I reviewed Freakonomics when it first came out and really liked it. So I was looking forward to the sequel Superfreakonomics. Unfortunately, Levitt and Dubner decided to write about global warming and have made a dreadful hash of it. The result is so wrong that it has even Joe Romm and William Connolley in agreement.

So what went wrong? One possibility is that Freakonomics was superficially plausible but also rubbish, and it was only when they wrote about an area where I was knowledgeable that I noticed. But I don’t think this is the correct explanation. I’ve read the journal papers on sumo cheating, Lojack and abortion and crime that they cite in Freakonomics and they are fairly represented. Superfreakonomics, on the other hand, misrepresents the scientific literature on global warming. The difference here is that the papers cited by Freakonomics were Levitt’s own work and he understood them, while Levitt and Dubner do not understand the climate science literature. This by itself would not be fatal, but what has taken them off the cliff is the Freakonomics formula: “What you thought you knew about X is wrong!”. If you want to apply this formula to global warming you can easily find many superficially plausible arguments on why the mainstream science is wrong. Bang those into your chapter on global warming without bothering to check their accuracy and the only work that remains is the tour to promote your book.

But enough on why they got everything wrong. Let’s look at what they got wrong. My Global Warming Sceptic Bingo Card is a bit out of date but they manage to tick five boxes: global warming is a religion, ice cores show warming comes first, ice age predicted in the 70s, water vapour dominates and climate modelling isn’t scientific. William Connolley stopped when he had found ten serious errors, so I’ll continue where he left off and see if I can find ten more. To make it more of a challenge, I’m just going to look at the extract that appeared in the Sunday Times entitled “Why Everything You Think You Know About Global Warming Is Wrong“. And remember, this is on top of the ten serious errors that Connolley found.

Unless otherwise indicated all quotes are from the Sunday Times extract.

1) “Yet [Ken Caldeira]‘s research tells him that carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight.”

Caldeira has exactly one quote on his home page:

“Carbon dioxide is the right villain,” says Caldeira, “insofar as inanimate objects can be villains.”

Joe Romm asked Caldeira about the misrepresentation of his views and he told Romm:

If you talk all day, and somebody picks a half dozen quotes without providing context because they want to make a provocative and controversial chapter, there is not much you can do.

2) “Caldeira’s study showed that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide while holding steady all other inputs – water, nutrients and so forth -yields a 70% increase in plant growth, an obvious boon to agricultural productivity.”

That would be this paper. Look at the abstract:

Climate stabilization via “Geoengineering” schemes
seek to mitigate climate change due to increased greenhouse
gases by compensating reduction in solar radiation incident
on earth’s surface. In this paper, we address the impact of
these climate stabilization schemes on terrestrial biosphere
using equilibrium simulations from a coupled atmosphere-terrestrial
biosphere model. Climate stabilization would tend
to limit changes in vegetation distribution brought on by
climate change, but would not prevent CO2-induced changes
in Net Primary Productivity (NPP) or biomass; indeed, if
CO2 fertilization is significant, then a climate-stabilized
world could have higher NPP than our current world.
Nevertheless, there are many reasons why geoengineering is
not a preferred option for climate stabilization.

So if CO2 fertilization is significant you get a 70% increase in plant growth. Levitt and Dubner turned that into “you get a 70% increase in plant growth”. Note also that Caldeira used a climate model of the type that L&D said could not be trusted. And did you notice the last sentence? L&D simply ignore the reasons why Caldeira said that geoengineering is not a preferred option.

3) “It is one thing for climate heavyweights such as Crutzen and Caldeira to endorse such a solution.”

In the abstract above Caldeira writes:

there are many reasons why geoengineering is not a preferred option for climate stabilization.

This is not an endorsement. In a more recent paper:

A reduction in the amount of solar radiation (insolation) could rapidly mask the effects of global warming without a reduction in CO2 emissions, but the quick fix brings serious danger. An abrupt end to or failure of geoengineering could throw the climate into even greater turmoil, possibly leading to warming rates twenty times those seen today. …

Decreasing emissions of greenhouse gases reduces the environmental
risk associated with climate change. By contrast,
continued CO2 emissions, even with the potential of geoengineering,
will likely increase environmental risk. Thus, with
respect to environmental risk, geoengineering is not an alternative to decreased emissions. Opponents of immediate climate
mitigation actions might argue for a delay in emission reductions
based on a lack of trust in climate model predictions. However,
reliance on geoengineering implies a larger trust in climate
model results than does reliance on emissions reductions. For
example, even if there were only a 50% probability that climate
model predictions are approximately correct, reducing emissions
could be a prudent avoidance of risk. However, if we had only
50% confidence in climate model predictions of the efficacy of
geoengineering schemes, then reliance on geoengineering is
likely to be imprudent.

4) Despite Caldeira being an expert on ocean acidification L&D say nothing about at all, perhaps because their cheap fix will do nothing about it. Caldeira writes:

Unless we cut greenhouse gas emissions very deeply and very soon, I think that Arctic ecosystems and coral reefs will be a thing of the past. These ecosystems may be just the tip of the melting iceberg.

We need to eliminate CO2 emissions — about this there is no question in my mind. There is also no question but that CO2 emissions are increasing more rapidly than was anticipated in any of the IPCC emissions scenarios.

I do not see intentional climate intervention approaches as an alternative to CO2 emissions reductions, but it may be something we need to do to, for example, prevent great ice sheets from sliding into the ocean. These approaches may be able to partially save Arctic ecosystems but will do nothing to save coral reefs.

5) “changes in carbon dioxide levels don’t necessarily mirror human activity”

This is misleading. The change in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution is caused solely by human activity.

6) “coal is so cheap that trying to generate electricity without it would be economic suicide”

So France committed economic suicide? Who knew?

7) “it is already… Too late … even if humankind immediately stopped burning all fossil fuel, the existing carbon dioxide would remain in the atmosphere for several generations.”

Yes, we would get more warming even if all emissions stopped. But it is possible to keep the warming under two degrees. So it’s not too late to reduce emissions.

8) “The problem with solar cells is that they’re black, because they are designed to absorb light from the sun. But only about 12% gets turned into electricity and the rest is reradiated as heat – which contributes to global warming.”

This fundamentally misunderstands what is causing global warming. It is true that replacing coal-fired power plants with solar cells will produce similar amounts of waste heat, but global warming is not caused by the waste heat from fossil fuels but the enhanced greenhouse effect.

9) “IV estimates this plan could be up and running in about three years, with a start-up cost of $150m and annual operating costs of $100m. It could effectively reverse global warming at a total cost of $250m.”

Only if you think that you only need to run it for one year. In fact you’ll have to keep running it for centuries. And if you ever stop, you’ll get all the prevented warming in a decade or so. What could possibly go wrong?

10) “In 2006 [Paul Crutzen] wrote an essay in the journal Climatic Change lamenting the “grossly unsuccessful” efforts to emit fewer greenhouse gases and acknowledging that an injection of sulphur in the stratosphere “is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects”.

By now you may have noticed that L&D systematically misrepresent their sources, and sure enough, if you look at Crutzen’s essay you find:

By far the preferred way to resolve the policy makers’ dilemma is to lower the
emissions of the greenhouse gases. … although by far not the best
solution, the usefulness of artificially enhancing earth’s albedo and thereby cooling climate by adding sunlight reflecting aerosol in the stratosphere might again be explored and debated …

If sizeable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not happen and temperatures rise rapidly, then climatic engineering, such as presented here, is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects.

Finally, I repeat: the very best would be if emissions of the greenhouse gases could be reduced so much that the stratospheric sulfur release experiment would not need to take place

Far from endorsing it as a cost effective solution, Crutzen was suggesting it be researched as a last-ditch measure if his preferred option fails.

Well, that’s my ten, but UCS and Joe Romm have found even more stuff that is wrong.

The response from Dubner so far is pathetic:

While Dubner, who also writes a popular New York Times blog with Levitt, dismissed Romm’s post in an email to me yesterday as “hard to take seriously,” he also assumes that “there will be debate and legitimate pushback against that chapter in our book.”

Comments

  1. #1 Mark
    October 19, 2009

    And that difference, DA, is that the plants we have now aren’t the ones that can survive with the current crop of predators in the CO2 of the Old Days.

    We can’t eat those old-day plants either.

    And evolution of plants doesn’t happen in 100 years.

  2. #2 Mark
    October 19, 2009

    > You don’t have clouds right at all never mind 100%.

    > Posted by: Dave Andrews

    No, Ducky?

    Well if the clouds are not right at all, how come hindcasting is producing as an emergent property of the physics that IS included correct?

    And, Ducks, do you have *ANY* proof that what you just spewed up there had ANYTHING to do with reality the humans live in, rather than your fantasy world?

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    October 19, 2009

    Thanks Mark. Perfectly said.

    After trying to nail down the greenhouses-are -not-nature story yesterday, I forgot that Ducky would then try to switch the discussion in another meaningless direction, by claiming that levels of C02 were higher in the past. Sure that is true, but as scientists have been saying, the normal rate of change in terms of temporal scale is a fraction of that occurring now. One hundred or so years is unprecedented. Sure species, communities and ecosystems can adapt to change, but they are constrained too – by the rate of adaptive mutations arising in populations, by phylogeny, by phenology, by other biotic and abiotic constraints. Evolution takes time. And human actions are not allowing for that. We are forcing nature to try and adapt in time scales which are unprecedented, and, moreover, we have already simplified the biosphere in a number of other ways, thus putting further impediments in the way of adaptive responses.

  4. #4 Lee
    October 19, 2009

    @Dave Andrews:
    “Mark,

    You don’t have clouds right at all never mind 100%.

    Posted by: Dave Andrews | October 19, 2009 5:49 PM”

    Davey boy, what specifically do you think is wrong with the cloud implementation of the current models? Why do you think that? Be specific, please.

  5. #5 el gordo
    October 20, 2009

    Jeff Harvey

    It’s all very alarming, but I’m not alarmed. CO2 will continue to rise for quite some time, perhaps 50 years or more, until global cooling gets the upper hand.

    You show me your ‘peer reviewed’ and I’ll show you mine.

  6. #6 Janet Akerman
    October 20, 2009

    Gordo is about to turn science on its head with his “you show me yours, I’ll show you mine” trick.

    What a tiresome dill.

    In need of some attention today el gordo? Go pull your sister hair instead.

  7. #7 Deep Climate
    October 20, 2009

    I heard the tail end of an interview one of the authors on U.S. National Public Radio (I missed which one).

    At the very end, a line was tossed out about ocean acidification perhaps requiring limits on CO2 after all (i.e. geoengineering by itself wouldn’t cut it if this proved to be a problem).

    I remember wondering if they had even thought of ocean acidification before their critics raised it. It seems not, if the excerpt is complete.

  8. #8 Chris O'Neill
    October 20, 2009

    el gordo:

    CO2 will continue to rise for quite some time, perhaps 50 years or more, until global cooling gets the upper hand.

    Looks like another idiot who thinks the CO2 rise of the last 150 years was caused by global warming.

  9. #9 Jeff Harvey
    October 20, 2009

    El Chubbo,

    What is your point? That evolution and adaptive radiation will occur in 50 years or less, thus enabling nature and man to live happily ever after?

    We have known for a long time that selective regimes are not hard-wired and instantaneous, but that the ability of species to adapt is constrained on a spatio-temporal scale. Within the context of largely deterministic systems, humans are inflicting changes in decades that would normally occur over many centuries (at the very least) or thousands of years. There are consequences to this single experiment, from an ecological, evolutionary (and functional) perspective. No need to show you any references; read books and texts by Stearns, J.N. Thompson, Ricklefs, Begon et al., etc. its all in there. There is nothing remotely controversial about this.

    Then you come up with this “global cooling will get the upper hand in 50 years crapola” that has no empirical foundation whatsoever. Look chubbo: are you just thick or being annoying?

  10. #10 el gordo
    October 20, 2009

    Jeff Harvey

    When all else fails, bring out the ad hominem. Just check your facts and ignore the propaganda.

    Water vapor is responsible for 96% of the ‘greenhouse effect’, while human activities are responsible for 0.1% of greenhouse gases. AGW is a no brainer.

    Global cooling has begun, even Latif agrees to that. Get real, Jeff, this is important.

    I like El Chubbo though, better than ‘fatso’.

  11. #11 Jeff Harvey
    October 20, 2009

    El gordo/fasto/chubbo/corpulento et al.,

    Basically you do not know what the hell you are talking about. But then again, everyone here has known that for a long time. I suggested reading material for you, although I fear that you do not know much (if anything) about ecology or evolutionary biology. You certainly do not know anything about climate science.

    Check out the facts? Are you serious? I have to admit, you have the tendency for hilarity. Of course I have checked the damned facts: the work of 95% of the climate science community, and not a few naysayers on the outside.

    Given you believe AGW to be a “no-brainer”, what are your exalted qualifications in science for being able to draw such a conclusion? Or or you being just a pompous ass? I tend to side with actual scientists who are doing research, and not complete and utter laymen.

    You are henceforth dismissed.

  12. #12 Michael
    October 20, 2009

    el gordo:

    Global cooling has begun, even Latif agrees to that.

    If you mean Mojib Latif, no he doesn’t. He thinks we are looking at a future trend of global warming, just with some expected temporary downs on the way up.

    If you denialists think you are one firm ground, why do you continually and deliberately mis-represent the views of scientists??

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    October 20, 2009

    Michael,

    Thanks for putting el gordo in his place. Latif is regularly misquoted by the denialists and I do not think he is at all happy about it. This is another example of twisting the conclusions of someone eminent in the field of climate science to downplay AGW.

    As I have said before, the vast majority of denialists are like creationists; hardly any of them do original research but instead they snipe away at the sidelines, attacking studies they do not like and mangling the conclusions of other studies to try and support their own narrow views. As I said earlier, a Nature paper by one of my colleagues was discussed on a contrarian web site, much to her chagrin; although her paper had nix to do with global change the results were distorted to promote the view that increasing atmospheric levels of C02 would enhance primary productivity across the biosphere. She certainly does not expound this simplistic argument. Similarly, I am sure that the authors of the New Phytologist study will be shocked to say the least that their latest study is being used by the denialosphere to downplay AGW.

  14. #14 Janet Akerman
    October 20, 2009

    >Just check your facts and ignore the propaganda.

    Good advice, el gordo.

    Tiresome dill.

    Jeff your last line includes the correct policy for this time waster.

  15. #15 Mark
    October 20, 2009

    > I suggested reading material for you,

    He’ll have to learn to read.

  16. #16 Dave Andrews
    October 20, 2009

    Lee #82,

    Ask a question courteously, and I may respond. Note I never name-call anyone and always address them by their post name

  17. #17 Dave Andrews
    October 20, 2009

    Jeff Harvey #81,

    Ok, so climate temperatures dropped between the 13thC and the 16thC by roughly the same as you are saying they have risen over tha last 150 years.

    The plants etc survived the former. Are you therefore saying they can’t cope with this? What harms plants more, cold or warmth?

  18. #18 Mark
    October 20, 2009

    > The plants etc survived the former. Are you therefore saying they can’t cope with this?

    No, you’re saying that.

    But we’ve not come to expect reason from you, Ducky.

  19. #19 Mark
    October 20, 2009

    > Ask a question courteously, and I may respond. Note I never name-call anyone and always address them by their post name

    > Posted by: Dave Andrews

    My goodness, just as well you’re a real boy, not a puppet.

    Well, maybe a sock one.

    How about your continuing slandering of George Monbiot?

    Or the entire Greenpeace establishment?

    What a colossal whopper.

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    October 20, 2009

    Dave Andrews,

    First of all, temperatures did not drop between the 13th and 16th century as much as they have risen over the past 150 years. This is discredited contrarian nonsense.

    Second, temperatures are expected to rise over the coming century at rates exceeding anything in many millions of years. Against that background is a human-dominated landscape which has greatly fragmented many existing ecosystems and at the same time has resulted in a profound loss of genetic diversity amongst many of its component species. Humans have created environments which enable many generalists to thrive – house sparrows, starlings, cockroaches, cattle, and weeds, but at the same time a large share of the genetic diversity of specialist consumers has been reduced, and the terminal end of the food chain has been particularly hard hit. Marine ecosystems have been in some cases obliterated by human actions. There are and will continue to be consequences.

  21. #21 Steve Chamberlain
    October 20, 2009

    @95 Dave Andrews: “Jeff Harvey #81,Ok, so climate temperatures dropped between the 13thC and the 16thC by roughly the same as you are saying they have risen over tha last 150 years. The plants etc survived the former. Are you therefore saying they can’t cope with this? What harms plants more, cold or warmth?”

    Dear Reader

    If this is your first visit here, or if this is the first time you’ve read any of Dave Andrews’ epistles, do not be alarmed. Our Mr Andrews likes to pose questions like these, possibly in the sincere belief that he is contributing to “informed debate”. You, dear reader, are of course well ahead of the game here because, apparently unlike Dave, you’ve actually read Jeff Harvey’s post at #81 wherein he states “…as scientists have been saying, the normal rate of change in terms of temporal scale is a fraction of that occurring now. One hundred or so years is unprecedented. Sure species, communities and ecosystems can adapt to change, but they are constrained too – by the rate of adaptive mutations arising in populations, … Evolution takes time. And human actions are not allowing for that…” This post was itself a response to egregious errors made by Dave previously.

    Ignore for a minute your own stance on climate change – all you need to do to establish the merit of Dave Andrews’ questions is make this simple comparison. Whatever conclusion you come to, you will at least be a lot further down the path of understanding than Dave who, poor soul, either can’t read or can’t understand what he’s reading.

  22. #22 Janet Akerman
    October 20, 2009

    Ducky’s (@95) persistent obtuseness means that he refuses to distinguish between the current level of warming and the future warming, nor will he consider the difference between the resource required to sustain 6,700 million population and 500 million during rapid climate upheaval.

    Fortunately Ducky, people with competence have looked at these questions.

  23. #23 Janet Akerman
    October 20, 2009

    And Ducky, since you misrepresent the science presented by Mojib Latif you should watch [this debunking](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/0/khikoh3sJg8). Your error (or malice) has been exposed.

  24. #24 el gordo
    October 21, 2009

    Janet Akerman

    It was a pleasure to hear Mojib Latif suggest we may be heading for cooler times over the next 20 years, even as CO2 continues to increase. By then he will be retired to the south of France and living off the gravy train which he helped create.

    Latif obviously hadn’t factored in the dominant effect of a cool PDO.

    I think the ‘Crock’ is a clever piece of propaganda, but clearly you don’t see it as such.

  25. #25 Jeff Harvey
    October 21, 2009

    Steve,

    Tanks for your post (#99). I do not know what role Dave Andrews sees for himself in Deltoid – thus far he appears to do nothing more thanmake rather vacuous jibes on a daily basis.

    But then again, so does our resident know-nothing and mangler of facts, el gordo. He still hasn’t said what makes him uniquely qualified to comment on climate science with such apparent authority here other than rank hubris and outright arrogance. So el gordo, are you going to share your secret and tell us how many volumes you have published on climate science, or even in any field of science? Or are you just going to rehash the usual contrarian crap that you glean off of a few websites?

  26. #26 Janet Akerman
    October 21, 2009

    Greenman climate denial crock of the weeks are clear, accurate, and faithfully represent his source, his subject material and the science.

    I can see clearly why you need to call this propaganda el gordo.

    (I notice you couldn’t help misrepresenting Latif even after hearing his words. But that’s your standard isn’t it. Thanks for demonstrating to lurkers the type of guff that is involved in science denialism).

  27. #27 Mark
    October 21, 2009

    > It was a pleasure to hear Mojib Latif suggest we may be heading for cooler times over the next 20 years, even as CO2 continues to increase.

    Why do you denialists insist that if CO2 causes global warming, it must be ONLY CO2 causing global warming?

    There’s more than one factor in the climate’s temperature response. CO2 changes are the biggest changes and are causing the biggest changes in climate, but they aren’t the only ones.

    Why do you insist it’s only CO2?

  28. #28 psweet
    October 21, 2009

    Jeff Harvey — thanks for the response.

    I’ve got a background in bio, but mostly on the animal side. This whole CO2 as a limiting resource idea has sounded wrong from the get-go, but it’s nice to have my intiuition confirmed by someone with some expertise in that area. I have to admit, I had been thinking of a reduction in functional proteins and nucleic acids as a result of N and P shortages. The thought of reductions in secondary compounds never hit me, although it seems obvious in retrospect.

  29. #29 dhogaza
    October 21, 2009

    It was a pleasure to hear Mojib Latif suggest we may be heading for cooler times over the next 20 years, even as CO2 continues to increase

    Obviously you didn’t actually listen to what Latif actually said. Poor man, the entire denialsphere libeling him …

  30. #30 Dave Andrews
    October 21, 2009

    Janet,

    Keep with it! I am not the only person asking questions on this blog.

  31. #31 Dave Andrews
    October 21, 2009

    Lee,

    Ok you still haven’t asked courteously, but I’m prepared to make an exception.

    Have a look at Bjorn Stevens & Graham Feingolds recent paper in Nature, the abstract of which says,

    ” Untangling aerosol effects on clouds and precipitation in a buffered system

    Bjorn Stevens1,2 & Graham Feingold3
    Top of page
    Abstract

    It is thought that changes in the concentration of cloud-active aerosol can alter the precipitation efficiency of clouds, thereby changing cloud amount and, hence, the radiative forcing of the climate system. Despite decades of research, it has proved frustratingly difficult to establish climatically meaningful relationships among the aerosol, clouds and precipitation. As a result, the climatic effect of the aerosol remains controversial. We propose that the difficulty in untangling relationships among the aerosol, clouds and precipitation reflects the inadequacy of existing tools and methodologies and a failure to account for processes that buffer cloud and precipitation responses to aerosol perturbations.”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7264/full/nature08281.html

    In the paper, amongst many uncertainties regarding the GCMs, they note that the main challenge is to,

    “extract a credible prediction from models whose representation of clouds and cloud microphysical processes, are known to have serious deficiencies”

    Is that what you wanted?

  32. #32 Dave Andrews
    October 21, 2009

    Mark,
    “Or the entire Greenpeace establishment?”

    Have you ever noticed that Greenpeace, despite its supposed forward thinking, right on environmental views is a totally undemocratic organisation that dictates from the centre what its policies will be?

  33. #33 sod
    October 21, 2009

    Dave, your claim was:

    You don’t have clouds right at all…

    i don t see, how that claim is supported by this paper.

  34. #34 luminous beauty
    October 21, 2009

    Ducky,

    You do understand that the deficiencies in modeling clouds ab initio means that they are parameterized in accord with empirical observations, don’t you?

    Scientists don’t like empirical formulae much as they represent a low level of theoretical understanding, but engineers use them all the time, because they work OK for due diligence.

  35. #35 Mark
    October 22, 2009

    And in 110 Ducky arses about and proves his statement in 94 a lie.

  36. #36 Mark
    October 22, 2009

    Ducky, have a look at the hundreds of papers referenced to in the IPCC report.

    Read them.

    Then prove them wrong.

  37. #37 Dave Andrews
    October 22, 2009

    Mark,

    “have a look at the hundreds of papers referenced to in the IPCC report.”

    How many of them were related to cloud modelling, Mark?

    I gave you an example of a very recent paper published in Nature, one of the foremost Scientific Journals in the world. If that doesn’t mean much to you then so be it. But what does mean anything to you?

  38. #38 sod
    October 22, 2009

    again Dave:

    the paper simply does NOT say: “(we) don’t have clouds right at all…”.

    but that is what you say.

  39. #39 Dave Andrews
    October 22, 2009

    luminous beauty,

    You did notice that the authors said in their abstract that“Despite decades of research, it has proved frustratingly difficult to establish climatically meaningful relationships among the aerosol, clouds and precipitation”?

    If this basic fundamental relationship is still not understood what value can be placed on the parameritazations used in GCMS?

  40. #40 Dave Andrews
    October 22, 2009

    sod,

    One question, have you read the paper?

  41. #41 Mark
    October 22, 2009

    Ducky asks dumb question:

    Will then make some shit up when sod asks “what paper?”.

  42. #42 Mark
    October 22, 2009

    > “Despite decades of research, it has proved frustratingly difficult to establish climatically meaningful relationships among the aerosol, clouds and precipitation”?

    And where, Ducky, does that say “and we didn’t get it”?

    Aaaaw.

    Poor Ducky. Didn’t read his paper…

  43. #43 Mark
    October 22, 2009

    > How many of them were related to cloud modelling, Mark?

    All of the ones about cloud physics, Ducky.

    Or you can go look at the source code for a model:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

    Maybe you can show where the cloud physics is wrong and fix it, Ducky-poos.

  44. #44 Mark
    October 22, 2009

    > It is thought that changes in the concentration of cloud-active aerosol can alter the precipitation efficiency of clouds, thereby changing cloud amount

    Ah, so Ducky reads and quotes and misses out that bit.

    Quelle suprise!

    The paper doesn’t say GCMs get cloud physics wrong.

    Poor little ducky.

  45. #45 luminous beauty
    October 22, 2009

    >_If this basic fundamental relationship is still not understood what value can be placed on the parameritazations[sic] used in GCMS[sic]?_

    The parameterized values are based on empirical (real world) measurements, rather than theoretical bases. One doesn’t need to understand the cause of a phenomenon to be able to map its effects.

    The _fundamental_ relationships of clouds and aerosols are fairly well understood. It is because there is such a soup of different chemicals and particles from many different sources, varying widely in composition, size and distribution characteristics, that it is extremely difficult to model climatically _meaningful_ relationships _ab initio_.

    But not impossible. Stevens & Feingold are, notwithstanding the need for improved tools and methods, getting interesting and encouraging results.

  46. #46 Dave Andrews
    October 23, 2009

    Luminous beauty,

    Thanks for your measured response. In stark contrast to Mark’s outbursts!

  47. #47 Dave Andrews
    October 23, 2009

    Mark,

    Have you read the many threads at CA about GISS ModelE?

    Thought not!

  48. #48 dhogaza
    October 23, 2009

    Have you read the many threads at CA about GISS ModelE?

    I’ve read much of the Model E documentation, and some of the code, enough to know that CA claims of its horribleness are greatly exaggerated.

  49. #49 Dave Andrews
    October 23, 2009

    Mark,

    Also, why do you feel you have to respond for sod?

  50. #50 Dave Andrews
    October 23, 2009

    Wow, dhogaza, are you also Mark?

  51. #51 Dave Andrews
    October 23, 2009

    Mark/dhogaza,

    “And where, Ducky, does that say “and we didn’t get it”?”

    The authors are saying that decades of research have not solved the problem and it remains a problem.

    Do you have difficulty with basic comprehension?

  52. #52 Ellie
    October 30, 2009

    I doubt it’ll make any difference and I doubt anyone will bother to read it but, for the record, my response to this post, amongst the others joining in this witch-hunt, can be found here:

    http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/10/superfreakonomics-witch-hunt.html

    It’s not about whether global warming is true or not (it is), it’s about whether the blogging community have got it wrong this time.

    I would also appreciate you pointing out the page and line numbers in the chapter where the following quote occurs as I have read it through several times and I can’t find them.

    coal is so cheap that trying to generate electricity without it would be economic suicide

    This simply isn’t about whether global warming exists or not and it’s a pity so many people are getting side-tracked by that as the chapter contains some really interesting points that are worthy of debate.

  53. #53 bi -- IJI
    October 30, 2009

    Shorter Ellie:

    Global warming doesn’t exist! But that’s not the main point! So you’re not allowed to dispute it! Global warming doesn’t exist! Global warming doesn’t exist! Global warming doesn’t exist! But that’s not the main point! So you’re not allowed to dispute it! Global warming doesn’t exist!

    * * *

    Shorter Dave Andrews:

    We don’t know everything. Therefore we know nothing.

  54. #54 Mark
    October 30, 2009

    > This simply isn’t about whether global warming exists or not and it’s a pity so many people are getting side-tracked by that as the chapter contains some really interesting points that are worthy of debate.

    What is it about, then?

    Whether you should use beef or mutton in your sandwich?

    As to your query, I don’t care where it is because it’s just basically wrong.

    It sounds like an accountant for Exxon’s thinking.

  55. #55 Mark
    October 30, 2009

    > The authors are saying that decades of research have not solved the problem and it remains a problem.

    > Do you have difficulty with basic comprehension?

    > Posted by: Dave Andrews

    1) you didn’t post anything saying that, hence reading comprehension isn’t the problem: not being psychic was.

    2) who says they are right? Where’s the proof?

    3) Do you have a problem with reading what YOU wrote (see #1)? This is far more serious a brain problem than reading comprehension failures, duckypoos.

  56. #56 Mark
    October 30, 2009

    > Also, why do you feel you have to respond for sod?

    > Posted by: Dave Andrews

    Why is it that the only rebuttal you have of my post is to say “I’m not reading because I asked someone else”?

    Does your brain overheat because it’s that far up your ducky?

  57. #57 Bud
    October 30, 2009

    Sorry Ellie, but I’ve read your piece and whilst the tone of it suggests you are reasonable on most issues it’s you who have got this one wrong (at least the part that I’m familiar with), and not the rest of the blogs.

    I haven’t read the full pdf chapter, but I have read the Times extract a couple of times. And to be perfectly honest, they may as well have just given it to Nathan Myhrvold to write. Levitt and Dubner fawningly accept everything that their superpolymath buddy says without granting an oppositional view the merest sniff. They twice at the start of the extract bring up how ‘smart’ people think their buddies are, and the sense of an intellectual elite cooly analysing and solving a problem that the rest of the world are incapable of looking at rationally. Which, since it is the whole ethos of their wankonomics concept, isn’t surprising.

    I mean, they grant around 1500 words explaining what a wonderful idea geo-engineering is, and then choose to end the extract on the opposing view, which is granted one line at the end:

    “In a word,” Gore says, “I think it’s nuts.”

    Bloody establishment heavyweights, dismissing good science out of hand! It just proves they don’t have any good arguments against these supersmart guys we’ve got here and it’s all just conservative thinking that holds geoengineering back!

    At best it’s a massively spun column, at worst it’s lying by omission. Some people, myself included, see very little difference between the two when the issue involved is a scientific one.

    If you want to pretend that Levitt and Dubner have been unfairly pilloried in the face of the “factual accuracy” of their piece, that’s your perogative. But you ignore or misrepresent much of the protests against the book and instead indulge in some bizarre nitpickery and spin of your own. For example:

    “They cite James Lovelock as a “high-priest” of those who treat global warming as though it is a religion. I’m not sure how that can be interpreted as representing the consensus view.”

    First off they have very deliberately peppered alternative (consensus) viewpoints with words such as religion or heresy (see your point B) to reinforce a view that there is an amorphous majority who see James Lovelock as a spokesperson. Secondly, and more pertinently, and very very loudly (though I, like you, hate shouting in blogs): IF YOU CONSTANTLY REPEAT HOW YOUR VIEWS ARE COUNTER TO THE MAINSTREAM, AND THEN USE ONLY AL GORE AND JAMES LOVELOCK TO REPRESENT OPPOSING VIEWS, PEOPLE WILL READ THOSE VIEWS AS REPRESENTING THE MAINSTREAM, AND IF YOU QUOTE THEM OUT OF CONTEXT THEN PEOPLE WILL REGARD THE MAINSTREAM AS CONSERVATIVE, STUPID OR NUTS.

    And, regarding your point I (couldn’t you have got these in some kind of order?) you claim: “What they actually say is that geoengineering is a quick and cheap way of rapidly cooling the earth to mitigate the worst of the effects WHILE WE DEAL WITH LOWERING CARBON EMISSIONS”

    Right… except paying lip-service to lowering carbon emissions whilst letting Myrrvold explain why carbon dioxide is a good thing – especially for plants at 1400ppm – at the very least makes the message ambiguous. And that would be a criticism even if they gave a timescale for lowering carbon emissions. Which they don’t. Presumably we deal with it at some point in the future, when we have some kind of cheap technological fix.

    I could go on. Although oddly, at least half of the rest of your points admit people objecting to their chapter have a point, which considering the gravity of some of the objections does beg the question of why you spend so much energy defending them in the first place.

    Ultimately, you can call it a witch hunt all you want, but the snide arrogance that haunts Levitt and Dubner’s misguided jaunt into climate change and geoengineering is like a red rag to a bull – quite apart from the factual errors. They poisoned the well and are now moaning somewhat dishonestly about the controversy they clearly wanted to create.

    I’ve reposted this at your own blog. By the way, it is noticeable that you have failed to quote directly any criticisms of the book, choosing instead to paraphrase them in your own words. This may explain the misdirection of your rebuttals.

  58. #58 Mark
    October 30, 2009

    > The authors are saying that decades of research have not solved the problem and it remains a problem.

    PS I have a problem with my shoes. The shoelaces are too long and grag on the ground.

    Despite tying extra long knots, the problem is not solved still exists.

    However, despite my shoes having a problem, they still work like shoes should.

    So, Ducky, are these problems making the cloud physics worthless? Or are they, despite your insinuations to the contrary, good enough to use to plan action on?

    I bet it would be amusing to see Ducky caught crossing the street and noticing half way that a car is coming.

    “If I walk forward, he could turn to the left and hit me going there. If I walk back, he could turn right and hit me still and if I stay here, he may not swerve and hit me!” and skipping forward, back and staying still while he works out how to know what the driver is thinking, unable to make a decision on what to do until he knows with 100% certainty where the van is going.

    Which occurs just as the van hits him.

  59. #59 dhogaza
    October 30, 2009

    The authors are saying that decades of research have not solved the problem and it remains a problem.

    Do you have difficulty with basic comprehension?

    DaveA has discovered one of the reasons why climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is computed to lie in the range of 2.5C-4C, rather than (say) 3.755C-3.756C.

    Because there are things we don’t know, in particular regarding cloud feedbacks.

    DaveA misinterprets this to mean that the climate sensitivity lies in the range 0C-0C for some odd reason …

  60. #60 Tim Lambert
    October 30, 2009

    Elie asks

    >I would also appreciate you pointing out the page and line numbers in the chapter where the following quote occurs

    p187 line 5

  61. #61 Ellie
    October 30, 2009

    Bud,

    Thanks for your comments, I have responded on my own blog it’s too long for the comments and perhaps dull for those not interested, so I’ll post the link again for anyone who wishes to follow it up:

    http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/10/superfreakonomics-witch-hunt.html

    Tim,

    Thanks. I agree, they are wrong there. I agree with them that it would be unfair to expect developing nations to switch but the rest of us should be getting on with it.

  62. #62 Terje
    November 4, 2009

    This blog saddens me a little. On many levels. One is that you actually use Joe Romm as a “witness” to the “badness” of Superfreakonomics. Joe Romm has, in this debate, the intellectual DIShonesty of a combined G. W. Bush administration. That is just sad. Romm has misrepresented, lied and generally just made up stuff that he then uses to “attack” the SF authors. As Caldera says: “I panicked and commented on things that I now wish I would have been silent on” about how he was quoted by Romm.

    Or quoted – that is just plain wrong. Romm wrote to Caldera: ““I’d like a quote like ‘The authors of SuperFreakonomics have utterly misrepresented my work”. WTF? So Romm tells Caldera what kind of quote he wants out of him? That is absurd and junk “journalism”. It is also important to understand that Caldera never agreed to such a quote, something that didn’t prevent Romm from actually using it. Pathetic liars like Romm are never good truth advocates.

    The sad, sad, sad truth here is that every blog post that I read on this topic goes one step further in proving an important statement true, namely that the angry anti-freak people are indeed religious zealots. Making things up and spouting it as fact just adds weight to the argument that everyone who thinks global warming is a serious problem is a nut-job. Lying, distorting, making things up like Romm does just “shows” that he is as fanatic as any zealot and completely disinterested in realities.

  63. #63 Michael
    November 4, 2009

    Terje,

    If you think that Romm asking Cladera for a quote on ‘X’ forces Caldera to say ‘X’ you have a very strange view of people.

    The rest is just your fact-free assertions.

  64. #64 Tim Lambert
    November 4, 2009

    Terje, the only thing I relied on Joe Romm for was this quote from Caldeira

    >If you talk all day, and somebody picks a half dozen quotes without providing context because they want to make a provocative and controversial chapter, there is not much you can do.

    The fact that Levitt and Dubner distorted Caldeira’s views I checked for myself by reading several of his papers. You can do this for yourself by following the links in my post.

    You seem to be asserting (though without any evidence at all) that Romm invented the quote above. But that too, is easy to check. Go to [Caldeira's home page](http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/). He has a link to an interview with his comments on Superfreakonomics. And in that interview he says:

    >If you spend several hours talking to somebody and they take a half-dozen things and put it in a book, then it’s going to be in the context and framing of arguments that the authors are trying to make. And so the actual statements attributed to me are based on fact, but the contexts and the framing of those issues are very different from the context and framing that I would put those same facts in…

    >So I think that the casual reader can… come up with a misimpression of what I believe and what I feel about things.

    So the quote Romm gives fairly represents Caldeira’s views.

    You owe Joe Romm an apology.

  65. #65 Alg Ore
    December 9, 2009

    I agree that the original Freakonomics book studied the effect of incentives on peoples actions … it seems that the authors had an incentive (read: money) to write about a hot topic that would propel their book sales.

  66. #66 Matt
    January 5, 2010

    1) This is wrong. See [here](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/)

    Please do the respectable thing and correct your blog.

    4) This is wrong. They mention the issue, at least in passing in their book. Again, please correct this. Feel free to email me if you want me to look it up in the book and site it.

  67. #67 Brian D
    January 5, 2010

    *sigh*

    Matt, why is it that when we have substantive claims about Superfreakonomics’ accuracy and integrity, it’s a “smear”…

    …but when Levitt and Dubner mention criticism from a “well-known environmental advocacy group” (implication: yelling hippies) and fail to mention it’s the Union of Concerned Scientists (a scientific integrity group), it’s not even worth issuing a correction?

    As for ocean acidification, Levitt is on record saying it isn’t a big problem because we can “pour a bunch of base into it“.

    Meanwhile, the Royal Society (which has been an esteemed scientific body longer than the US has been a nation) has a report on ocean acidification. A section of it, beginning on page 45 of that PDF (which is a mirror from the original) completely eviscerates suggestions of the type Levitt’s putting forth here.

    The ironic part? A key author of that report, whose research is cited throughout the part debunking Levitt, is Ken Caldeira.

    You know, the scientist Levitt interviewed for his book.

    But somehow, pointing this out is a “smear” or “issuing a fatwa”.

    See comment#27 for a link to more of the criticisms – not all of which stem from the climate chapter. (For instance, several stem from economics – it’s odd how that one chapter out of both of their books is the only one that rejects their own conclusion that incentives will change behaviour, for instance.)

  68. #68 Brian D
    January 5, 2010

    Forgot to mention: In Tim’s next post on the subject, he addresses your first argument, and in his most recent one, he addresses your second.

    Do the respectable thing and read the posts you’re attacking, o humble Blog Warrior. They’re even nicely categorized on the left, under ‘levitt’.

  69. #69 Drakonim
    September 3, 2010

    Point 8. I’m sorry but I think you’re missing the point here because they are saying that waste heat will contribute to global warming. They’re not saying that waste heat from power plants is causing global warming. I agree with you that waste heat alone is not enough to cause global warming but in combination with the greenhouse effect it does contribute to global warming. Think about it, how could excess heat not contribute to global warming?

  70. #70 Wow
    September 3, 2010

    “Think about it, how could excess heat not contribute to global warming?”

    Average power density from waste heat: order of 1/1000W/m^1

    Average power density from sun: order of 1,000W/m^2

    It’s rather like asserting “the friction of all these people driving around will contribute to global warming. How could it not?!?!”.

    Heck, the photon pressure on the top of my head will make me shorter. How could it not?!?!

    Yet we don’t consider that effect even worth mentioning, do we.

  71. #71 Mike Mahoney
    February 20, 2011

    Interesting. Many, many comments here, some rather personal. Not much fact, but plenty of vitriol. Clearly there are some dearly held and heartfelt beliefs being debated. One might even say debated with *religious* zeal.

    I think these comments show that L&D were right on at least one point…

  72. #72 zoot
    February 21, 2011

    Get back under the bridge, troll.

  73. #73 R Evans
    June 15, 2011

    “This is misleading. The change in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution is caused solely by human activity.”

    Can you show that, and if so how? Were the global levels of co2 being monitored in the 1700’s, and can you produce figures that show the growth of Co2 in Western Europe from say 1760 to 1850?

  74. #74 REvans
    June 15, 2011

    “One other quote from the dynamic duo in the original Freakonomics: “I don’t know much about world oil reserves.” Apparently their approach is statistics through ignorance. So much for the idea that they were subject matter experts … ever.”

    They don’t claim to be subject experts on oil (or any of the other things they discuss). What they do is examine the data and deal with it in a rational matter.

    As for peak oil, it’s a myth.

    “Today, oil is the most important and most valuable commodity of international trade, and its value to our civilisation is underlined by the recurrent worry that we are running out of it. In 1914, the US Bureau of Mines estimated that supplies would last only 10 more years. In 1939, the US department of the interior predicted that oil would last only 13 more years. In 1951, it made the same projection: oil had only 13 more years. As Professor Frank Notestein of Princeton said in his later years: “We’ve been running out of oil ever since I was a boy.””

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/aug/16/highereducation.climatechange

  75. #75 Dave R
    June 15, 2011

    R Evans:
    >Can you show that “The change in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution is caused solely by human activity.”

    [Yes](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/), that’s why it is an established fact, disputed only by lunatics.

    If you can show that it is wrong, instead of trying to shift the burden of proof write it up and submit it to a relevant peer-reviewed journal, then come back here and let us know when you get your Nobel Prize.

  76. #76 Vince whirlwind
    June 15, 2011

    “As for peak oil, it’s a myth”

    Er, no it isn’t.

    http://www.texascenter.org/almanac/Energy/ENERGYCH7P2.HTML

    As you can see, oil production in Texas increased over the years until it reached 1.2 billion barels/year in 1974.

    Then, oil production went down, and down, and down, to 600 million barrels/year in 1993.
    (Since then, it has dropped to 300 million barrels/year).

    1974 is what is known as the “peak”, because it is the highest production that was achieved, despite increasing demand, and production has fallen away ever since.

    This is the characteristic pattern in the exploitation of any finite resource, with oil being no exception.

    These are simple concepts which I successfully explained to my 8-year-old this morning, indicating that barring any serious mental illness or brain trauma, *you* too should be able to understand, REvans.

  77. #77 Jonathan M
    December 22, 2011

    @Vince whirlwind.

    The peaks hold for specific oil fields. However more oil fields are constantly discovered. Texas oil peaked in 74 because the price spiked in 73. Which is exactly the point Freakonomics is trying to make.

    @op. As for faults, you should probably read your article again, it is filled with them.

    “8) “The problem with solar cells is that they’re black, because they are designed to absorb light from the sun. But only about 12% gets turned into electricity and the rest is reradiated as heat – which contributes to global warming.”

    This fundamentally misunderstands what is causing global warming. It is true that replacing coal-fired power plants with solar cells will produce similar amounts of waste heat, but global warming is not caused by the waste heat from fossil fuels but the enhanced greenhouse effect.”

    Yes the reason for the current global warming is CO2 emmisions. However, this doesn’t mean that other things cannot increase the temperature as well. Ultimately what increases the temperature is an increase in the energy on the planet.
    It is a well known fact that white surfaces reflect more light, and thus energy than their black counterparts (Grade school science here). This energy increases the temperature of the earth…
    Where or not the net energy contribution from a suncell is positive or negative might be debatable, but that blacker colours increase the temperature to some degree cannot.

    “9) “IV estimates this plan could be up and running in about three years, with a start-up cost of $150m and annual operating costs of $100m. It could effectively reverse global warming at a total cost of $250m.”

    Only if you think that you only need to run it for one year. In fact you’ll have to keep running it for centuries. And if you ever stop, you’ll get all the prevented warming in a decade or so. What could possibly go wrong?”

    CO2 emmisions also hold a cost every year, in the 1000 of billions for 2 degrees. Also Annual operating costs mean costs you pay every year.

  78. #78 Composer99
    December 22, 2011

    Well, I for one am glad Jonathan M has come and resurrected a half-year-old thread to set us all straight!

    Whew!

  79. #79 Bernard J.
    December 22, 2011

    >Yes the reason for the current global warming is CO2 emmisions. However, this doesn’t mean that other things cannot increase the temperature as well. Ultimately what increases the temperature is an increase in the energy on the planet. It is a well known fact that white surfaces reflect more light, and thus energy than their black counterparts (Grade school science here). This energy increases the temperature of the earth… Where or not the net energy contribution from a suncell is positive or negative might be debatable, but that blacker colours increase the temperature to some degree cannot.

    Oh, for pity’s sake. Is Jonathan M completely clueless about the relative contributions of human-released energy versus energy trapped by human-released emissions?! Or how little the presence of PV cells actually changes planetary albedo? Dude, put on your Google goggles.

    As for the guff about oil, get a primary grade education about arithmetic from [Albert Bartlett](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY) (or [this version](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=YWA64f09r6s)).

    Sheesh, between Jonathan M’s post and the Olaus + other troll idiocy on the [latest Wegman thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/wegman_one_of_the_scientists_t.php), it’s clear that the Silly Season has started.

  80. #80 Harold Faulkner
    Dallas, Texas
    April 26, 2014

    WHY THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING

    People in the USA, are being told by the U.S. government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the earth has experienced in past years when there were far fewer people? Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900AD and 1350AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph at the bottom of this article shows the temperatures of the earth before Christ to 2040.

    In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.

    In approximately 983AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.

    When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.

    After the year 1200AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:

    http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/kultur-sjael/historie/vikingetiden/erik-den-roede.aspx

    The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982.

    “The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”

    The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e., “The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”

    Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html.
    FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE.

    Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

    At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

    CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

    CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

    If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

    The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people cannot allow this to happen.

    If the Earth’s temperature graph is not shown above, you can see this temperature graph at the link:
    http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

  81. #81 Douglas Barnes
    Canada
    May 26, 2014

    “Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900AD and 1350AD the temperatures were much higher than now.”

    Uh… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    Nice of you to copy and paste long-debunked bullshit articles, Harold. Get off the internet. You are now banned for life.

Current ye@r *