The Economist has a climate change of heart

posted at 4:01 pm on March 30, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The Economist has been pretty reliable about beating the climate-alarmist drum for years on end now, often peddling the urgent need for an overarching global climate treaty to combat the threat. In a piece this week, however, the British publication took a much more moderate approach and hashed out some of the different studies suggesting that the planet actually might not be quite as sensitive to changes in carbon dioxide levels as the global-warming scaremongers have long been insisting.

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years. …

If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. …

None of this is to say that climate change is a fantasy — the planet is not and never has been a stable place — and that we don’t have real environmental problems that we need to consider and address. But are we hurtling toward imminent, irreversible catastrophe directly because of humanity’s prosperous machinations, and we need to voluntarily undertake measures to cut back on our economic growth post-haste? It definitely sounds like they’re cooling their jets on that one.

Which, really, is a much smarter approach. Eco-radicals seem to think that hysterical doomsaying is the only way to rouse people to action, yet somehow, we have miraculously managed to roll right by past every one of their apocalyptic benchmarks (global cooling, peak oil, famine and drought, rising oceans, etcetera), and it isn’t really helping their case. Being a little more honest and a little less emotional about the science, the range of possibilities, and how much we still don’t know — rather than excommunicating any dissenters as heretics — is probably a much better way to recruit people to your cause in the long run.


Related Posts:

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

Hedging their bets before the tsunami of fraud lawsuits hit.

SWalker on March 30, 2013 at 4:12 PM

global warming 2.0

–bayam

tom daschle concerned on March 30, 2013 at 4:13 PM

The money phrase is “dissenters as heretics” let’s just sit back and watch how The Economist is treated. That will be interesting. It was good to see Prof. Hansen mentioned.

Cindy Munford on March 30, 2013 at 4:15 PM

dissenters as heretics

But that is oh so much easier.

CW on March 30, 2013 at 4:16 PM

I have never bought the notion that the left actually thinks they can change the mean temperature of the earth; rather, they do think they can get in on the ground floor of energy by buying in to new forms of it.

“Big oil” has a great deal of influence and that influence is not always in the form preferred by those who seek to attain, then maintain power. It’s volatile, imported, and subject to all manner of global disturbances. Undermining that influence and smoothing out the ripples from economic and diplomatic waves while appearing “democratic” in doing so has been the challenge. Creating a need for alternative forms of energy -the commodity that makes or breaks a modern society- and subjecting those alternates to both government regulation and investment allows for government to control access and the unknowns while simultaneously reducing outside influence from “big oil” states and companies.

“Global warming” or “climate change” are nothing more than propaganda from the operational side of those employing a form of stealth-fascism. And while solar, wind and algae may one day demonstrate actual promise through abundance and efficiency, we’re no where near that level now.

BKeyser on March 30, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Being a little more honest and a little less emotional about the science, the range of possibilities, and how much we still don’t know — rather than excommunicating any dissenters as heretics — is probably a much better way to recruit people to your cause in the long run.

a modicum of humility and not falsifying data to prove your desired outcome would be nice.

tom daschle concerned on March 30, 2013 at 4:19 PM

The Science is Settled…wait, what?

trs on March 30, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Which, really, is a much smarter approach. Eco-radicals seem to think that hysterical doomsaying is the only way to rouse people to action, yet somehow, we have miraculously managed to roll right by past every one of their apocalyptic benchmarks (global cooling, peak oil, famine and drought, rising oceans, etcetera), and it isn’t really helping their case.

Hey, Al Gore’s still on record as saying the polar ice caps aren’t going to melt away until 2014, so he’s still got another 15 months to go on his prediction. Never lose faith…

jon1979 on March 30, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Feeling a bit of schadenfreude.

22044 on March 30, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Oh dear. Whatever will happen to the climate change emphasis in Common Core Standards? Once we have a nationalized set of standards in education, it won’t matter when/if research/data proves Al Gore incorrect.

http://www.missourieducationwatchdog.com/2013/03/national-science-standards-are-needed.html

manateespirit on March 30, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Duh.

Global warming/climate change has always been about controlling the behavior of the masses and diverting taxpayer dollars to all kinds of grifters and charlatans.

steebo77 on March 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM

All together now…We told you so!

Liam on March 30, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Could they ramp it up again if they called it White Guy Weather?

BL@KBIRD on March 30, 2013 at 4:39 PM

“Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise.

Not to those of us who saw this as a Leftist Hoax years ago…

Seven Percent Solution on March 30, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Could they ramp it up again if they called it White Guy Weather?

BL@KBIRD on March 30, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Maybe if somehow the weather was gay…

Seven Percent Solution on March 30, 2013 at 4:43 PM

The true damage of this hoax is what has been taught in the schools as ‘science‘…

… Those poor kids, it’s not that they don’t ‘know‘ anything, it’s just so much what they ‘know’ is Leftist propaganda and indoctrination.

Seven Percent Solution on March 30, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Duh.

Global warming/climate change has always been about controlling the behavior of the masses and diverting taxpayer dollars to all kinds of grifters and charlatans.

steebo77 on March 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Pretty much. You can control virtually everything and everyone in the name of the environment.

darwin on March 30, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Being a little more honest and a little less emotional about the science

If people aren’t 100% honest and are injecting their emotions, then it’s not science.

ButterflyDragon on March 30, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Venus atmosphere: 872 degrees F, 96.5% CO2, atmospheric pressure 92 times that of Earth (think pressure cooker)

Earth atmosphere: 0.035% CO2

I can really see how we’re worried about a runaway greenhouse effect and becoming more like Venus, can’t you?

The Rogue Tomato on March 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM

The true damage of this hoax is what has been taught in the schools as ‘science‘…

… Those poor kids, it’s not that they don’t ‘know‘ anything, it’s just so much what they ‘know’ is Leftist propaganda and indoctrination.

Seven Percent Solution on March 30, 2013 at 4:47 PM

This is the reason why right wingers fail so miserably in science and engineering pursuits. You’d think their disastrous, recent attempts to correct ‘leftist polling’ statistics prior to the last presidential election might have helped them realize their misguided group think. No, Romney was never leading in the polls in the days before the election. But apparently the lesson was completely lost. You still see yourselves as arbiters of scientific ‘correctness’.

But keep it up, Hispanics aren’t the only minority growing in the US. Asians are an important and growing demographic that demonstrates excellence in math and science compared to many of their peers. These anti-science positions will driven Asians even further away from the GOP.

Global warming/climate change has always been about controlling the behavior of the masses and diverting taxpayer dollars to all kinds of grifters and charlatans.

True, the melting of the Artic has nothing to do with global warming. Apparently the only sign of a warming planet is higher median land temperatures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/05/climate-change-will-open-up-surprising-new-arctic-shipping-routes/

If anything, scientists may have been underestimated the effects of global warming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21033078

But don’t worry, while changes to the jet stream may result in more frequent droughts in the US, Greenland will soon be able to grow crops.

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Maybe if somehow the weather was gay…

Seven Percent Solution on March 30, 2013 at 4:43 PM

…that’s it!…Gay Weather!

KOOLAID2 on March 30, 2013 at 5:24 PM

bayam on March 30, 2013

…WHO SH!T ?

KOOLAID2 on March 30, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Nevertheless, it didn’t stop our Commie female canine from whacking us with a carbon tax.

OldEnglish on March 30, 2013 at 5:32 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/05/climate-change-will-open-up-surprising-new-arctic-shipping-routes/

If anything, scientists may have been underestimated the effects of global warming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21033078

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM

…Brad Plummer and the BBC?…and Algore is holding bayams ba11s… while bullsh!tting you!

KOOLAID2 on March 30, 2013 at 5:33 PM

…Brad Plummer and the BBC?…and Algore is holding bayams ba11s… while bullsh!tting you!

KOOLAID2 on March 30, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Are you saying that every forecast of Arctic ice loss is inaccurate? I wasn’t aware that right wing bloggers were contesting that analysis as well…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:38 PM

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Those shipping routes were open to the Vikings! It was their later closure that caused the Viking settlements in Greenland to die out – for lack of resupply/trade.

OldEnglish on March 30, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Asians are an important and growing demographic that demonstrates excellence in math and science compared to many of their peers. These anti-science positions will driven Asians even further away from the GOP.

What a stereotype. Not all Asians are mathmeticians or scientists. They voted for Obama because they want more HB-1 Visas.

Greenland will soon be able to grow crops.

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Yes, it will become the breadbasket of the world in 5 years. Good grief.

20 years ago, the hysteria from the Left was about the ozone layer vanishing, not it’s “global warming.”

sentinelrules on March 30, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Are you saying that every forecast of Arctic ice loss is inaccurate? I wasn’t aware that right wing bloggers were contesting that analysis as well…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:38 PM

…pull YOUR own finger you stupidazz!…you’ve been sh!tting yourself and wasting time here for yours!…The Guardian?…wipe your azz with it!

KOOLAID2 on March 30, 2013 at 5:44 PM

justification for funneling taxpayer money to democrat donors who create a pretense of manufacturing some green product which no one will ever buy

tom daschle concerned on March 30, 2013 at 5:45 PM

it’s obvious to all of the world’s “enlighted” that the only way to stop global warming is to have all conservatives live in huts, cook on dung fires and use their hands for toilet paper. Of course, all government workers, academics and union members may continue to live as they are now.

The enlightened may also have “seperate but equal healthcare rather than obamacare, they may marry the same sex or an animal, They may abort babies up until 9 months, they may possess armed guards or guns and they sure don’t need no stinking ID to vote. They also can pass on trillions of dollars of debt to their kids and grand kids and blame it all on bush and neocons.

Life is good in liberal utopia.

acyl72 on March 30, 2013 at 5:47 PM

I worked in big biotech for six years. cons are legion in hard science. sure there were plenty of retarded people, I think they are called liberals, but you just ignore them.

deez nutz bay am. deez nutz

tom daschle concerned on March 30, 2013 at 5:48 PM

I’m getting tired of the loose talk from the chicken little global warming freaks. They remind me of the folks that stand on the side of the street with a sandwich board claiming the end of the world is near.

The only thing that separates them from the latter is that these nuts are clinging to the notion that, through some wild world tax scheme, government controlled climate will be a reality.

Friggin. Nut. Jobs.

Saltysam on March 30, 2013 at 5:55 PM

List of ways the left have tried to make money off this con……..

1-Skim money off the top of the carbon tax. Foreign liberal leaders in particular most to gain.

2-Lefty scientists getting grants.

3-Products. From autos to lightbulbs to windmills. Probably 100′s of useless products people are getting rich off.

4-Green jobs money scams from the government. Many different people making millions this way including pols.

5-Movie makers from Hollywood to documentary film makers like Al Gore. Book writers aswell.

6-Liberal environmental organisations.

I remember Al Gore using the word “scheme” when talking about the Republican plans to privatise Social Security. He knows more about scheming then anyone. This is a giant con that they knew was going to blow up in their faces so they created the change from “global warming” to “climate change” and the theories that this causes every weather event under the sun including blizzards and global cooling. Now they are slowly backing away and probably already working on their next giant con to help the left. And of course the liberal media play along with it all.

Just yesterday there was a segment from a liberal documentary on ABC news about the plight of the polar bears with lots of demagoguery including the name of the polar bear[Ice Bear]. Lots of melting icebergs and him looking all sad in the hot green grass he was laying in as they talked about the heat. Diane Sawyer was about to cry for poor Ice Bear.

These people are scary. Anyway, what I always found most interesting about all this was that global cooling is the much bigger danger. And we are due for an ice age. Hot is good. Cold is bad. People move to the equator for the weather. Hot equals food. Cold equals famine. China and Russia could use more warmth.

KMav on March 30, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Are you saying that every forecast of Arctic ice loss is inaccurate? I wasn’t aware that right wing bloggers were contesting that analysis as well…

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:38 PM

You are an idiot.

The entire premise of apocalyptic global warming is increasing temperatures with rising CO2 levels.

Temperatures have not risen in conjunction with rising CO2 levels. The premise is false. All the climate models that predicted rising temperatures have failed. None of the predictions made by climate fanatics has come to pass.

Yet you still hysterically cling to phony science in some desperate hope that the global warming hoaxers will still figure out some way to exert control over us and steal even more money.

darwin on March 30, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the globe is continuing on a long term warming trend for the next 500 years.

Okay, what does this mean for the future?

The so-called “science” coming from the Left has predicted catastrophe as a result.

Really?

They’re pretenders. They love to play make believe. Science, my ass. They’re booger eating knuckleheads.

They have absolutely no way of predicting that the resultant changed conditions around the globe would be a net positive or a net negative.

They are so full of sh!t they actually believe the crap pouring out of their own mouths.

Saltysam on March 30, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Been saying this exact thing for years, and taking down and defeating know-it-all liberals with it. Yes, human carbon dioxide emissions have the potential to make the planet warmer but the degree (no pun intended) to which it’s going to happen is way overblown. The extreme low-end of the prediction models is probably the right one and there will most likely be no catastrophe, at least not in the next hundred years ago.

Glad they’re finally catching up!

alchemist19 on March 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM

The entire premise of apocalyptic global warming is increasing temperatures with rising CO2 levels.

Temperatures have not risen in conjunction with rising CO2 levels. The premise is false. All the climate models that predicted rising temperatures have failed. None of the predictions made by climate fanatics has come to pass.

darwin on March 30, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Brayam is a believer…much like a religion. That one loves to be told what to do by those he idolizes. What a sheep.

CW on March 30, 2013 at 6:18 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Guardian? HA! HA! HA!

Explains everything. Whats your nic on CIF at the Tardian? HA! HA! HA!

BL@KBIRD on March 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Temperatures have not risen in conjunction with rising CO2 levels. The premise is false. All the climate models that predicted rising temperatures have failed. None of the predictions made by climate fanatics has come to pass.

Yet you still hysterically cling to phony science in some desperate hope that the global warming hoaxers will still figure out some way to exert control over us and steal even more money.

darwin on March 30, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Scientists are not fanatics. Want to find fanatics? Look at all the geniuses touting the inaccuracy of polling statistics during the last presidential election. It takes a fanatic to introduce new statistical models based on self-righteous proclamations of objectivity, which of course were soon proved to be wildly inaccurate. It demonstrated why you should keep science and math out of the hand of right wing amateurs.

As for the accuracy of the weather or climate models, you’re making hopeful generalizations without citing any specific evidence. The difficulty of modeling complex systems does not invalidate an entire field of scientific study. It doesn’t mean that right wing bloggers are ready to replace scientists.

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

As a subscriber to The Economist, I will say unequivocally that it has been hysterical about AGW, and later ‘climate’, for years. And that is being kind. Not a single subject could not be injected with the irrational fears and beliefs of the Climateers. The subject could be tea spoon collections and a link to fear of global warming would find its way into the piece. Further, it was sometimes apparent that the interjection, or infection, was by an editor, and not the author, as the same often had no factual analytical context within the piece.
This particular piece was an interesting come down. Competent scientists and economists have been writing to the news magazine for years pointing out not only the poor science (conclusory and threadbare), but also the fact that the editors irrational fear was skewing badly the economic and political analysis that we had come to expect this periodical doing well. For some reason, the resident alarmists have been somewhat tamed.

pat on March 30, 2013 at 6:26 PM

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

You and your consistency. You know in using one tired logical fallacy after another.

CW on March 30, 2013 at 6:29 PM

appeal to authority 2.0

tom daschle concerned on March 30, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Scientists are not fanatics. Want to find fanatics? Look at all the geniuses touting the inaccuracy of polling statistics during the last presidential election. It takes a fanatic to introduce new statistical models based on self-righteous proclamations of objectivity, which of course were soon proved to be wildly inaccurate. It demonstrated why you should keep science and math out of the hand of right wing amateurs.

As for the accuracy of the weather or climate models, you’re making hopeful generalizations without citing any specific evidence. The difficulty of modeling complex systems does not invalidate an entire field of scientific study. It doesn’t mean that right wing bloggers are ready to replace scientists.

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

OK, so rather than drag out a sophisticated computer model why not use the empirical model of the way the warming the Earth has experienced thus far due to the presence of greenhouse gases, calculate for yourself that the IPCC was blowing things way out of proportion and then start to not give a crap about what they say? It’s what I did and looks like I’m being proven right!

alchemist19 on March 30, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Scientists are not fanatics.

When people fabricate results, refuse to disclose their work and attack fellow scientists asking questions they stop being scientists and become corrupt fanatics.

As for the accuracy of the weather or climate models, you’re making hopeful generalizations without citing any specific evidence. The difficulty of modeling complex systems does not invalidate an entire field of scientific study. It doesn’t mean that right wing bloggers are ready to replace scientists.

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Quit making excuses for their failed models, especially since they were asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix something that doesn’t exist.

darwin on March 30, 2013 at 6:36 PM

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

waah waah waah

22044 on March 30, 2013 at 6:36 PM

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Just go back to the Medieval Warming Period, ignore the causes, and concentrate on the consequences. Was it good or bad?

OldEnglish on March 30, 2013 at 6:37 PM

When people fabricate results, refuse to disclose their work and attack fellow scientists asking questions they stop being scientists and become corrupt fanatics.

darwin on March 30, 2013 at 6:36 PM

well stated

22044 on March 30, 2013 at 6:37 PM

At least one model is dead on. Three decades ago a professor at UVA predicted a maximum temperature at the end of the last century with a fairly short maximum before a decline which probably would last more than a century. Guess what! His model had nothing to do with green house gases. It is based upon three dynamic cycles of the solar system. Until we can develop voodoo sufficiently to change the wobble of the earth’s axis and change the average radius of the earth’s orbit, we will continue to have these temperature cycles.

burt on March 30, 2013 at 6:38 PM

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Please feel free to call me out on my previous statement. Since HotGas has been all gay marriage all the time lately and I’m in the pro-SSM camp I’ve been branded something of a heretic around here so I need to re-establish my conservative credentials. I know what I’m talking about on this issue and I’ve got science on my side to back me up. If you call me out you will lose. So please do.

alchemist19 on March 30, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Want to find fanatics?

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

You mean like the ones that made Germany pay $110 billion to delay “global warming” by 37 hours?

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2261775975001/germany-pays-billions-to-delay-global-warming-for-37-hours/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxbusiness%2Fvideo+%28Internal+-+Video+-+Video%29

Being a Climate Change Skeptic is more rational than those who believe in “global warming” just to feel smug and superior about themselves.

sentinelrules on March 30, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Gee, I guess it’s a good thing they didn’t execute all the skeptics like the Warmists were calling for.

Axion on March 30, 2013 at 6:42 PM

When ONE volcanic eruption can put more CO2 into the atmosphere than ALL of mankind’s CO2 emissions for all of man’s history, you know these global warming kooks are simply after your money. It’s been a scam from the very beginning. These aren’t scientists doing this, their Piltdown Man fraudsters.

Mojave Mark on March 30, 2013 at 6:44 PM

bayam: I work in empirical science, explicitly modeling complex systems and their behaviors.

Climate models are a crock because their assumptions are not in line with current science. (Much like, yes, alternate statistical models were wrong in the last election.)

Scott H on March 30, 2013 at 6:51 PM

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2013 at 6:57 PM

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

You suffer from the ID-10-T error. Like anyone else scientists can and have been fanatics. Dr. Hansen is a good representative of a catastrophic climate fanatic. Not one of his predictions have come to pass. His Hockey stick is based on slicing one kind of data into another to get the results he wanted. Nothing fanatical about that right?

chemman on March 30, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Mojave Mark on March 30, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Love you man but that volcano thing isn’t true.

CW on March 30, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Oh please. The science is settled. LOL

Never in the course of human endeavor has data been tortured as much as these “climate scientists” have …. at least not since the Tobacco Institute closed.

J_Crater on March 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Many volcanoes spew CO2, but the most famous, Kilauea, spews about as much as a largish city. Daily. Has been doing so since 1983.

pat on March 30, 2013 at 7:08 PM

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM

.
Did you do any of this………

empirical science, explicitly modeling complex systems and their behaviors,

At East Anglia U. ?

And who gets the tax dollars again? Solyndra people ?

FlaMurph on March 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM

My take on global warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFncT6K-X64

flyoverland on March 30, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Global warming is regarded by the sheeple as true, by those who can think for themselves as false and by the power mad and money grubbers as … … useful.

VorDaj on March 30, 2013 at 7:32 PM

What would be the effect of this Global Warming fraud and coercion, if successful? To make part of the world fools and part hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. Al Gore and the Global Warming fraudsters and fanatics have converted simple changes in the weather into an engine with which to try to enslave mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Scientists.

VorDaj on March 30, 2013 at 7:35 PM

It is well known that CO2 peaks are associated with temperature peaks. A more precise comparison shows that CO2 peaks occur a few thousand years after temperature peaks. If they are related, the temperture peaks would be the cause of the CO2 peaks.

About forty years ago I would occasionally browsed in the USGS library. I read that a village in West Africa was completely wiped out almost instantaeously by a natural phenomena. Residents were affixiated by CO2. The village was on the shores of a very deep lake, a remnat of a volcano. Water satureated with CO2 at low temperature and high pressure will form an ice containing CO2. Some of this ice is at the bottom of the lake. The ice is not very stable and it decays exothemically. If some of the ice decays for any reason, it will cause any contiguous ice to decay in a low energy explosion. The result was that the villagers were breathing in a high concentration CO2. This ice is also found in the oceans.

burt on March 30, 2013 at 7:43 PM

There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”
unclesmrgol on March 30, 2013 at 6:57 PM

.
Are you suggesting Al Ghore has profited from this AGW science conundrum ?

Typical right wing conspiracist.

FlaMurph on March 30, 2013 at 8:00 PM

The Economist is an interesting study in contradictions. It describes itself as a classically liberal magazine and extols America’s tradition of self government while backing Obama twice for election and supporting his statist policies such as ObamaCare and green energy. I see its leftward turn as a consequence of its support for the Iraq war in 2003 which surprised me and turned off a lot of its “intellectual” readers over here and international readers who detested George Bush. They also lost editorial staff as a result. I believe the Economist has turned left to placate and hold onto its readership.

breffnian on March 30, 2013 at 8:10 PM

One…More….Time!!!

Hide the decline.

Odysseus on March 30, 2013 at 8:41 PM

To finally put to rest the notion that the sun has anything to do with the climate on planet Earth, I am going to fly my space ship into the sun to prove my theory…!

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:00 PM

You realize the inherint dangers of such a mission, don’t you…?
Seven Percent Solution on March 30, 2013 at 6:01 PM

You fool, that is why I am going to conduct my mission at night!

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:02 PM

O_o

Seven Percent Solution on March 30, 2013 at 9:02 PM

seeing as how co2 follows warming I want more co2.
food grows better when its warmer with the subsequent co2 rises.
ipcc/un have stated that climate change is the vehicle to use for redristribution of wealth.
thats all you needed to ever know.

dmacleo on March 30, 2013 at 9:11 PM

more SO2 than CO2 in volcanoes but they also affect us in other ways.
mainly…killing us.
what I have never been able to ascertain is CO2 from undersea vents/volcanoes/etc as I don’t know a manner to find them all let alone measure them.

dmacleo on March 30, 2013 at 9:17 PM

“Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise.“

Not to those of us who saw this as a Leftist Hoax years ago…

Seven Percent Solution on March 30, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Claiming to be surprised is one last attempt to save face on the whole issue. Ha!

beselfish on March 30, 2013 at 10:27 PM

DAMN!

There goes the flounder fishing in the Dells!

WryTrvllr on March 30, 2013 at 11:13 PM

Oh dear. Whatever will happen to the climate change emphasis in Common Core Standards? Once we have a nationalized set of standards in education, it won’t matter when/if research/data proves Al Gore incorrect.

http://www.missourieducationwatchdog.com/2013/03/national-science-standards-are-needed.html

manateespirit on March 30, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Does anyone know if there is some centralized web site that has the literature and non-bowdlerized history books to combat this crap?

WryTrvllr on March 30, 2013 at 11:22 PM

It’s been 20 degrees below average everywhere for the last month and I’d like to hear the Warmists explain where all the greenhouse heat is. Last year it was 20 above average and Obama was trying to scare everyone about the earth melting.

The worst thing that could have happened for the climate hoaxers was a truly epic hot year like we had last year. At the end of this year we can compare the temperatures and it will be a few degrees cooler. They have no explanation for how that can happen and the party is over for the hoaxers. They are downplaying the heat from 2012 to lower the bar. Yes, they fudged the numbers colder for last year.

Buddahpundit on March 30, 2013 at 11:24 PM

But don’t worry, while changes to the jet stream may result in more frequent droughts in the US, Greenland will soon be able to grow crops.

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Can I get a Capital One credit card there now?

WryTrvllr on March 30, 2013 at 11:26 PM

But don’t worry, while changes to the jet stream may result in more frequent droughts in the US, Greenland will soon be able to grow crops.

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Yeah.

Right after we fight the Nazis on Mars.

itsspideyman on March 30, 2013 at 11:31 PM

As for the accuracy of the weather or climate models, you’re making hopeful generalizations without citing any specific evidence. The difficulty of modeling complex systems does not invalidate an entire field of scientific study. It doesn’t mean that right wing bloggers are ready to replace scientists.

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Actually, when the temps don’t match your predictions, it does.

WryTrvllr on March 30, 2013 at 11:39 PM

“The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought.”

Don’t they mean, “than THEY once thought?”. Some of us never bought into the nonsense in the first place.

Dollayo on March 31, 2013 at 1:33 AM

The “lack of new warming” is clearly due to Climate Change!

Panic now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

profitsbeard on March 31, 2013 at 2:24 AM

“The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought.”

Don’t they mean, “than THEY once thought?”. Some of us never bought into the nonsense in the first place.

Dollayo on March 31, 2013 at 1:33 AM

They mean “… what they once hoped.”

We can see by Obama’s regime what leftist energy policies have done to stall the economy, just think what would have happened had Kyoto and UN controls gone into effect.
The UN documents were a fraudulent attempt at hog tying western nations, especially aimed at the USA.
Funny how China is actually the biggest polluter on earth and the environ-mental-cases have fallen silent.

kregg on March 31, 2013 at 7:51 AM

“The science is settled.”

Pope Paul V, 1633 A.D.

S. D. on March 31, 2013 at 7:57 AM

As for the accuracy of the weather or climate models, you’re making hopeful generalizations without citing any specific evidence. The difficulty of modeling complex systems does not invalidate an entire field of scientific study. It doesn’t mean that right wing bloggers are ready to replace scientists.

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

How confusing. Are you making hopeful generalizations?

itsspideyman on March 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Was it back in the ’70′s when we had the Global Cooling Threat? Well dust off the stats because we’re going to need them about 2030 for a renewed effort. Running short on large grants don’cha know.

Herb on March 31, 2013 at 9:46 AM

The entire premise of apocalyptic global warming is increasing temperatures with rising CO2 levels.

Temperatures have not risen in conjunction with rising CO2 levels. The premise is false. All the climate models that predicted rising temperatures have failed. None of the predictions made by climate fanatics has come to pass.

This and well said. When the model does not predict reality, the model is tossed, not reality baynam…

Climate models have become a laughing stock BECAUSE of their inaccuracy not only to predict the future, but the past as well. Add to that the massaged data, the e-mails about “hiding the decline” and all the money that has been poured into “research” and you come to a firm conclusion. They are wrong.

The real hard part comes soon. Leftist’s apologizing and making whole those scientists who kept their integrity in the face of a pretty clear fascist campaign to discredit and silence them. Ruined reputations, loss of income, damages, attacks on their integrity need compensation. Not from the taxpayer, but from the loony leftist Universities endowments, foundations and research centers that did the attacking. Scientific American magazine should be dissolved or its editorial board fired and so on. These accurate Scientists who held their own in the face of the most vicious personal and professional onslaught I have ever seen are the men who are the heroes, not you banyam.

Bulletchaser on March 31, 2013 at 11:45 AM

The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Leftists never change. It is always the same playbook. Hijack, expound, reap the inflow of research dollars while burning down your opponents, not just disagreeing with them but destroying them, crushing them, starving them out.

Thank God my father brought me up immune to leftist BS. Global Warming, Ozone Hole, Alar, Spotted Owl, Acid Rain…the list goes on. This time their has to be public apologies and compensation to the victims!

Bulletchaser on March 31, 2013 at 12:00 PM

More proof that “consensus” has NOTHING TO DO with “science,” and EVERYTHING TO DO with “politics“!!

landlines on March 31, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Climate models have become a laughing stock BECAUSE of their inaccuracy not only to predict the future, but the past as well. Add to that the massaged data, the e-mails about “hiding the decline” and all the money that has been poured into “research” and you come to a firm conclusion. They are wrong.

Bulletchaser on March 31, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Not just “wrong,” but flagrantly DISHONEST!!!

landlines on March 31, 2013 at 1:19 PM

18,000 years ago NYC was under ice 365 days a year… They knew this all along, but how many of ANY AGW alarmist’s stories started with that fact? Or even included it?

Ten miles of melt per century has been the average during those 18,000 years… How many times has one of these alarmists mentioned that?

And a short pause in the melt is all they need to change the song from Global Warming to Climate Change to Well We’re Not Sure.

They are sheep to the leftist elite. They will be turned to a new cause of the week once they are lost to this one.

RalphyBoy on April 1, 2013 at 12:37 AM

The difficulty of modeling complex systems does not invalidate an entire field of scientific study. It doesn’t mean that right wing bloggers are ready to replace scientists.

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

It does invalidate it when the “entire field of study” is premised solely on those inaccurate models.

You are confusing a lot of different things in your responses here.

The right has criticized – correctly – scientists who claim that there is a catastrophic rise in temperature and that it is caused by man. Neither of those two claims are based in any way on science. Instead, they are based on scientists’ opinions, falsified research, and inaccurate climate models.

the right has never argued that the climate is not warming. Everyone has known this for years. But, we argue, correctly, that it is not caused by man, that it is a natural phenomenon and that it is not catastrophic and does not require socialist wealth transfers and destroying economies to “combat”.

Every argument brought forth by the right against leftists who worship at the alter of “climate change” has proven correct. The temperature is not rising significantly/catastrophically, there is no proof that man caused the rise in the temperature, the rise in temperature is following historic patterns and the climate models created and relied upon by climate alarmists are bogus.

You are left with arguing that somehow the left is right and the right is anti-science because, what exactly? What “scientific” theory pushed by the left for the last 20 years has proven true? Is the science still “settled”. Apparently not. More and more actual scientists are finding the courage to come forward and challenge the “consensus”.

You can revise history all you want to claim some kind of victory, but in reality, you and yours are wrong, were wrong and will remain wrong. The earth and its fauna and flora will survive the slight uptick in average temperatures that is naturally occurring and we will not let you use fake science to enact idiotic policies.

That is that true source of the left’s rage on this subject, that they were unable to fool enough people into going along with their Marxist fantasies.

Monkeytoe on April 1, 2013 at 8:25 AM

Good to see the Economist finally waking up to reality, and even Hansen, one of the worst scaremongers (and fudgers of temperature data) admitting that the “temperatures have been flat for a decade”.

If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change.

With this statement, the Economist is a little confused. Not even the IPCC is talking about a doubling of carbon (dioxide) emissions, but emissions at the current rate eventually causing a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the air. Current human CO2 emissions, if they all accumulated in the air, would cause concentrations to rise by about 3.5 ppm per year, but the observed rate of increase is about 1.8 ppm per year, meaning that natural forces (photosynthesis and absorption in the oceans) are removing from the air about half the CO2 we emit. Photosynthesis rates increase with CO2 concentration, so if the removal rate catches up to the emission rate, the concentration will stabilize at a higher value than today’s value.

Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin.

This is a profound statement!!! Most of the global-warming alarmists are most worried about sea-level rise due to icecaps melting and expansion of sea water, with the threat of flooding coastal cities and low-lying cropland. But sea levels are rising at less than 2 mm/year, and the rate is SLOWING DOWN, so this adds up to less than 8 inches of sea-level rise per century.

Instead of spending trillions of dollars on solar panels and windmills and crippling the world’s economy, wouldn’t it be a whole lot cheaper to build an 8-inch high seawall around low-lying areas vulnerable to flooding, and we have 100 years to do it?

Steve Z on April 1, 2013 at 9:43 AM

bayam on March 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Shut up and adapt b!tch!

Or you can go extinct with all the others that couldn’t adapt.

44Magnum on April 1, 2013 at 4:31 PM

“The planet has a fever.”

- Fat Albert

It got better.

JackM on April 2, 2013 at 7:38 AM

Too bad, the Eskimos were so looking forward to a big fat dose of global warming.

JackM on April 2, 2013 at 7:42 AM

It appears perhaps, the global warming scientists may get kicked off the government dole and be forced to get real jobs.

They can always return to their roots and start selling miracle elxirs form the back of covered wagons.

JackM on April 2, 2013 at 7:48 AM