The Wall Street Journal has published one of the most offensive, untruthful, twisted reviews of what scientists think of climate change; the WSJ Lies about the facts and twists the story to accommodate the needs of head-in-the-sand industrialists and 1%ers; The most compelling part of their argument, according to them, is that the editorial has been signed by 16 scientists.

The scientists who signed to WSJ editorial are:

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Emphasis added to underscore the fact that this is a group of older and often retired weathermen, engineers, or otherwise not-climate-scientists.

ADDED (from Media Matters)

Six Of The Scientists Have Been Linked To Fossil Fuel Interests. Roger Cohen and Edward David are both former employees of ExxonMobil. William Happer is the Chairman of the Board for the George C. Marshall Institute, which has received funding from Exxon. Rodney Nichols is also on the boards of the George Marshall Institute and the Manhattan Institute, which has been funded by Exxon and the Koch Foundations. Harrison Schmitt was the Chairman Emeritus of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, which was funded by oil refiners and electric utilities in the 1990s, according to a Wall Street Journal report (via Nexis). Richard Lindzen also served on the Economic Advisory Council of the Center, was funded by ExxonMobil through the 2000s.

Speaking of lists of scientists, here’s another one:

P. H. GLEICK
R. M. ADAMS
R. M. AMASINO
E. ANDERS
D. J. ANDERSON
W. W. ANDERSON
L. E. ANSELIN
M. K. ARROYO
B. ASFAW
F. J. AYALA
A. BAX
A. J. BEBBINGTON
G. BELL
M. V. L. BENNETT
J. L. BENNETZEN
M. R. BERENBAUM
O. B. BERLIN
P. J. BJORKMAN
E. BLACKBURN
J. E. BLAMONT
M. R. BOTCHAN
J. S. BOYER
E. A. BOYLE
D. BRANTON
S. P. BRIGGS
W. R. BRIGGS
W. J. BRILL
R. J. BRITTEN
W. S. BROECKER
J. H. BROWN
P. O. BROWN
A. T. BRUNGER
J. CAIRNS JR.
D. E. CANFIELD
S. R. CARPENTER
J. C. CARRINGTON
A. R. CASHMORE
J. C. CASTILLA
A. CAZENAVE
F. S. CHAPIN III
A. J. CIECHANOVER
D. E. CLAPHAM
W. C. CLARK
R. N. CLAYTON
M. D. COE
E. M. CONWELL
E. B. COWLING
R. M COWLING
C. S. COX
R. B. CROTEAU
D. M. CROTHERS
P. J. CRUTZEN
G. C. DAILY
G. B. DALRYMPLE
J. L. DANGL
S. A. DARST
D. R. DAVIES
M. B. DAVIS
P. V. DE CAMILLI
C. DEAN
R. S. DEFRIES
J. DEISENHOFER
D. P. DELMER
E. F. DELONG
D. J. DEROSIER
T. O.
DIENER
R. DIRZO
J. E. DIXON
M. J. DONOGHUE
R. F. DOOLITTLE
T. DUNNE
P. R. EHRLICH
S. N. EISENSTADT
T. EISNER
K. A. EMANUEL
S. W.
ENGLANDER
W. G. ERNST
P. G. FALKOWSKI
G. FEHER
J. A. FEREJOHN
A. FERSHT
E. H. FISCHER
R. FISCHER
K. V. FLANNERY
J. FRANK
P. A. FREY
I. FRIDOVICH
C. FRIEDEN
D. J. FUTUYMA
W. R. GARDNER
C. J. R. GARRETT
W. GILBERT
R. B. GOLDBERG
W. H. GOODENOUGH
C. S. GOODMAN
M. GOODMAN
P. GREENGARD
S. HAKE
G. HAMMEL
S. HANSON
S. C. HARRISON
S. R. HART
D. L. HARTL
R. HASELKORN
K. HAWKES
J. M. HAYES
B. HILLE
T. HÖKFELT
J. S. HOUSE
M. HOUT
D. M. HUNTEN
I. A. IZQUIERDO
A. T. JAGENDORF
D. H. JANZEN
R. JEANLOZ
C. S. JENCKS
W. A. JURY
H. R. KABACK
T. KAILATH
P. KAY
S. A. KAY
D. KENNEDY
A. KERR
R. C. KESSLER
G. S. KHUSH
S. W. KIEFFER
P. V. KIRCH
K. KIRK
M. G. KIVELSON
J. P. KLINMAN
A. KLUG
L. KNOPOFF
H. KORNBERG
J. E. KUTZBACH
J. C. LAGARIAS
K. LAMBECK
A. LANDY
C. H. LANGMUIR
B. A. LARKINS
X. T. LE PICHON
R. E. LENSKI
E. B. LEOPOLD
S. A. LEVIN
M. LEVITT
G. E. LIKENS
J. LIPPINCOTT-SCHWARTZ
L. LORAND
C. O. LOVEJOY
M. LYNCH
A. L. MABOGUNJE
T. F. MALONE
S. MANABE
J. MARCUS
D. S. MASSEY
J. C. MCWILLIAMS
E. MEDINA
H. J. MELOSH

D. J. MELTZER
C. D. MICHENER
E. L. MILES
H. A. MOONEY
P. B. MOORE
F. M. M. MOREL
E. S. MOSLEY-THOMPSON
B. MOSS
W. H. MUNK
N. MYERS
G. B. NAIR
J. NATHANS
E. W. NESTER
R. A. NICOLL
R. P. NOVICK
J. F. O’CONNELL
P. E. OLSEN
N. D. OPDYKE
G. F. OSTER
E. OSTROM
N. R. PACE
R. T. PAINE
R. D. PALMITER
J. PEDLOSKY
G. A. PETSKO
G. H. PETTENGILL
S. G. PHILANDER
D. R. PIPERNO
T. D. POLLARD
P. B. PRICE JR.
P. A. REICHARD
B. F. RESKIN
R. E. RICKLEFS
R. L. RIVEST
J. D. ROBERTS
A. K. ROMNEY
M. G. ROSSMANN
D. W. RUSSELL
W. J. RUTTER
J. A. SABLOFF
R. Z. SAGDEEV
M. D. SAHLINS
A. SALMOND
J. R. SANES
R. SCHEKMAN
J. SCHELLNHUBER
D. W. SCHINDLER
J. SCHMITT
S. H. SCHNEIDER
V. L. SCHRAMM
R. R. SEDEROFF
C. J. SHATZ
F. SHERMAN
R. L. SIDMAN
K. SIEH
E. L. SIMONS
B. H. SINGER
M. F. SINGER
B. SKYRMS
N. H. SLEEP
B. D. SMITH
S. H. SNYDER
R. R. SOKAL
C. S. SPENCER
T. A. STEITZ
K. B. STRIER
T. C. SÜDHOF
S. S. TAYLOR
J. TERBORGH
D. H. THOMAS
L. G. THOMPSON
R. T. T JIAN
M. G. TURNER
S. UYEDA
J. W. VALENTINE
J. S. VALENTINE
J. L. VAN ETTEN
K. E. VAN HOLDE
M. VAUGHAN
S. VERBA
P. H. VON HIPPEL
D. B. WAKE
A. WALKER
J. E. WALKER
E. B. WATSON
P. J. WATSON
D. WEIGEL
S. R. WESSLER
M. J. WEST-EBERHARD
T. D. WHITE
W. J. WILSON
R. V. WOLFENDEN
J. A. WOOD
G. M. WOODWELL
H. E. WRIGHT JR.
C. WU
C. WUNSCH
M. L. ZOBACK


That second list of scientists, much longer than the first, is attached to a letter about the shoddy and ignorant ways in which science is being treated by the press and by climate change denialists. That letter was sent to the Wall Street Journal but rejected. The letter was later published in Science. The crux of the letter can be found in the following excerpt:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

(“Climate change and the Integrety of Science in Science Magazine, 7 May, 2010 328:689-691, downloaded January 27th, 2012.)

Peter Gleick has written a commentary for Forbes that outlines the flaws in the WSJ piece: Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal. You can also find a discussion of the WSJ piece by my old friend Peter Frumhoff, here.

The Wall Street Journal is trolling, and it is shameful. Almost everything they say in their piece is an out and out lie, easily falsified with even a cursory examination of the evidence. In fact, their piece is so bad that this is what we can say about the “16 scientists” who signed this letter: They are idiots. If any of those individuals actually read this piece as published and put their name on it, their credentials as scientists have just evaporated. If they were not climate scientists or working in some related field such as palaeoclimate or atmospheric chemistry or what have you, they should have known better and their ability to make even the simplest of judgements is now in serious question. If they signed this denialist missive just for political reasons, then their credentials as scientists are from this moment forth invalid.

That’s one reason that I put their names in this blog post above the fold. Let Google forever know who these jokers are. Yeah, I’m pissed.

Comments

  1. #1 Rod Rose
    January 28, 2012

    Well, it’s the Wall Street Journal, so we shouldn’t be that surprised. Appalled, yes. Surprised, not so much. The WSJ is a capitalist tool in the most pornographic sense.

  2. #2 Flip
    January 28, 2012

    Apperantly WSJ is owned by Fox News. Being owned by Faux News and WSJ lying and bending the truth to manipulate the masses is no coinincidence.

  3. #3 A Siegel
    January 28, 2012

    Greg — one quibble:

    The Wall Street Journal is trolling, and it is shameful. Almost everything they say in their piece is an out and out lie, easily falsified with even a cursory examination of the evidence. In fact, their piece is so bad that this is what we can say about the “16 scientists” who signed this letter: They are idiots. If any of those individuals actually read this piece as published and put their name on it, their credentials as climate scientists have just evaporated.

    Why the qualifier “climate” in front of “scientists”?

  4. #4 StevoR
    January 28, 2012

    @ ^ : A Siegel | January 28, 2012 4:22 AM

    Agreed. Many of the sixteen are not in fact qualified as climatologists at all.

    Saddening to see Harrison Schmitt & Burt Rutan’s names on that list.

    Might’ve been good to have noted the exact number of names on that second list there too btw. Or did I just miss it? Looked many more than 16.

    A. K. ROMNEY

    Any relation to Mitt do y’know?

    I also saw the name C.O. Lovejoy on there – not the recent comet discoverer or his relative by any chance is it?

  5. #5 jrkrideau
    January 28, 2012

    @ 4 StevoR

    I get a count of 257 in the second list.

  6. #6 Peter Croft
    January 28, 2012

    Fair go, StevoR! That’s an unwarranted speculation worthy of the article in question. NO, it’s not my fellow Aussie.

    The comet “…was named after the amateur Australian astronomer who spotted it, Terry Lovejoy.”

    “Australian amateur astronomer Terry Lovejoy discovered it on Nov. 27,…”

    C.O. Lovejoy seems to be a US citizen and an anthropologist, as a quick search on Google would have told you.

  7. #7 Tony Sidaway
    January 28, 2012

    I put up a list of these fellows with links to relevant Wikipedia articles, so their past history of, to be polite, contrarianism can be seen.

    http://sprng.me/d6dd4

    I believe most of the 16 can be found in the following Wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    There are few enough of these chaps that it’s possible to write an article about them!

    Of course, skepticism is a good thing, but the poisonous nature of this letter and other output of these fellows goes well beyond skepticism and into denial. The warming stopped ten years ago, is a typical lie. I’ve been seeing the “it stopped ten/fifteen years ago” trope enough times over the past few years to understand how it works: choose a warm year in the recent past, fit a line to it, and call it a cooling trend or a “pause”. Never mind that a warming trend consistently emerges if one doesn’t choose the warmest recent year as the start! Deceitful dodges like that are what marks them out as disinformers.

  8. #8 Marc Anderson
    January 28, 2012

    16 pornographers would have been more accurate, and, well, it’s tough to compete with porn for eyeballs. Is there a “values” issue here for progressives?

  9. #9 Unstable Isotope
    January 28, 2012

    I am familiar with James McGrath’s work. He’s a fairly prominent polymer chemist.

  10. #10 Mike Haubrich
    January 28, 2012

    Perhaps it is time for a climatologists’ version of “Project Steve,” something that shows just how many true climatologists understand the evidence of AGW, limited to just those with the names derived from “James” (Hansen) or “Michael” (Mann,) or someone else that has been leading the way in showing how we know the causes and effects of climate change.

    How about “Project Svante” (Arrhenius.)

  11. #11 Greg Laden
    January 28, 2012

    Good idea, Mike.

  12. #12 Roy Grubb
    January 28, 2012

    I’ve done a fairly detailed breakdown of the backgrounds of the 16, with sources, here:
    http://roygrubb.tumblr.com/post/16581690077/the-16-concerned-scientists-who-they-are

  13. #13 Cris Noble
    January 28, 2012

    If you would like to read the WSJ piece side by side with the Science article you can do so using the webapp http://th.isandth.at here: http://bit.ly/wbw1Aq

    Keep in mind that politicians don’t need facts, they are mostly lawyers and businessmen, very few are scientists. They only want to spread reasonable doubt, we need to figure out how to spread the truth.

  14. #14 Greg Laden
    January 28, 2012

    Thank you Roy, I am passing that around. I love the pie chart in the older post by greenfrye (the last link on your white paper)

  15. #15 Alan
    January 28, 2012

    It’s been a Murdoch outlet for a while now, what did you expect?

  16. #16 Markus
    January 28, 2012

    @#4/StevoR: Saddening but no surprise at all to see Harrison Schmitt on that list. He has significant ties to “Big Oil” industrial circles (think “geology consulting”) and along those lines has been an outspoken climate change denialist for quite some time. Besides, more recently he’s developed into pretty much a boilerplate Tea Party member. He’s clearly thrown everything he ever learned about “thinking like a scientist” completely out of the window.

  17. #17 microdot
    January 28, 2012

    amazing that Allegre is the first name on the list of supporters in the WSJ piece. He is a totally discredited political hack here in France. He gets laughed off of the TV shows he dares to be on here any more…but, the jerk stills knows how to parlay his trash science books into cash with the rest of the world….

  18. #18 DC
    January 28, 2012

    Good catch, though to make your point more convincing, you should have also listed the titles of the 250 climate scientists in your list.

  19. #19 Julian
    January 28, 2012

    I checked one name at random from your list of scientists, K E Van Holde, and came up with this:

    http://biochem.science.oregonstate.edu/people/kensal-e-van-holde

    He’s a biochemist. Why is what he thinks about climate science any more relevant that any other not-climate-scientist?

  20. #20 Greg Laden
    January 28, 2012

    Julian, many of the people on that list would not be “climate scientist” if you looked them up. Many are, another large hunk of them are in fields that don’t look to the uninformed like “climate science” but are related, like paleoclimate, and others are simply scientists who can evaluate other scientific work. But yes, this is not a list of climate scientists. This is a list of scientists who have looked at global warming and have come to a certain conclusion, as people who know the scientific method and how science works, and who have varying degrees of direct involvement in the science from not at all (and thus they get nothing out of it one way or another as professionals) to much more involved. That conclusion is expressed in the contents of the letter which I quote from above.

    Dr. van Holde has actually written about science at a meta level, and he’s studied the interaction betweeen radiant energy and molecules, which is parallel with some of the atmospheric chemistry work central to climate scientist, though yes, he is not a climate scientist.

  21. #21 Matt
    January 28, 2012

    Unless I miss my mark, there are several archaeologists and anthropologists on this list. MD Coe is a Mayanist, while DJ Meltzer coauthored a paper with Grayson regarding the megafaunal extinctions in North America. Pat Kirch studies Polynesia, including some work on Easter Island. While one might ask what this has to do with climate science, many of these relate in one way or another to the study of climate change and it’s effects on human population. Marshall Sahlins is on the list (an anthropologist), as well as WH Goonednough (Anthropologist) and KV Flannery (Archaeologist). As much as these folks might not seem immediately related, they’ve collectively done a lot of work on how the environment affects cultures and societies.

    There’s probably a few more whose names don’t immediately jump out at me.

  22. #22 Climatologist
    January 28, 2012

    Anyone who doesn’t believe in eugenics^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H climate change is either a moron or a political operative. Its true!
    The proof will be incontrovertible in 50 years!

  23. #23 Daniel J. Andrews
    January 28, 2012

    Peter Gleick has written a commentary for Forbes that outlines the flaws in the WSJ piece

    I find that strange given that Forbes publishes some serious nonsense on climate, and has even given a platform to Patrick Michaels.

    I was hoping Harrison Schmitt had withdrawn his silliness after he was soundly and thoroughly debunked last year after he publicly demonstrated he was completely ignorant and willing to spout lies that would take a 12-year old with Google two minutes to debunk.

    Apparently, he’s impervious to logic, reason and evidence. We should get a fund together so he can hire a 12-year old to do some fact-checking for him.

  24. #24 Makyo
    January 28, 2012

    You ARE aware, are you not, that the aliens coming to earth under cover of darkness are depositing large quantities of molten slag from mining on other planets? You can actually see them if you go into the woods at night with your night vision goggles, but be very still, they are froglike critters and will just slurp you right up if you move.
    They use lasers to drill down to the center of the earth and then they force this molten slag into the downcomers. The REALLY interesting thing is that this is the fundamental cause of global warming. To refer to this warming as Anthropegenic warming is wrong.

  25. #25 Jon
    January 28, 2012

    The main thing to keep in mind here is that, the WSJ has never claimed to rely on evidence for ANYTHING it publishes. It is a business journal, yes, but a business journal written and edited for an audience of businessmen and women of the right-wing persuasion who, if they were NOT of the right-wing persuasion, would be reading something other than the WSJ.

    WSJ editors, of course, will point out that anyone who makes this claim is clearly to the left of the WSJ in their political ideology… and the fact that political ideology is even part of the discussion is exactly the point.

  26. #26 Klemperer
    January 28, 2012

    Makyo wrote: “You ARE aware, are you not, that the aliens coming to earth under cover of darkness are depositing large quantities of molten slag…”

    Your post made my day, Makyo, thank you.
    There are such a bunch of self-called climate “scepticists” around, sometimes it’s just plain funny to read great posts like yours.
    I’ll straight away print it out to read it to guys who just one of those days told me how great it was to fly to the south 20 times per year for a weekend trip each time “because there are no anthropogenically caused global climate changes”.
    In Germany things are a bit different today. We now got conservative papers (of course not all) who slowly take science into account. The well known “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” even printed a great essay where a journalist pointed out how lobbyists and climate “scepticists” were linked.
    Then there are even cultural scenes, who think of themselves they’d be liberal-left-wing, who go on thinking something like the earth was flat, and scientists some idiots calling for attention or, as a postmodernist put it (Sonja Margolina) trying to forge the “next grand narrative” amongst us, the “fake of the man-made global warming”. (That ridiculous stuff was printed in a german liberal-left-wing paper, the “Süddeutsche”^^.)
    Well.

  27. #27 evargsoc
    January 28, 2012

    does a single one of you have the smarts or courage to tackle the arguments made in the WSJ piece vs. engaging in petty and hysterical character assassination? e.g.,

    * no warming in the past 10 yrs
    * models that are plain wrong
    * the absurdity of the notion that any science is settled, let alone climate science
    * the fact that government dollars flow to scientists who toe the line on climate change vs pursue the truth

  28. #28 coastwalker
    January 28, 2012

    Evrerything except for the indexes reported in this rag is paid for propaganda. Read the rest of it only if you are a moron who needs to be told what to think.

  29. #29 Jason's Robot
    January 28, 2012

    It would have been a nice, prudent, and logical qualifier if you’d have listed the scientists affiliations from the Science letter since you made it a point to highlight the lacking of the WSJ’s scientists affiliations and/or jobs.

  30. #30 Julian
    January 28, 2012

    @18/Greg. The reason I pointed out that K E Van Holde is not a climate scientist is only because you criticised the signatories of the WSJ letter for not being climate scientists (“not-climate-scientists”, you wrote).

    You also seem to be applying a double standard regarding the age of the signatories (“older and often retired”, you call them). I see from http://www.jbc.org/content/285/16/e5.full that Professor Van Holde is about 83, but that doesn’t seem to disqualify him from having an opinion in your eyes (as it shouldn’t, of course).

  31. #31 Anthony David
    January 28, 2012

    Climate Change and the Integrity of Science was published in 7 May 2010. Is there a new letter? Is there a link?

  32. #32 Anthony David
    January 28, 2012

    #21 There is nothing new in the lies. There is plenty of evidence refuting them.

  33. #33 Artor
    January 28, 2012

    I was wondering when the denialists would show up on this thread. Evargsoc @25 wins the prize with a few leading questions. He asserts;

    * no warming in the past 10 yrs

    Umm… check your data. That might be because 9 or the 10 hottest years on record were in this last decade.

    * models that are plain wrong

    Really? Which models? How are they wrong? What is your standing to make this evaluation?

    * the absurdity of the notion that any science is settled, let alone climate science

    Settled, perhaps not, but obvious to those who actually do research, and aren’t paid to ignore it? Yeah.

    * the fact that government dollars flow to scientists who toe the line on climate change vs pursue the truth

    Government dollars flow to alot of places. I think you’ll find the amount that goes to subsidize coal & oil industries is a few orders of magnitude greater than whatever might be supporting honest climate scientists.

  34. #34 Popper
    January 28, 2012

    Irresponsible blog postings like this only hurt the cause of science. Greg Laden serves to remind us that science is not (fortunately) a democracy. The number of scientists in favor or against a theory carries NO WEIGHT in science. Zero. Get over it. (If you don’t believe me, then consider back in the 70s, when there were very few scientists asserting anthropomorphic global warming. Should their work have been dismissed because of the ratio of pro/against?)

    Science is not a respecter of age or credentials, either, and making appeals to either is just wrong. Good science transcends these while bad science places these above good science.

    In short, if you can’t make a decent argument for the cause, then don’t bother, as it exposes your agenda as political and not scientific.

  35. #35 Mark Duigon
    January 28, 2012

    We seen the same sort of thing in the arguments against evolution. And in the arguments against deep time. And in the arguments against the idea that tobacco use is harmful. Same kinds of arguments, same kind of strategy, even some of the same people. It’s so bad that books have been written about it. Whether its the “Republican War on Science,” or the “Wingnut War on Reason,” it’s a great pity that the mainstream media are not familiar with how the forces of ignorance are striving to bring back the Dark Ages.

  36. #36 Mike Haubrich
    January 28, 2012

    Oh, Popper, you just don’t get it, do you? No, science is not democratic and the beauty of it is that any theory can be proven to be incorrect provided that the data collection processes improve and show that the theory is based on false or incomplete premises, analyses and modeling. However, the WSJ is claiming that the scientists who signed on to the letter are qualified to refute the data and signed on to a letter/editorial claiming authority outside of their fields of study. Greg listed scientists in the field of study involved who have studied, reviewed and tested the data and modeling and agree that it shows that AGW is valid and real. As a strict response to the WSJ’s false credentialism. What is funny is that the underwriters of the large insurers who cover natural disasters have reviewed the science behind AGW and are warning their policy holders to pay attention to the science. They would love for AGW to be false because they stand to pay out billions if it is correct.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/global-warming-no-hoax-to-insurance-companies-2011-09-09

  37. #37 planktic
    January 28, 2012

    I’ll have you know that paleoclimate IS climate science.

  38. #38 S Head
    January 28, 2012

    Seriously, you guys are nuts. There is no Republican War on Science. The extremist views are on the global warming side of the argument. And I find it complete folly that a science that cannot predict the weather beyond Tuesday can some how predict a decade or more into the future.

  39. #39 Anthony David
    January 28, 2012

    Correction #21 should be #25

    More reading on the subject of models. The remarkable thing about models is that the simple ones Wally Broecker put together in 1975 and James Hansen in 1988 created have been verified and refined by subsequent observations.

  40. #40 Al B
    January 28, 2012

    Business Publications should do their homework and study a little political science to hijack science so that it can be a plunder partner of the many to profit from the game.

    I suggest a good read from one of the
    16 the WSJ editorial cites. See the WSJ business publication deployed investigative journalism and that is why what you are promoting is propaganda from the plunder that profits in fixing the system.

    Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

    URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762

    Richard S. Lindzen
    (Submitted on 22 Sep 2008 (v1), last revised 29 Nov 2008 (this version, v3))

    For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. Such factors as the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs, the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead, and the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations are cosidered. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.

  41. #41 Mike Haubrich
    January 28, 2012

    I find it completely ludicrous that someone who sticks his “S Head” up his ass doesn’t know the difference between meteorology and climate science.

  42. #42 Max
    January 28, 2012

    Three letters and Two words says it all – – CRU, East Anglia. Nuff said.

  43. #43 Jeffrey
    January 28, 2012

    Warming promises to wipe out all of us. Warming is not in the interest of industrialists or of 1%ers, any more than it is in the interest of the poor. Continued fossil fuel industry is not in the interest of even the Koch brothers. They just think it is, because they truly are in denial.

  44. #44 Tony baloney
    January 28, 2012

    It would’ve been nice if the scientists in the second letter had listed their full names, positions, and qualifications, as those who had written the initial letter had; that could be why the WSJ rejected it.

    Don’t get me wrong, I believe in global warming and also believe all the Murdoch rags are shameful conservative rags, but it would have given the letter detailing our position a little more credibility. Goodness knows, it’s not particularly hard to find any number of reputable scientists who would happily sign their full name to a letter confirming that man-made climate change is real.

  45. #45 David Marjanović
    January 28, 2012

    The WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch? That… explains… a lot.

    Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris

    lolwut?

    The University of Paris was split into 13 new universities in 1970. If he really was a director of an institute at the University of Paris, he hasn’t been a scientist in at least 42 years.

    World Federation of Scientists

    Neither I nor en.wikipedia have ever heard of it.

    Google, of course, has. The “about us” page on the organization’s website is wishy-washy about what the organization does or how big it is, the entire website doesn’t look professionally designed, and… well… it’s all kind of empty.

    The organization’s website is the first Google result. The second is Wikipedia’s “list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming”. Snippet preview: “Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists, was reported to have [...]” – so, a nuclear physicist, not somebody who has worked on things like infrared absorption that happen outside the nucleus.

    Anyone who doesn’t believe in eugenics^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H climate change is either a moron or a political operative. Its true!
    The proof will be incontrovertible in 50 years!

    Congratulations! You have successfully committed the logical fallacy of “science has been wrong before, so nothing science ever finds can ever be reliable”! Have a look at this.

    Further congratulations! You have successfully committed an is/ought fallacy by implying that eugenics was science! Eugenics was a proposed application of the science of genetics.

    the fact that government dollars flow to scientists who toe the line on climate change vs pursue the truth

    You have not the foggiest idea of how science is funded.

    Professional scientists at public institutions are hired, promoted, tenured and the like based on how often their publications are cited. Papers that disprove what everyone thought was true are cited a lot. Papers that merely confirm what everyone already “knows”… are difficult to even publish, because the journals much prefer publishing papers that will increase the number of times the journal is cited! Nobel Prizes are given for the most surprising discoveries, not for parroting anything.

    In the USA (much less in other countries!), a lot of research is funded not by researchers’ regular salaries but by grants. Grant proposals are evaluated for the likely number of times the publications resulting from the proposed research will be cited! You simply can’t get a grant for “we won’t do anything new, we won’t add to knowledge, we’ll simply parrot what somebody has already said”. You can only get grants for “so far, our research indicates everyone else is wrong; we want to continue that research”.

    Scientists who work for oil companies, on the other hand, are paid for saying what the company wants… and the oil companies have loads of money.

    Seriously, you guys are nuts. There is no Republican War on Science. The extremist views are on the global warming side of the argument.

    Let me guess: you’ve never been outside the USA?

    And I find it complete folly that a science that cannot predict the weather beyond Tuesday can some how predict a decade or more into the future.

    Argument from profound ignorance.

    Of course nobody can predict the weather of a day that is 10 years in the future. What can be predicted, within ever narrower error margins, is the climate of that year, things like the
    average temperature
    and the average precipitation of a day in that year in an area of, I don’t know, 200 x 200 km or more.

    Meteorology and climatology are not the same science, and for good reasons!

    Three letters and Two words says it all – – CRU, East Anglia. Nuff said.

    Another argument from profound ignorance. You should get out less and read more. Google is your friend!

  46. #46 mk
    January 28, 2012

    does a single one of you have the smarts or courage to tackle the arguments

    People with smarts and courage, which does not include you, S Head, or any other denialist ignoramus, has examined the science and can refute the WSJ’s bogus arguments themselves. Your question is no different from some Creationist asking if anyone here can tackle the arguments at AiG. To reiterate: only grossly ignorant and intellectually lazy people who have never bothered to educate themselves on the issue (or think that denialist blogs provide such an education) cannot refute the WSJ arguments themselves. It’s your choice whether you want to be such a person.

    Three letters and Two words says it all – – CRU, East Anglia. Nuff said.

    What it says — loudly — is that you are a very stupid and ignorant person, the sort of loutish troglodyte who thinks that the misrepresentation of intent of quote-mined emails that you read on denialist blogs somehow negates thousands of peer-reviewed articles and basic physics.

  47. #47 rgb
    January 28, 2012

    In my experience, various sciences approach the climate change denial differently:

    The Physicist — We require a 5-sigma experimental proof to get a Nobel Prize, so until we are 99.9999% sure then it’s just a fluke.

    The Geologist — The Earth has an atmosphere? It must be just like rock, so we can’t really change it much. As my petroleum geology prof used to say … climate changes over millions of years but humans don’t cause global warming…

    The Engineer — Your models are not calibrated properly and your data are suspect. I don’t even trust F=ma unless I measure it myself. In fact I do every morning just to make sure Newton’s Laws haven’t changed. Global warming is not happening. But if it does happen…..we can solve it. Geoengineering!

  48. #48 mk
    January 28, 2012

    And I find it complete folly that a science that cannot predict the weather beyond Tuesday can some how predict a decade or more into the future.

    Yeah, like we can’t predict which will be colder in two weeks, the Sahara or Antarctica, and like we can’t predict whether it will be warmer next year during winter or summer.

    Or maybe, just maybe, predicting weather is nothing like predicting climate and one would have to be a blithering idiot or an ideologically committed right winger not to grasp that, if you keep putting more and more energy into a system, it will heat up regardless of fluctuations in surface temperature.

  49. #49 Greg Laden
    January 28, 2012

    evargsoc: I did not bother addressing those point in this post because they are addressed in the posts to which I’ve linked, in particular Peters.

    It would have been a nice, prudent, and logical qualifier if you’d have listed the scientists affiliations from the Science letter since you made it a point to highlight the lacking of the WSJ’s scientists affiliations and/or jobs.

    They are not provided in the original letter. I have no intention of spending the next three days looking up the particulars on hundreds of people.

    Popper: The number of scientists in favor or against a theory carries NO WEIGHT in science. Zero. Get over it.

    When every single sientist in the field except a few odd balls thinks something is likely true, policy makers who are not scientists are not doing their jobs if they go along with the minority (of oddballs).

    Clifford: Hmmm. I thought we weren;t supposed to trust anyone under thrity. Now we added senior citizens to the International Federal Do Not Trust list? I guess the only people we can trust is bald hairy 40 years? They are the only ones left.

    This is not a matter of trust. It is a simple observation that the few remaining people in the field who “don’t accept” global warming tend to be old codgers or industry shills.

  50. #50 mk
    January 28, 2012

    The number of scientists in favor or against a theory carries NO WEIGHT in science.

    The epistemology of science is inference from all the available evidence to the best explanation … no individual piece of evidence is alone conclusive, but all evidence carries weight. And the views of scientists in a field — that is, those people most familiar with the terminology, methodology, facts, theory, and results as published in peer-reviewed literature — is highly relevant evidence as to what those results actually show. To ignore that and focus on a handful of deniers, or to proclaim the great majority of climate scientists wrong because … well, just because you think so or some blog you read says so … is cherry picking, special pleading, and intellectually bankrupt.

  51. #51 Chris O'Neill
    January 29, 2012

    no warming in the past 10 yrs

    Here are some 10 year periods with “no” warming:

    1977-1986

    1987-1996

    Those periods did not falsify global warming.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2012

    no warming in the past 10 yrs

    It’s worse than that: check out the graph in this article that shows nothing but cooling periods for the last 38 years!

    ;-)

  53. #53 Stephen
    January 29, 2012

    Did anyone see this today -new data seems to point at different temp data?: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/new_british_study_confirms_cli.php

  54. #54 cosgrave
    January 29, 2012

    doggies a single one of you have the smelts or courtesan to tail the armadas made in the WSJ pigeon vs. engaging in petty and hysterical chariot assassination? e.g.,

    * no warming in the past 10 yrs
    * modules that are plane wrong
    * the absurdity of the novelist that any scone is settled, let alone clinch scone
    * the faculty that gradation domains flue to scoopfuls who toffee the linesman on clinch chaos vs pursue the tuba

  55. #55 Greg Laden
    January 29, 2012

    Stephen, people have been proposing solar cycles as a primary determinant of climate change for a very long time, there is a lot of research on this and we know it is not a primary cause, the daily mail is a rag and you are apparently a troll. I’ve changed your link to point to my summary of the Mail piece, and the link to the Mail piece will be found there.

    cosgrave, you need to calibrate your autocorrect.

  56. #56 sadreader
    January 29, 2012

    This post and these comments are good examples of the antithesis of science. You people have no clue how difficult it is to model complex systems that are even much simpler than the climate. You have such short me centered views and really know very little about climate throughout geologic history.

    Someone told you it was so often enough that now you fanatically accept it as truth.

    Sad that BoingBoing is not above this type of mindless leader following.

  57. #57 badreader
    January 29, 2012

    This posting and these commissariats are good excitements of the aorta of scooter. You perch have no coach-and-four how difficult it is to molar composer tablespoonfuls that are even much simpler than the cling. You have such short me centered villas and really know very little about cling throughout geologic hoarding.

    Someone told you it was so often enough that now you fanatically accept it as tuber.

    Sad that BoingBoing is not above this tyrant of mindless leakage font.

  58. #58 Joe
    January 29, 2012

    You shouldn’t be mad about this article; you should THINK. I also believe that since a majority of scientists seem to say that the facts support the global warming theory, it is probably true. But since major policy decisions, trillions of dollars, and our own personal decisions are at stake, we should continue to consider all studies, data, analysis, and even theories. So don’t be a lemming – be a thoughtful human.

  59. #59 John
    January 29, 2012

    I’m glad WSJ published this article to convince the 1% that everything is fine. These are the ones responsible and they should die first

  60. #60 Rico
    January 29, 2012

    Global warming is a religion, not science. It is about power. The left has chosen something that is unpredictable, the weather, to make spurious claims and convince the dumber of the population to join with them in putting more controls on how we live.

    It is over. The farce has been exposed.

  61. #61 Mocko
    January 29, 2012

    Global warming is a reminder, not scoreboard. It is about prankster. The legislator has chosen something that is unpredictable, the weekday, to make spurious clanks and convince the dumber of the portfolio to join with them in putting more conventions on how we live.

    It is over. The fart has been exposed.

  62. #62 Jesse
    January 29, 2012

    I’m going to try to be fair to the WSJ and defend them a teeny bit here. It should be emphasized that the editorial was on the editorial page. The WSJ has done some good science reporting off the editorial page (one can argue if that will continue but I like to think it will). Tara Parker-Pope wrote for them quite a bit, for instance, and IIRC there were some great pieces they did (one award-winning) about the use of certain classes of contraceptive implants. And there was some great reporting on the Gulf oil spill. And oddly enough, the stories they do that touch on global warming seem to take it as read.

    Now, I happen to know a few of the reporters who work there, and know they do their jobs damned well and have a lot of integrity. I’ve worked with a few of them (at other venues). None of them are people I would know to tell lies (at least not knowingly — I won’t say they are immune from being fooled, we’ve all been had at least once in our careers. But don’t do that to a reporter. It tends to piss us off an the follow up story won’t be good).

  63. #63 Mike Demboski
    January 29, 2012

    While I detest the politization of the issue and particularily the involvement of Al “Mr Internet” Gore, what science there is on the issue sides with global warming. Do some reading on the approximately 100,000 year cycle of glaciation and warming. You will see that the Earth is in a natural warming period. Once there is sufficient heat stored in liquid water to power storm systems far enough north, they will enter the latitudes where the snow will accumulate faster than it melts. Thus the next period of glaciation begins. It will continue until sufficient heal is radiated into space during evapotation and precipitation to sarve the process of its energy.
    Because carbon dioxide slows the radiation of heat from the atmosphere to space, it therefore also slows the radiation of heat from the sea to the air. Our adding carbon dioxide to the air is therefore speeding the warming of the seas. Put simply, we are “stepping on the gas”.

  64. #64 Mike Demboski
    January 29, 2012

    While I detest the politization of the issue and particularily the involvement of Al “Mr Internet” Gore, what science there is on the issue sides with global warming. Do some reading on the approximately 100,000 year cycle of glaciation and warming. You will see that the Earth is in a natural warming period. Once there is sufficient heat stored in liquid water to power storm systems far enough north, they will enter the latitudes where the snow will accumulate faster than it melts. Thus the next period of glaciation begins. It will continue until sufficient heal is radiated into space during evapotation and precipitation to sarve the process of its energy.
    Because carbon dioxide slows the radiation of heat from the atmosphere to space, it therefore also slows the radiation of heat from the sea to the air. Our adding carbon dioxide to the air is therefore speeding the warming of the seas. Put simply, we are “stepping on the gas”.

  65. #65 Neutral Guy
    January 29, 2012

    In the news today:
    “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again
    Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krdljaVy
    Isn’t this the same Met Office that released the first global warming info many years ago???

  66. #66 Greg Laden
    January 29, 2012
  67. #67 sadreader
    January 29, 2012

    Look at the data yourselves. I am sure you all know about the vast ice loss in Antarctica-you have heard about it so many times.

    In fact the ice extent in Antarctica has been ABOVE the 20 year average since 1993 and here is a link-

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

    If you look at data yourselves with an open mind you will see things are quite different than you are told.

    Look at the history of Viking settlements on Greenland as another example of facts that just do not fit AGW dogma.

  68. #68 mockreader
    January 29, 2012

    Look at the dawn yourselves. I am sure you all know about the vast ideal loudmouth in Antarctica-you have heard about it so many timings.

    In fad the ideal extract in Antarctica has been ABOVE the 20 yeoman avowal since 1993 and here is a lip-

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

    If you look at dawn yourselves with an open minesweeper you will see thirsts are quite different than you are told.

    Look at the hoard of Viking sexists on Greenland as another excise of fads that just do not fix AGW dollar.

  69. #69 Greg Laden
    January 29, 2012

    “sadreader” have you heard that antarctica is not experiencing much warming mainly because it is surrounded by a closed oceanic circuit. Are you aware of the fact that you just made reference to the southern glacier but showed us a graph of sea ice? The sea ice in Antarctic has been expanding because of dropping Ozone layers which cause local stratospheric cooling and changes in wind patters, and because of increased freshwater inptu into the system owing to … guess what …

    Meanwhile, antarctic continental glaciers are melting, with accelerated melting since 1995 or so.

    Do you know that the warm period during which the vikings got lucky for a while was cooler than the present?

    If you look at the data with an open mind you will conclude that global warming is real and is having an effect in the antarctic even though that region is somewhat isolated from these effects globally.

    And what is this crap about “different than you are told”? Who is telling whom what?

    Please come back soon and tell us some other stuff about how global warming is not real so I can point out the ways in which you are wrong.

  70. #70 Gerg Nadel
    January 29, 2012

    “Sadreader” You have heard that Antarctica experienced a lot of heat for the most part, not because it is surrounded by a closed circuit of the ocean. It’s not just you, but you referred to the southern glaciers and sea ice show a diagram of our conscious? Antarctic sea ice because of the stratospheric ozone layer, the cold and wind patters of change in the half-open, and because the system due to increased freshwater inptu … I think …
    Meanwhile, the accelerated melting of continental glaciers melt in the year 1995 or thereafter.
    You are lucky that it was time for the current interglacial period known as the Vikings, the cooler you are?
    If you open your mind about the effects of global warming is real and southern regions, however, that no conclusion may be somewhat insulated from the global impact.
    And what is “different than you are,” this shit? Who says what to whom?
    Come back soon, and we’ve got is some, such as global warming is real, I can recommend ways that you can not mistake it for other things.

  71. #71 elspi
    January 29, 2012

    Since 2007, every year on my birthday the northwest passage is open (completely ice free). The northern seaway as well, but only since 2008 (I blame the communists).

    You might think that since this was previously unknown in human history, it is evidence of global warming, but no, do not be deceived. In fact the melting of these passages is just the universe’s way of finally acknowledging my supreme importance and grandeur. Al Gore is just trying to take credit for my greatness the same as when he claimed, through his MSM mouthpieces, that he (and not I) created the internet (all of whose traditions I am not only aware of, but in fact invented).

    BOW TO GIBLETS puny mortals.

    (Sorry to steal from fafblog, but how else to do you deal with this flood of monumental morans http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-moran.htm from WUWT)

  72. #72 elspi
    January 29, 2012

    Since 2007, every year on my birthday the northwest passage is open (completely ice free). The northern seaway as well, but only since 2008 (I blame the communists).

    You might think that since this was previously unknown in human history, it is evidence of global warming, but no, do not be deceived. In fact the melting of these passages is just the universe’s way of finally acknowledging my supreme importance and grandeur. Al Gore is just trying to take credit for my greatness the same as when he claimed, through his MSM mouthpieces, that he (and not I) created the internet (all of whose traditions I am not only aware of, but in fact invented).

    BOW TO GIBLETS puny mortals.

    (Sorry to steal from fafblog, but how else to do you deal with this flood of monumental morans http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-moran.htm from WUWT)

  73. #73 Greg Laden
    January 29, 2012

    elspi, you are supposed to run the second comment through several iterations of Google Translate.

  74. #74 SChaser
    January 29, 2012

    The large number of older scientists who object to global warming alarmism should not disqualify them –

  75. #75 Tom M
    January 29, 2012

    The assessment of WSJ as a conservative rag is totally incontrovertible, but I think we really should be looking into realistic cost-benefit analyses of undertaking the proposed efforts to stop climate change versus continuing under the status quo.

    We’ve become a lot more efficient about keeping a lot more people alive for a lot longer – largely through the efforts of people who cause global warming and drive up the cost of health care, and may very well have ended up in the top 1% as a result.

    Would we really be better off if they hadn’t done it? Do we really think we can let people have as many children as they want, keep everyone them all alive and happy for 90+ years, and not change things at all? A world with warmer weather, more atmospheric carbon dioxide, and more rainfall might actually be a more verdant one, maybe even enough so that we can sustainably produce plant-based fuels without cutting down the Brazilian rain forests or over-fertilizing the Midwest!

  76. #76 sadreader
    January 29, 2012

    Dear Greg-here are the temperature records from ten bases in the antarctic. If you can find an AGW signal in these you are one heckuva AGW climatologist.

    http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#The%20Antarctic%20Scientific%20Bases

    I do not agee with you concerning loss of ice in Antarctica as a whole nor higher temps than now during the MWP/Viking settlements in Greenland period.

    If you want links to research on northern beaches in Greenland during the bronze age indicating open ocean at that time in those locations let me know.

    The Earth’s climate has always changed much more than it has during our lifetimes and will continue to change even if all humans are eliminated from the Earth.

    “Incontrovertible” fanatically held theories in science have a way of becoming laughable over a sufficient period of time.

  77. #77 sadreader
    January 29, 2012

    Sorry-lower than now (MWP)

  78. #78 Greg Laden
    January 29, 2012

    Sadreader, your argument is so old and tired that there is an entire blog post about it.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Accelerating-ice-loss-from-Antarctica-and-Greenland.html

    and this might be helpful as well:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-overview-of-Antarctic-ice-trends.html

    Might was well have a look at this too.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-basic-overview-of-Antarctic-ice.html

    Did your mother not teach you that it is impolite to insult people?

  79. #79 sadreader
    January 29, 2012

    The British Antarctic survey reaches a different conclusion that your citations. They have found no decrease in total antarctic ice mass.

  80. #80 VikingBerserker
    January 29, 2012

    IMHO most people miss what should be the main point entirely. If does not matter if man is speeding up global warming or not, you just don’t sh*t in the bed you sleep in.

  81. #81 sadreader
    January 29, 2012

    Dude-is that how you regard every exhalation of your breath.

    If no carbon dioxide then no life as we know it.

  82. #82 Wil
    January 30, 2012

    I just wanted to add that the original tone of this blog post came across very biased. I was channeled here from boingboing and expected a measured and critical response to the WSJ article, instead I was immediately put off by the level of obvious bias in the writing. Sorry to be so critical but really I think this sort of aggressive attack doesn’t help much, a more measured rebuttle would have been more appreciated.

  83. #83 Andrew Dodds
    January 30, 2012

    Wil –

    Problem is, this kind of thing has been carefully rebutted time and time again. Which makes no difference, because the people at the WSJ are not engaging in honest discussion, where a detailed rebuttal would be listened to; they are engaging in propaganda.

  84. #84 Wil
    January 30, 2012

    Andrew, I understand your point and actually that was the easy part of the post for me to sympathize with: a media rag lying and cheating to generate sales or promote an alternative agenda … that’s something I can easily buy. I guess I just felt this post came off with that same vibe, agenda over substance. Maybe I was disappointed because I wanted to think the good guys wouldn’t read like that? Anyway, at least it’s got me doing some catching up on the climate debate by doing further reading.

  85. #85 TTT
    January 30, 2012

    Tom M: A world with warmer weather, more atmospheric carbon dioxide, and more rainfall might actually be a more verdant one, maybe even enough so that we can sustainably produce plant-based fuels

    Where will it be more verdant? And what’s going on in those places now that could get in the way of planting crops?

    Moving the optimal climate zones for agriculture into what are now cities, highways, mountains, and deserts won’t do anybody any good. It takes THOUSANDS of years to create topsoil.

  86. #86 Greg Laden
    January 30, 2012

    And, actually, moving the coastline inland across many of those cities would be a problem as well.

    Not that the ocean will mean much. Chemical changes in the ocean being caused by CO2 release will cause a mass extinction there and what food is left may be hard to come by. Kelp may become more common. Yay kelp.

  87. #87 Dan L.
    January 30, 2012

    @sadreader:

    Care to post your CV? Just curious what your qualifications are.

    @Wil:

    If you want to understand the apparent “bias” of the OP, look at sadreader’s posts. This is a person who is apparently wholly committed to the notion that AGW is false to the point of copy pasting dozens of already rebutted arguments over and over again. This is also clearly a person who is taking some other denier’s word as gospel instead of actually looking over the published studies for themselves. This is typical for AGW deniers. They make arguments, climate scientists rebut them, and then the deniers make the same arguments louder.

    At some point you have to admit that there’s nothing to gain from engaging with people who are simply being dishonest. You have to simply call them liars and move on. Sorry if this offends your delicate sensibilities but life is too short to keep presenting carefully-worded, well-researched rebuttals to idiots and partisan hacks.

  88. #88 sadreader
    January 30, 2012

    Well after this I know how I would feel at a UFO convention. Thanks to all for the insight.

  89. #89 Miguel
    January 30, 2012

    It looks like the left wants scientific truths are decided by majority vote.

  90. #90 sadreader
    January 30, 2012

    The self referential hive-brain is attacking reason.

  91. #91 sadreader
    January 30, 2012

    The record low temp for North America is -82 F. A couple days ago a station in Alaska recorded -79 F and the thermometer went out-the lithium battery died.

    I don’t know exactly but it has probably been 70 years since a continental high temperature was set. Kinda strange isn’t it.

  92. #92 Greg Laden
    January 30, 2012

    sadreader, it is indeed sad that you are trying to make an argument about global climate based on one alleged record temperature and another temperature from a broken instrument.

    For several years my brother-in-law was the guy taking the temperature readings in one of the coldest instrumented spots in the lower 48, and pretty much every year there were days when the thermometer could not measure the temperature it was so low. Record lows are not useful data.

    The lowest recorded temperature in NOrth America that I know of was in 1947 in the Yukon (-81.4F, estimated … it was lower than the thermometer’s proper scale) and in the lower 48 in 1954 not far from my BIL’s station (-70).

    Over the last weekor two, it was 86F in El Cajon, California, 89 in Fort Lauderdale, 87 in LA, 88 in Harlingen Texas, 83 in Brownsville, and almost 90 in McAllen Texas.

    Here, in Minnesota, it is currently 36F. During the months of October, there was not a single day in which the low touched the AVERAGE low for the period of recordkeeping (started in the 19th cntury); There was not a single day when the average hit the average low, or the high went down to the average high. Most days since October 1st to the present have the same pattern with a couple of exceptions (I think 2 or three days were “normal” cold). I’m not sure what today’s official high was, but my car thermometer which is reasonably accurate hit 50 and tomorrow we are expecting 43, with no days where the high is below freezing for the next week.

    So, yes, I see your two anecdotal observations and raise you several dozen.

  93. #93 TTT
    January 30, 2012

    Note that by sadreader’s “logic,” it is actually impossible for climate change to have been caused by sunspots, because since the sun is still hot enough to kill you it hasn’t changed.

  94. #94 Jimme
    January 31, 2012

    Funny because it seems like NASA and east Anglia have just admitted that there has been no Warming in the last 15 years and that there is a great possibility that the Thames will freeze over again. We now need to worry about an Ice age and the 25 cycle. Looks like this whole AGW ship is on fire better get off now before you get burned.

    At what point do you fools give up?

  95. #95 Lotharsson
    January 31, 2012

    …because it seems like NASA and east Anglia have just admitted that there has been no Warming in the last 15 years and that there is a great possibility that the Thames will freeze over again.

    Ah, I see someone else is gullible enough to believe David Rose, who (if you follow the links in that search) has a history of misrepresentation and error.

    And in this specific case, the Met Office have issued a strongly worded statement asserting that Rose has made numerous errors and that his article is misleading. I bet you can find a number of other evidence-based critiques of his claims too – if you aren’t so foolish as to pretend that his word is gospel.

    And given the evidence about Rose’s historical accuracy and your unskeptical repetition of easily debunked claims, perhaps you should find better sources “before you get burned” yourself?

  96. #96 Greg Laden
    January 31, 2012

    Funny because it seems like NASA and east Anglia have just admitted that there has been no Warming in the last 15 years and that there is a great possibility that the Thames will freeze over again.

    No, they didn’t. Did you read any of this material at all? I’m thinking not.

  97. #97 Wow
    January 31, 2012

    The alternative would be that there is no agreement on what constitutes reality.

    Therefore I can assert that this chocolate bar in my hand is actually solid gold.

    And if I can’t find any people agreeing with my assertion, this is PROOF it’s solid gold!!!

    This, of course, is the fundie right method of science: take the word of any single human being who disagrees with people you don’t like and you agree with them.

  98. #98 Timothy Beneke
    February 1, 2012

    I am not a scientist and make no claim to being well informed on global warming. I do not take consensus in science (or any field) seriously, having observed too much. But please explain to me why the global earth’s temperature has remained stable for 15 years, when greenhouse gases have increased. Presumably there are other causal forces keeping the temperature down. Or 15 years is too short a time frame and this is an effect of “randomness” which still must be explained causally. Yes, the temperature went up and has stayed up; but it has remained stable for 15 years. Stop ranting and explain this please.

  99. #99 Greg Laden
    February 1, 2012

    “But please explain to me why the global earth’s temperature has remained stable for 15 years, when greenhouse gases have increased.”

    What is your basis for saying that?

    “Stop ranting and explain this please.”

    I’ll give you a pass on that for 24 hours while you try to support your assertion.

    Looking at my watch … starting now. Better get movin, Timothy.

  100. #100 Mal Adapted
    February 1, 2012

    Timothy Beneke:

    But please explain to me why the global earth’s temperature has remained stable for 15 years, when greenhouse gases have increased.

    Who told you it’s been stable? It’s still going up. Take a look at this article, especially figure 1. It’s an animated gif, so be sure to watch it for a few seconds.

Current ye@r *