure to check out the links, which show charts over varying time sets, but which all show basically the same thing: no real change over longer periods of time. Not in the Arctic, which Taylor notes was supposed to be the canary in the coal mine, nor in the northern hemisphere, or the globe overall.  That’s even true for just the last decade, but it’s especially true over the period of several decades.  Periods of high amplitudes in warming are matched with low amplitudes.

Earlier this week, I linked to a couple of articles from physicists who have expressed considerable skepticism of the AGW hysteria, including one who worked in Australia’s climate-change ministry.  It’s worth revisiting his observation about the science, its models, and what’s missing:

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.

It’s becoming even more clear now.  If carbon increases and the predicted warming didn’t follow, then the obvious conclusion is that the hypothesis regarding cause and effect is incorrect — and the missing hot spots are even further evidence of this.

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

I’m glad you understood the point of that link. It’s irrelevant to reference a single source, even if that source was formerly associated with the Australian ministry of climate change or points to a NASA chart. It’s telling that Ed has to reach so far to justify his political agenda- he can’t turn to the overall conclusions of NASA’s climate research team or to major research universities in the US.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Sorry I am just gonna jump in on this one; there’s another source: The Weather Channel. Thre’s a video of one of the meteorologists that is sooo angry at this term! He was interviewed on either FOX or CNN (after Joplin’s tragedy) and mentioned this precise thing; that’s the reason there’s so many tornadoes out there.

In the meantime my daughter was taught that the polar ice caps are melting since her dinorama was about polar bears. Of course, Mama Grizzly here knows and my son knows there’s no such thing as global warming.

Right now at coffee time is a warm and toasty 55 degrees in Erie; yesterday Mama Grizzly/Soccer Mom endured with Mr. PPF and other parents 61 degrees. Note to self: Stock the car not only with folding chairs, but with quilts too.

ProudPalinFan on June 13, 2011 at 7:21 AM

GLOBAL TEMPS HOLD STEADY FOR LAST TEN YEARS: BAYAM AND SCIENCE-WHORES HARDEST HIT

BigAlSouth on June 13, 2011 at 7:56 AM

It doesn’t matter what the science shows (or fails to show), AGW alarmists are marxists who have always known that AGW was b.s., but don’t care. They want to use this to destroy western economies in an effort to bring about the global revolution.

the religion isn’t AGW, it is world-wide socialism. They will use whatever they think will work to try and get there.

People like Bayam never cared about science and never will. There has never been any science associated with AGW. It’s always been a sham and it’s always had the same goal – bigger gov’t, less prosperity.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 8:24 AM

blink on June 13, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Just as I thought and just as history shows… No meaningful reply other than bluster and bravado.

It’s telling that you answered almost all my questions except for the one where I asked if you have contributed any scientific articles or made any scientific contributions to the world of science.

You CLAIM to have a degree and claim to be the best GW debater on here so either put up or shut up.

What are your “qualifications”?

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 8:40 AM

It’s 42 this am in NW MT and we’re on our way to cut firewood. It’s going to freakin’ rain again. I may as well be living in Seattle. If Zero’s going to cause skyrocketing electric costs, we’ll need at least 15 cords. Forget the garden.

Kissmygrits on June 13, 2011 at 9:02 AM

About the only definite thing I can see is the polar caps shrinking. Everything else is either too subjective, too politicized, or just plain fudged.

So sad to see science discredited as a whole because of the Chicken Little business! Thanks for nothing, Gore!

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 13, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 13, 2011 at 9:36 AM

science isn’t discredited Sam, some scientists are… Just like the scientists who foisted Nebraska Man or Piltdown man on us years ago… When scientists submit known frauds on society, they get marginalized and pushed out of the scientific community, but like Nebraska Man and Piltdown man don’t truly discredit the Theory of Evolution, the Mann Hockey Stick graph doesn’t discredit the Theory of Climate Change.

Whether man is the root of the recent rise in temperatures or not, one thing is certain. Out of the 25 hottest years on record over the last 100 years, 12 of them have been since 1990.

Humanity has grown in numbers to the point where we SHOULD be concerned with the amount of fossil fuels we’re burning. 6+ billion people all needing energy and where do we get it primarily? Coal, oil, and other fossil fuels.

It is a known entity that fossil fuels pollute both in the sense that they create heat upon being used (heat that wouldn’t be there if we weren’t burning it), and pollution in the sense that the carbon that is released upon being burned has to go somewhere…

AGW IS a reality whether you accept it or not and harping on overzealous scientists who let their emotions get the better of them doesn’t change that fact.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 10:18 AM

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Those who still believe in AGW as the contributing force/factor behind climate change are now, and forever will be blind to the centuries of data that disprove this semi-veiled attempt by the global socialists to put western civilization on an “even” playing field with the rest of the globe’s 3rd world countries…nothing more, nothing less.

To think otherwise is to live in a rainbow fish bowl, dream of utopian ideas and unicorn farts.

ontheright on June 13, 2011 at 10:35 AM

ontheright on June 13, 2011 at 10:35 AM

I think you’re seeing boogeymen where none are. Let me ask you, do engines create heat? Does burning fossil fuels not create heat in the atmosphere and emit carbon into the atmosphere where it was previously stored in the form of coal, oil and natural gas?

I understand the conservative movements worries in regards to socialist goals being foisted on us. I don’t want them pushed on me either, but let’s divorce the politics from the science…

The simple fact is that engines DO create heat, if you doubt this go stick your hand on an engine that’s been running for 10 minutes or so. Burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide among other gases and if you doubt this, go start your car in the garage and sit in it for a few hours.

Now take these realizations and multiply that by several billion… THAT is what we’re doing to the atmosphere… Emitting massive amounts of heat from all the engines and power plants that we have in service, plus all the carbon and other gases that get emitted in the process of burning all these fossil fuels.

If humanity didn’t have engines and power plants maybe then you could say AGW wasn’t a reality.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 10:49 AM

science isn’t discredited Sam, some scientists are… Just like the scientists who foisted Nebraska Man or Piltdown man on us years ago… When scientists submit known frauds on society, they get marginalized and pushed out of the scientific community, but like Nebraska Man and Piltdown man don’t truly discredit the Theory of Evolution, the Mann Hockey Stick graph doesn’t discredit the Theory of Climate Change.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Who is the top scientist in the country ( science czar ) and why isn’t there an outcry from the science community about it? Holdren’s claims to fame are global cooling, population bomb, sterilize the public through food and water, I=PAT, and I think he had something to do with the nuclear winter formula because it is a nonsense formula like I=PAT. What does Holdren have to do before he is considered discredited?

Buddahpundit on June 13, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Of course I have, and, in a way, I’ve contributed more to the field of “climate science” than many of the “scientists” that the media love to claim support CAGW theories.

“Climate science” is an incredibly young field and has been dominated by like-minded individuals that have gone way too far out on a limb given how little has actually been learned. Other scientists have assumed that climate “scientists” have properly used scientific methods and therefore defer to them on this subject instead of actually scrutinizing what is actually known and unknown.

And let’s face it. Not everyone is equally capable of scrutinizing AGW hypotheses. People with solid scientific understanding are better able to scrutinize AGW hypotheses than people without.

And don’t forget my original point. It’s silly to tell someone with a science background that they are “fighting science.” Don’t you agree?

blink on June 13, 2011 at 11:03 AM

You’ve STILL haven’t provided me any links to any articles that you yourself have written… I’m still waiting for those links. Let us ALL see the wisdom that you’ve contributed to climate change theory other than pontificating in the incredibly scientific Hotair forums…

Climate science isn’t as young as you like to portray it. We’ve known for years HOW climates change and the science is all in on the how of it. What we’re arguing over now is the extent of human contributions to it.

But I digress. Let’s get your credentials out of the way and then maybe I’ll listen to your tripe.

Give us all some links to the scientific papers you’ve written on the subject, otherwise as you say… You’re just another Hotair forum pontificator who isn’t truly capable of scrutinizing the AGW hypothesis.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:11 AM

We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

Yes, but no true Scotsman disbelieves the AGW alarmists.

Knott Buyinit on June 13, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Who is the top scientist in the country ( science czar ) and why isn’t there an outcry from the science community about it? Holdren’s claims to fame are global cooling, population bomb, sterilize the public through food and water, I=PAT, and I think he had something to do with the nuclear winter formula because it is a nonsense formula like I=PAT. What does Holdren have to do before he is considered discredited?

Buddahpundit on June 13, 2011 at 11:10 AM

As far as I know, Holdren’s position is a POLITICAL one… Science isn’t politics nor beholden to majority opinions… He has some scientific background but not in climate science… His bio says he trained in aeronautics, astronautics and plasma physics and earned a bachelor’s degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1965 and a Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1970.

As far as I can tell this doesn’t make him an expert on climate science.

Just because someone is a scientist doesn’t mean they excel in all fields of science. Science is a HIGHLY specialized endeavor and just because someone has a degree in aeronautics doesn’t mean they understand all the intricacies of climate science.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:18 AM

For me to believe that AGW is real, I’d need to see an actual study demonstrating it and all of the raw data used to support that study.

No AGW “scientist” has produces such. Instead, we have been given manipulated data and computer models. That is not “science” and never will be science.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Engines produce heat, ergo AGW is real.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM

@blink

The history of climate science dates back to the 1800′s blink. The majority of the work done on climate science was established sometime around the middle of the last century.

The recent nutjobs on the left who’ve turned the science into an emotional issue like Gore, et al were wrong to try to fudge numbers but it still doesn’t change the fact that it was in the late 1800′s that man made/fossil fuel supplied engines began to come into existence.

All fossil fuel engines create heat and as I said to ontheright above, if you doubt that engines create heat go stick your hand on an engine that’s been running for 10 minutes or so.

All fossil fuels, when burnt, create carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide among other gases, if you doubt THIS go start your car in a garage and sit in the car for an hour or so.

The simple fact again is that if humans didn’t have engines and power plants then you could claim that AGW wasn’t a reality but every time I stick my hand on a running engine I get burned and every time I stick my mouth on an exhaust pipe I choke up and can’t breath.

Again, multiply that one reality by the billion other people we have on the planet and there is no doubt that we are contributing to global warming… that heat has to go somewhere, those gases have to go somewhere.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Kraut:

When scientists submit known frauds on society, they get marginalized and pushed out of the scientific community, but . . . the Mann Hockey Stick graph doesn’t discredit the Theory of Climate Change.

Let me understand this: The Mann Hockey Stick Graph is a fraudulent misrepresentation of questionable data, pushed on the scientific community by a bunch of Scientist-Whores, but the stick graph doesn’t discredit the Theory of Climate Change.

Right. Last time I checked, Mann and the other “scientists” are still whoring for grant dollars pushing their phony AGW.

BigAlSouth on June 13, 2011 at 11:40 AM

@blink…

You have absolutely said that you are more qualified… You said it the other day to me in the other thread. You intimated that you were better than me in that you were more “qualified” to debate on this topic saying that you had a scientific background… That to me sounds like you’re claiming to be a scientist of some sort… So prove it.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:42 AM

So, greenhouse gasses have increase faster than predicted, and that leads the “experts” to say that warming is worse than predicted, despite factual evidence to the contrary?

Bring me some folks whose predictions have been accurate. Until then, they’re just a bunch of fiction authors.

As to why the gasses are increasing faster – maybe they should look at all of those jobs we’re shipping to China, and the dirty coal plants needed to power those jobs.

hawksruleva on June 13, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Please answer something honestly. If the field was truly tainted then what would it take for you to finally start to doubt them?

blink on June 13, 2011 at 11:41 AM

How about you address my point that engines create heat and pollute with carbon dioxide and monoxide first but I’ll address your question like this…

In all scientific endeavors there is consensus on the experiments that have been successfully verified. Some scientific experiments fail and they fail when other scientists try to replicate the experiment. Those scientists who proposed and performed the initial experiments had to go back to the drawing board and learn where they went awry. When they fail to learn from their mistakes the rest of the community shuns them as obviously biased individuals.

Gore and others who’ve helped him fudge numbers lost credibility in the realm of public opinion but that doesn’t change the fact that we humans have grown in population over the last century from 1.1 billion in 1900 to almost 7 billion today.

Almost ALL of those people in some form or fashion are relying on the burning of fossil fuels to have energy to heat their homes and energy to move their cars around. 7 billion humans using fossil fuels dwarfs 1.1 billion using fossil fuels any day of the week.

You just cannot escape the fact that fossil fueled engines create heat and harmful gases as a by product. That fact translates into AGW.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:50 AM

blink said, “Again, many of those “nutjobs” were founding members and key members of the climate science community”

No they weren’t… They are the latest generation of climate scientists, not the founding members.

They’ve popularized it for sure, but they weren’t the founders.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Whether man is the root of the recent rise in temperatures or not, one thing is certain. Out of the 25 hottest years on record over the last 100 years, 12 of them have been since 1990.

Humanity has grown in numbers to the point where we SHOULD be concerned with the amount of fossil fuels we’re burning. 6+ billion people all needing energy and where do we get it primarily? Coal, oil, and other fossil fuels.

It is a known entity that fossil fuels pollute both in the sense that they create heat upon being used (heat that wouldn’t be there if we weren’t burning it), and pollution in the sense that the carbon that is released upon being burned has to go somewhere…

AGW IS a reality whether you accept it or not and harping on overzealous scientists who let their emotions get the better of them doesn’t change that fact.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Did you catch your own “evidence” there? Last 100 years. You are trying to blame man for something we only have 100 years of data on, if that. Not all of it very good data, since thermometers have been around long. And the other 13 years? My bet is during the last warming period around, oh, the dust bowl, the last time the earth was in the warming part of its cycle.

There is global warming. In the 70s we saw the effects of global cooling. The same Marxists crying about AGW now were screaming about the next ice age if we didn’t control carbon emissions. One of them was Paul Ehrlich who also said we’d have billions of people starving to death by now, even though we now have billions more people than when he said that.

The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. When we cool the polar caps pull water out of circulation by freezing it and then rainfall goes down and we warm up. When we warm up the caps melt and put more water into circulation so we get more rain and the earth gets cooled. Wonderful system, huh?

Go on believing that man has that much control over the climate. Even building hundreds of heat generating and trapping skyscrapers barely effects the daily temperature in places like NY, so with 99% of the earth’s surface barely populated, if at all, I’m sure we’re not having much effect.

Do we need to control polution? Absolutely. But we have done that through market forces just fine. Environmental responsibility has been taken on voluntarily by companies as a marketing tool through market forces. Those are enough.

PastorJon on June 13, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Do you admit that it’s possible that the sum total of anthropogenic influences might not have any measurable effect on the earth’s temperature?

blink on June 13, 2011 at 11:47 AM

I do not because it’s a fact that cars create heat and produce carbon dioxide/monoxide as a by product.

You seem to be forgetting that that one reality for you using your car multiplied by several billion other people doing the same adds up to massive amounts of warming. Sure, the earth has some ways to deal with that but there is a point of diminishing returns for that… The debate seems to be on when we go over the point of no return on how well the earth can deal with the increased carbon gases inthe atmosphere.

Does the earth’s atmosphere start losing at 2.45 billion cars being run on a daily basis and 10,000 energy plants producing energy to heat homes and provide energy to lights IN those homes?

Do you agree that at some point the earths atmosphere can no longer deal with the levels of pollution and heat we’re producing?

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:58 AM

You just cannot escape the fact that fossil fueled engines create heat and harmful gases as a by product. That fact translates into AGW.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Umm, no it does not. there is no proof whatsoever that fossil fules create AGW. There is a theory, but no proof. And, almost all of the “evidence” used to support the theory has been proven to be false.

And, it is quite clear you don’t know what you are talking about in a scientific sense. YOu continually claim that hot engines are causing AGW. That is not a claim any scientist makes. No scientist – not even the fake scientists you believe in – has ever claimed that a hot engine is causing global warming. Thus, it is pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Just because someone is a scientist doesn’t mean they excel in all fields of science. Science is a HIGHLY specialized endeavor and just because someone has a degree in aeronautics doesn’t mean they understand all the intricacies of climate science.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:18 AM

You sort of missed my point while at the same time proving my point. Bogus science is bogus science regardless of the quack’s diplomas and backgrounds. One who graduates a specialist in climate science today was likely educated by people who have had their beliefs debunked. The math of the climate scientists is I=PAT. They can’t tell you why it should be a product and not a sum except that it increases the quantity if it’s a product.

Buddahpundit on June 13, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Blink,

This clown is arguing that it is the heat from cars’ engines that is causing warming. Why are you even bothering. It is pretty clear he doesn’t even have a pedestrian understanding of the alleged science.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Monkeytoe… where does the heat that your car’s engine produces go?

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Whether man is the root of the recent rise in temperatures or not, one thing is certain. Out of the 25 hottest years on record over the last 100 years, 12 of them have been since 1990.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 10:18 AM

You’ve just demonstrated how LITTLE you know about climate change history. 100 years is NOTHING in climate history. It’s like asking 12 people who they think will be President in 2012… its worthless as a statistical measurement.

You need to look back at least a 1000 years to get a decent look at trends (which indicates a much stronger correlation with solar cycles than human influence).

dominigan on June 13, 2011 at 12:10 PM

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011

Many trillion. Now my post sounds scientific.

So I ask many billion compared to what? How many lbs a day is it (OK. Kg)? How many lbs is in the atmosphere. Give error bars.

MSimon on June 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM

dominigan…

the last 100 years of data still provides us with data showing a trend upwards does it not?

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Monkeytoe… where does the heat that your car’s engine produces go?

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM

It is transfered into the air.

That’s not the point. That isn’t the alleged cause of global warming claimed by any of the theories out there.

My point is it is clear, based on your heavy reliance on the “heat of engines” that you really aren’t that knowledgeable about the science. In fact, reading your comments, I haven’t seen anything that indicates that you know anything about AGW other than what you may have gleaned from the DailyKOS. Nothing but cliche and assertions and calls back to “science”. Not actual scientific analysis or cites to any scientific studies (not that there are any – computer models based on maniuplated data is not science).

Blink may believe that AGW exists to some extant, but I do not. There is absolutely no evidence of it. And simply pointing to the earth warming does not prove that Man had anything to do with it – the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods during its entire existence. So simply pointing out a new period hardly proves anything.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:15 PM

the last 100 years of data still provides us with data showing a trend upwards does it not?

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:13 PM

And we know that the earth has warmed and cooled over its millions of years of history, so what exactly does a current warming trend prove, do you believe? That man is responsible for this warming period? Because, the earth’s temparature suddenly stabalized for the first time in millions of years and only man can now change it?

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:17 PM

You need to look back at least a 1000 years to get a decent look at trends (which indicates a much stronger correlation with solar cycles than human influence).

dominigan on June 13, 2011 at 12:10 PM

And Dominigan… what has changed in the last 100 years? Humanity has increaed in population from 1.1 billion in 1900 to near 7 billion today… In the last 1000 years (excluding the last 100 or so) humanity has been stuck at or around 1 billion people because we didn’t have medicine to help people live longer, we didn’t have scientific knowledge that helped us produce better crops faster communications and travel…

Now we do, and with all that technology comes unintended consequences.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:18 PM

when the earth experienced the midevil warming period – was that b/c of man? When the earth had ice ages, was that because of man?

If we accept that the earth is in a present warming period, why is that becasue of man? Because you want it to be?

Because there are engines running?

How then do we explain other warming and cooling periods. I suppose the ice-ages happened because we hadn’t yet invented engines?

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Monkeytoe… where does the heat that your car’s engine produces go?

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Eventually, where all the other waste heat goes… radiated out into space.

This “discussion” has such a surreal quality. It’s like discussing whether a butterfly flapping its wings in Central Park creates tornadoes in the midwest… so we should kill all butterflies, right? (SauerKraut537 – “Of course!”)

The real answer of course is that both a car engine, and human CO2, have minimal effect on global warming. This has just been verified on another thread through satellite surveying of global temps over the last decade. AGW just a convenient way for “scientists” to milk government for grant money, and politicians a way to enact socialist agendas “for our own good”. It’s really quite a disgusting idea when you look at the actual agenda…

dominigan on June 13, 2011 at 12:19 PM

It is transfered into the air.

That’s not the point. That isn’t the alleged cause of global warming claimed by any of the theories out there.

My point is it is clear, based on your heavy reliance on the “heat of engines” that you really aren’t that knowledgeable about the science. In fact, reading your comments, I haven’t seen anything that indicates that you know anything about AGW other than what you may have gleaned from the DailyKOS. Nothing but cliche and assertions and calls back to “science”. Not actual scientific analysis or cites to any scientific studies (not that there are any – computer models based on maniuplated data is not science).

Blink may believe that AGW exists to some extant, but I do not. There is absolutely no evidence of it. And simply pointing to the earth warming does not prove that Man had anything to do with it – the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods during its entire existence. So simply pointing out a new period hardly proves anything.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Good, I’m glad you agree that the heat is transferred into the air… That means that it heats up our atmosphere… Now multiply that by billions of engines for cars and trucks, etc and add in all the heat generated by all the power plants that we use to run our home A/C and heat and lightbulbs, etc…

It’s not rocket science. It’s a very easy concept.

That heat and those gases go somewhere now don’t they? Right… Into our atmosphere.

If that doesn’t constitute AGW I don’t know what does.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM

And Dominigan… what has changed in the last 100 years? Humanity has increaed in population from 1.1 billion in 1900 to near 7 billion today… In the last 1000 years (excluding the last 100 or so) humanity has been stuck at or around 1 billion people because we didn’t have medicine to help people live longer, we didn’t have scientific knowledge that helped us produce better crops faster communications and travel…

Now we do, and with all that technology comes unintended consequences.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:18 PM

And as usual, you completely missed the point of my post, which was to point out that 100 years is insignificant to rant over temp highs. If you shift out to a 1000 years, the last decade barely rates an honorable mention. Back in the medieval period, the average temps were so warm there were TWO growing periods within one year! (Which also points out that global warming is preferable to global cooling!)

And now (satellite) technology has the unintended consequence of showing that AGW is NOT a factor after a decade long survey of planetary temps.

When are you going to face science instead of desperately clinging to your false religion, like a flat-earther? (To /sarc or not to /sarc is the question…)

dominigan on June 13, 2011 at 12:24 PM

If that doesn’t constitute AGW I don’t know what does.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Finally, an honest statment. AGW does not exist. there is no evidence of it. And, nobody claims that AGW is caused by the heat of engines. You really don’t know anything about this subject, do you?

you have a theory that you like, but lack any ability to understand your own theory, so just make up stuff like “engines are hot, therefore mankind is causing global warming.” That isn’t even in the theory you are hearing arguing in support of.

We make a lot of ice now that was not made a long time ago. Plus A/C. So, does that cool the earth? Doesn’t it even out? Plus, a lot of the buildings we build are specifically made to keep cooler in the summer, even w/out a/c. so, those areas are not heating up as much. doesn’t that cool the earth?

what if we all put up umbrellas creating more shade. That would reduce the overall temperature of the earth, wouldn’t it?

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM

It’s not rocket science. It’s a very easy concept.

That heat and those gases go somewhere now don’t they? Right… Into our atmosphere.

If that doesn’t constitute AGW I don’t know what does.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM

So is heat dissipation out into space, yet you conveniently ignore that fact. According to you, I should spontaneously combust in winter because my body generates heat and I put on a blanket.

dominigan on June 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM

And, even assuming that AGW was real, what should the U.S. do about it? Our current emmissions are nothing compared to China, India and South America. So, why should we ruin our economy when it would accomplish nothing?

I’ll tell you what. Get China, India, and all the other nations in the world to agree to restrictive emissions. Once they all agree and we have a plan in place to enforce it, I suppose I would have no problem putting the same restrictions on the U.S. Until then though, there is no point even discussing it.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Eventually, where all the other waste heat goes… radiated out into space

dominigan on June 13, 2011 at 12:19 PM

That’s PART of the way the earth deals with it but it doesn’t escape fast enough.

Eventually the system can no longer radiate the heat fast enough.

Let’s use an example. You have a CPU with a fan on it… Your CPU is overheating because the heatsink and fan that you have on it isn’t radiating it fast enough.

you have two choice… You can either buy a new heatsink and fan that are better, or your CPU eventually fries and dies.

the earth only has the ability to radiate a certain amount out into space… If we INPUT too much heat so that the earth’s radiating system can’t handle it, then we get AGW.

I happen to think that we’re there now… There are jsut too many people on the planet as it is and all the hunger and poverty that we as humans experience can be alleviated if only we get a hold of our population problem.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM

I don’t know why I even try anymore… You’re all intellectually dishonest as hell if you can’t admit that engines and power plants contribute to global warming.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM

I happen to think that we’re there now… There are jsut too many people on the planet as it is and all the hunger and poverty that we as humans experience can be alleviated if only we get a hold of our population problem.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Good. Go to china and India and work on that. The U.S. is hardly the culprit for that problem.

I’d like to help work on the illegal immigrant population problem here in the U.S.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM

You’re all intellectually dishonest as hell if you can’t admit that engines and power plants contribute to global warming.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM

You are stating something with no evidence to back it up. simply because you state something doesn’t make it true.

Again, how do you explain past global warmign adn cooling periods? You conveinently ignore those in your comments.

Even if the earth heats up 1 degree, it won’t be the warmest teh earth has been in the last 1,000 years. How does that fit into your theory that we are near a boiling point with all the heat we are producing?

Your claims simply do not fit the evidence.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM

way to address my other points though… ;-)

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM

So, in other words, regardless of how tainted the climate “science” community is, you will continue to believe everything they say regardless of how many outside scientists attempt to reveal the taint.

blink on June 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM

No, I don’t believe anything they say until I’ve verified the evidence myself.

I’m just trying to get you guys to exhibit a bit of intellectual honesty but you obviously suffer from the Dunning Kruger Effect.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:42 PM

way to address my other points though… ;-)

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Your argument appears to be that man is creating so much heat that we are near the point where the earth can no longer dissipate the heat and we are all going to boil.

However, even the AGW “science” crowd only claims that the earth is going to heat about 1 degree in teh next 100 years.

Taht won’t even be teh warmest the earth has been in the last 1,000 years.

How, exactly, does any of that support your claim? Your claim is utter nonsense, is not even supported by the “scientists” you are claiming to champion, and is belied by the facts. Not sure what else I can tell you to make you able to see logic applied to facts. Doesn’t seem possible.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:45 PM

So what? This heat might not be enough to warm the planet by 0.1 degree.

Do you somehow think that a little heater in the middle of a cold house will heat the entire house significantly regardless of how small that heater is compared to the size of the house and regardless of how poor the house’s insulation is?

blink on June 13, 2011 at 12:44 PM

No it won’t heat the house significantly but it will still heat it somewhat. Obviously more noticeable the closer you are the heater but it’s still heating it regardless.

Now multiply that little space heater by several billion.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:47 PM

So, in other words, regardless of how tainted the climate “science” community is, you will continue to believe everything they say regardless of how many outside scientists attempt to reveal the taint.

blink on June 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM
No, I don’t believe anything they say until I’ve verified the evidence myself.</

blockquote>

Gee, that is the same thing we say about AGW claims. And, they have yet to release any evidence supporting such claims.

so we basically agree on the scientific method. Please cite me to some scientific study taht supports an AGW theory where the raw data (not the manipulated temperateure readings – hide the decline and all that) is available for me to review.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 12:48 PM

I don’t know why I even try anymore… You’re all intellectually dishonest as hell if you can’t admit that engines and power plants contribute to global warming.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Do you have a model that estimates the contribution to atmospheric warming engines and power plants make?

DarkCurrent on June 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM

I’ve heard everyone’s objections to AGW in this thread and others over the last few years and I’ve looked into the objections that you have all raised. There are plenty of explanataions out there debunking all of your objections.

Have you people even looked into the objections to your obejctions to AGW because it appears as if you haven’t done a very thorough job.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Of course we have, and we’re trying to explain reality to you.

The problem ISN’T with our understanding of AGW hypotheses. The problem is with your unwillingness to learn.

blink on June 13, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Spoken like someone who is either deluded or misled. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 1:24 PM

As I said, why do I bother arguing with nitwits who can’t even acknowledge that they contribute to global warming?

I’ll come back in a few years when we have more “evidence” of it, not that we need any more evidence of it, but I’m sure you and others will find some way to rationalize that evidence away as well. As I said before, confirmation bias… Oh well.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 1:31 PM

But I digress. Let’s get your credentials out of the way and then maybe I’ll listen to your tripe.

Give us all some links to the scientific papers you’ve written on the subject, otherwise as you say… You’re just another Hotair forum pontificator who isn’t truly capable of scrutinizing the AGW hypothesis.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:11 AM

It seems pretty obvious at this point that you will not accept such proof of blink’s scientific knowledge. Tripe? Really? My god, you even refused to admit the POSSIBILITY that the human contribution was difficult to measure. That is the most unscientific thing that’s been said in this entire thread.

Do you really believe that the heat from an engine, or even 7 billion engines, can possibly compete with the amount of heat the sun hits us with? Well of course you do. More’s the pity.

Oh, and by the way, I am a rocket scientist. And I don’t give a damn whether you believe that or not.

runawayyyy on June 13, 2011 at 1:38 PM

I’ve heard everyone’s objections to AGW in this thread and others over the last few years and I’ve looked into the objections that you have all raised. There are plenty of explanataions out there debunking all of your objections.

Really, cites please? You haven’t answered a single objection with anything remotely in teh realm of science.

Have you people even looked into the objections to your obejctions to AGW because it appears as if you haven’t done a very thorough job.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Well, if you say it, it must be true. Again, citations?

You know, it’s interesting. I’ve repeatedly asked every single AGW believer who comes here to cite me to a scientific study that they think proves the AGW theory and that allows me to review the raw data.

Never has a single one of these “science” giants ever cited such a thing. Indeed, every single institution pushing AGW has fought, tooth and nail, from releasing any of the underlying data. To the point where CRU – the pinnacle of AGW “science”, “lost” its raw data before it could release it to anyone to review.

All very convenient. I guess science just doens’t mean what these people claims it means. Instead, science appears to mean – believe us when we tell you something, we’re scientists!!.

Each day, month, year more and more data comes out disproving teh AGW theories, yet such is teh faith that people like yourself put your fingers in your ears and ignore it.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 1:40 PM

I’ll come back in a few years when we have more “evidence” of it,

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Even funnier – that’s all we’ve really been arguing for this whole time. Let’s not do anything stupid and drastic to our economy when there is no real scientific proof out there. Let’s study the issue and do some real scientific inquiry.

If, indeed, actual evidence supporting the theory is found / documented – please do come back. Unlike you, we are open to actually analyzing and considering new data.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 1:46 PM

I’ll come back in a few years when we have more “evidence” of it,
SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 1:31 PM

You mean like 50 million climate disaster refugees that never materialized?

As soon as the rich douche bags who push the severity of this supposed crisis and ask everyone to scale back their standard of living (and are asking 3rd world nations to stay in their squalor) lead by example and give up their wealth then I’ll be convinced they actually believe their words instead of using this as an excuse to force their ideology on me.

gwelf on June 13, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Baxter, you’re exemplifying what drives me nuts about climate skepticism. Almost every point you repeat has long been debunked. But you never pull things off your long list of bullet points no matter how much it’s shown to be garbage.

Just one example: Phil Jones NEVER claimed there has been no warming for 15 years. Did not happen. What happened was a climate “skeptic” asked about a very specific range of years and he said that the warming was just under the 3-sigma level of significance, this being he lowest level for any span of 15 years. Oh, and the latest day did improve the measurements of that time span to show warming: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

And when anyone uses the phrase “hide the decline” that proves to me they simply aren’t listening. That phrase has been explained about six million times as not being cherry-picking or gimmickry but a method used in he refereed literature, not disputed by legitimate climate skeptics like Michaels and not used in any statistical analysis.

Try to keep up. There’s science going on here.

Hal_10000 on June 13, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Also when AGW proponents stop flying all their members to tropical resorts to hold conferences on AGW and stop flying to the other side of the world to watch a cricket game then I’ll start to believe they actualy mean what they are saying. As it stands it’s obvious the biggest proponents of AGW don’t even believe their own propaganda.

gwelf on June 13, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Go home, boy. Your cult leader was too busy setting up his new 10,000 square foot home on the beach, from the proceeds he’s received from chumps, such as yourself.

MNHawk on June 13, 2011 at 6:05 AM

What are you talking about? I am not a Gore fan. My post was a sharp criticism of Gore.

jediwebdude on June 13, 2011 at 2:14 PM

That heat and those gases go somewhere now don’t they? Right… Into our atmosphere.

If that doesn’t constitute AGW I don’t know what does.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM

First, I can’t keep a cup of coffee warm in a 70 degree room, but you believe that we can increase the temperature of an entire planet in frozen space. Think about how ridiculous that sounds.

Second, just because you don’t understand how the climate works doesn’t mean you have to buy in to the first crazy theory that tries to explain it.

Third, it’s people like you that swore the Earth was the center of the universe and Galileo was a heretic. You believe the “settled science” of a supposed consensus and allow yourself to be used as a tool for their ends.

John Deaux on June 13, 2011 at 2:21 PM

And when anyone uses the phrase “hide the decline” that proves to me they simply aren’t listening. That phrase has been explained about six million times as not being cherry-picking or gimmickry but a method used in he refereed literature, not disputed by legitimate climate skeptics like Michaels and not used in any statistical analysis.

Try to keep up. There’s science going on here.

Hal_10000 on June 13, 2011 at 2:01 PM

First, despite you saying it – saying you want to “hide the decline” can never be shown to be a “scientific” method. Please. That’s asinine.

And there is no science going on here. CRU – who hid the decline – “lost” all of their raw data before they were going to be forced to release it. The raw data taht they “hid the decline” from.

Please. I have yet to see any science out of the Climate crowd. If it was true science, they’d willingly offer up the raw data to be reviewed by skeptics and supporters alike – not fight tooth and nail to keep the raw data secret adn then “lose” such data when tehy are ordered to release it.

Your side loses at every instance. Not a single prediction came true. Lots and lots of claims disproven. How are the cliamte refugees? How are the temperature increases of the last 10 years? How are those himylayan glaciers doing – still melting?

The computer models can’t predict weather 1 week from now, but we are to accept their prediction of the next century?

And all of this w/o these “scientists” being willing to release their raw data to be reviewed?

Please.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 2:24 PM

I say we give AGW 50 years for their predictions to be tested against reality and for further research.

If after that time, there is any demonstration that AGWer’s have any idea what they are talking about (i.e., more than 50% of their predictions come to fruition and further research supports their theory) then we’ll talk about taking drastic economy killing measures to save the planet from 1 degree of extra warmth.

Until then, see ya!

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 2:28 PM

And when anyone uses the phrase “hide the decline” that proves to me they simply aren’t listening. That phrase has been explained about six million times as not being cherry-picking or gimmickry but a method used in he refereed literature, not disputed by legitimate climate skeptics like Michaels and not used in any statistical analysis.

Try to keep up. There’s science going on here.

Hal_10000 on June 13, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Hahahahahaha

Oh man …

darwin on June 13, 2011 at 2:30 PM

I’m sure that “hide the ____” is just normal, everyday scientific jargon.

For instance, in a clinical trial of a new medication the researchers say “hide the deaths from drug X”

Or when researching whether smoking causes cancer – “hide those all of those lung cancer cases”

There is no reasonable explanation for using teh terminoloty “hide the __________” when discussing a scientific study. When you are hiding something, you are taking a fact and concealing it from people. Why would anyone do this in a scientific study? If it was some trivial thing, why would it even be addressed. Instead you point it out and explain why it is not relevant. You only hide it if you believe it hurts the end result you want to achieve (and bear in mind, if you are attempting to acheive an end result, you are not following where the data takes you, you are attempting to work the data to support your theory).

To claim that “hiding” anything is somehow part of the scientific process is to demonstrate how deep ni the tank you are for something, science be damned.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 2:34 PM

some people are more equipped to scrutinize climate scientists than others and that it’s silly for the unequipped to tell the equipped that the equipped like to “fight science.” Regardless of what papers I’ve contributed to, I’m more equipped to scrutinize AGW than others without any foundation in science.

blink on June 13, 2011 at 11:34 AM

blink, in my educated opinion, you have always done well debating this AGW BS.
I find it interesting that a person who admits they have zero scientific knowledge would even attempt to argue so vehemently that AGW is so true bcs some ‘scientist’ said it was so.
I tell my students that science is basically half common sense & half complicated.
Half of problems relating to the natural world can be figured out by the common person with no scientific education by using common sense & personal observation.
But the other half cannot & is more complicated than common sense lets on.
With my little Bachelor’s Degree in Geology & as a science teacher, I have enough training & experience reading & analyzing that kind of scientific literature that I can form a reasonable assessment of the leading climatology work.
And I have been doing so for over a decade.
The facts are that AGW has never moved beyond the hypothesis stage. It is not a theory.
There is little, if ANY evidence that even remotely points to CO2 emissions affecting atmospherics temps.
In fact, the evidence so far indicates the opposite effect.
Atmospheric temperatures, rising, actually cause more CO2 to be taken up into the atmosphere.
CO2 is not causing atmospheric temps to rise.
Water vapor by far is THE greenhouse gas that affects atmospheric temps more than any other G-house gas.
Climate just has way too many variables.
There is no sure fire way to predict climate.
You look at how accurate the prediction of weather is, something like ~35 or so %, & you have even less accuracy for future climate predicions.
Climatology has enjoyed unparalelled attention bcs of their public hysterics & as a result they have managed to do quite well financially for themselves.
And it is politics that has allowed them to do so.

Badger40 on June 13, 2011 at 2:35 PM

that heat has to go somewhere, those gases have to go somewhere.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:30 AM

1) Heat radiates into space.

2) CO2 is consumed by plants during photosynthesis. More CO2 -> more plants -> more CO2 absorption.

If that doesn’t constitute AGW I don’t know what does.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM

“They’re pinging away with their active sonar like they’re looking for something, but nobody’s listening.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, they’re moving at almost forty knots. At that speed, they could run right over my daughter’s stereo and not hear it.”

Perhaps you should slow down and stop your active pinging. People are answering your comments, you’re just not listening.

dominigan on June 13, 2011 at 2:51 PM

If that doesn’t constitute AGW I don’t know what does.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM

You have admitted earlier you have no scientific background whatsoever.
So that fact alone, combined with your blind, willful ignorance on this subject indicates your mouth is full of your feet right now.
I have read copious amounts on this subject over more than a decade.
I also have an undergrad degree in geology.
Anyone with an undergrad degree in a hard science has the tools with which to analyze other scientists’ work, even if it isn’t in their discipline.
The fact is, in a scientific paper, the scientist should lay open wide their methods & conclusions.
Doing so allows anyone schooled in science to form an educated opinion.
Those unschooled in a science discipline may find themselves hard pressed to be able to form an educated opinion.
Oftentimes, it is very easy to be able to see a charlatan.
Bcs they’re conclusions do not match their data & their methodology is flawed.
So the point is, you have outed yourself as a non-scientifically educated person, but yet seem to consider yourself able to form a scientifically relevant opinion on a scientific subject of great complexity.
But then you indicate blink, & others, are not credible enough to be able to form a scientific opinion bcs their expertise is not in climate science.
Do you really know how stupid that makes you look?

Badger40 on June 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Let me ask you, do engines create heat? Does burning fossil fuels not create heat in the atmosphere and emit carbon into the atmosphere where it was previously stored in the form of coal, oil and natural gas?

If humanity didn’t have engines and power plants maybe then you could say AGW wasn’t a reality.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 10:49 AM

You create heat. Way too much of it.

that heat has to go somewhere, those gases have to go somewhere.

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Yes they have to go somewhere. You have a reasonable grasp of the totally obvious.

As for where the heat might go, how about, oh, space? You know, like what happens at night? The excess heat bleeding off into outer space? You DO know this happens every night, right? If the Earth had no way to cool itself, the many, many ‘hot’ periods would have turned it into Venus II.

As for the gases, yes, they go somewhere too. They go all around the world. My vegetable garden is very appreciative of it, by the way. I’m doing my part in recycling the CO2 you exhale. Since I’m doing what you want me to do (well except for living in an unheated tent playing Luddite) I’m expecting a check from you very soon.

Squiggy on June 13, 2011 at 3:04 PM

they’re = their. :P

Squiggy on June 13, 2011 at 3:04 PM

It’s amazing plant food. Geologic evidence shows that in the past, when CO2 concentrations were higher, plant growth exploded to a certain level.
It is true that after so much CO2, a plant cannot absorb any more.
But it is different for all plants, as well as plants of different ages.
For instance, if AGW tree huggers were really worried about stopping AGW, then they would agree to have old growth forests cut down.
Bcs older trees absorb much less CO2 than younger ones.
But the sticking point really is, does CO2 cause atmospheric temps to rise?
And the answer to that question with the evidence so far has been ‘NO’.
Rising atmospheric temps cause more CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere.
Now that in turn could affect the temps, but not at the rate some are saying.
It is water vapor.
Water has a high specific heat.
It holds a lot of heat.
And when it releases it, it does so slowly.
So in reality, the cuplit has more to do with solar activity & heat transport in the oceans.
And colder weather episodes in North America, at least, have shown more turbelent weather patterns, i.e. more storms etc., than hotter temps.
Read up on the history of the US & climate from the 1500s thru the later 1800s & you will see that for the most part, winters & springs were colder & wetter.
Valley Forge?
1600s in New England?
France?
England?
All nasty winters for the most part.
There’s a bigger picture here.
It is not the fantasy of AGW.
It is simply, the climate of a dynamic earth is in continual change.

Badger40 on June 13, 2011 at 3:14 PM

so few of them actually believe in CAGW. They’ve seen the evidence that this planet has experienced many extreme situations, yet is still supporting life.

Also, I really appreciate you taking the time last week to give me an introduction to farm subsidies. Many people criticize them, but few people actually understand them. I don’t want to weigh in until I know more, and you’re the first farm subsidy critic that was actually able to provide me with any information. Thanks.

blink on June 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM

My undergrad geology education at Laramie WY proved your assertion true.
Also, my field camp experience had several other geologist professors from back East & none of them, NONE of them I had met believed the hypothesis of AGW to have any teeth whatsoever.
This ignornace regarding science that the general populace has is a war I fight everyday in my classroom. In grades 9-12 I strive to educate my students enough about science vs propaganda vs credible research that they will at least have some decent evaluation tools with which to form a non-scientific opinion as adults about these issues.
When I give them projects to research, I insist they used published scientific, peer reviewed research papers.
NOT Greenpeace.org or SierraClub.org etc.
I tell you, it takes me a lot of time to train them to recognize real credible sources, but by the time most of them are seniors, I think many of them are quite capable in disseminating what is credible info & what is not.
And you are welcome about the farm program info.
Just from my experience, I have learned so much about agriculture programs. Many people really are ignorant about the facts regarding them.
That is why I blog here mostly.
To give a perspective on agriculture in general. I feel sometimes our voice gets muffled by the rest of the population.
And blink-keep on keepin’ on.
You are a very intelligent commentor here.
I value your insightful opinions.

Badger40 on June 13, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Out of the 25 hottest years on record over the last 100 years, 12 of them have been since 1990. <<< —- moron.

Where were the tipping points? I mean lets swallow the bullshit claim that GISS < NOAA and Phil hide the decline Jones' Hadcrut are accurately measuring the planet rather than the shape of James Hansen's thumb.

Hotter than Hades – hotter than it’s ever been in the history and yet NO TIPPING POINTS.

The first thing needs to be done is a thorough house cleaning.

Hansen has to go

HANSEN HAS TO GO

HANSEN HAS TO GO

He’s not a scientist – he’s a political activist blocking the gates at power plants – the same as the Greenpeace hucksters and pirates featured on Whale Wars.

Tom Karl – the NOAA chief who can’t find his credentials.
The doctorate impersonator who never graduated. The Dr for whom “hide the decline” refers to his schooling.

He has to go

TOM KARL HAS TO GO

TOM KARL HAS TO GO

Mann, Jones, Ammann, Briffa, Esper, Wahl, Moberg, Osborn, Rutherford – all of the hockeystick team of fraudsters have to go.

papertiger on June 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Yes, man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but so do all of mother Gaia’s creatures.

Rising CO2 is not a CAUSE, it is an EFFECT.

But nothing will dissuade the true believers.

FlatlanderByTheLake on June 13, 2011 at 3:54 PM

papertiger on June 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM

I’ve read some of Hansen’s work in the past. I’m not impressed.
It seems anyone can get a PhD these days.

Badger40 on June 13, 2011 at 3:56 PM

And the CO2 that mankind adds is actually very, very small.

Badger40 on June 13, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4