A Few Things Ill Considered

Thanks! I am bookmarking this post, because I have a friend who visits my blog frequently and thinks that he is a sceptic because he doesn't buy global warming. My own defenses have been rather weak, because I haven't got the training to analyze climatology.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 5, 2008 6:39 PM

Two things:
I love physics. As such, I have to dispute your assertion that GW is anthropologic. I would gladly go over the math with you; however, there is not enough space here. Study the laws of thermodynamics - Laws, not theories and not consensus.

I am involved in a study of cosmic rays. Your points totally leave out various other cosmic and solar factors.

Posted by: Joe Garcia | August 12, 2008 4:19 PM

hi coby and so on,

i have only one question: in the long climate history there can not be found one correlation between co2 rising and temperature rising. every time the temperature was rising many decades befor the first co2 signal was registratet. today it must be different, we should accept, or what? if the co2 has an initial effekt on temperature, why had this effekt never been registratet bevore? for that i did not found any answer in the web in no ipcc report, never ever. can anybody help me?

regards

chris (meteorologican, so you can talk sientiffic...)

Posted by: chris | August 13, 2008 1:18 PM

hi guys,

yes i did look at all the articles in the sections, but: there is a forcing by around 1-2w/m� given to co2. this solar back radiation forcing must have been the same in history and at least on the landscapes there must be found a signal a few years later. so for me this is the most important point of all the theories and it is not explained seriosly. everybody knows the effect of geernhouse gases, but the effekt of co2 is not found in history. i can not help, but there is a big carelessly in the articles and studies.

Posted by: chris | August 14, 2008 1:04 AM

Thanks for an excellent commentary, and for not ducking the issues that are flying around.

I have three questions about the scientific process. (I agree with your point that real science is made in the serious journals, not in position statements and conferences - I did a science PhD myself.) My questions are:

1) What about positivity bias: the well-known effect that negative results are less likely to be published? Would researchers whose results did not predict global warming or support other aspects of the "consensus" be less likely to pass peer review?

2) What about self-censorship bias? Notoriously, early measurements of the speed of light tended to cluster around the most recent measurement by a "great scientist", and this lack of objectivity delayed convergence on the now-accepted value. Climate change modellers whose results diverged from the "consensus" might similarly be less likely to report, especially as the field has so much political as well as scientific pressure in it.

3) What about funding-induced bias? There is now (rightly) a fair amount of funding available for research into global warming. Professorships, entire research departments, and even global institutions depend on it. How much funding and job security is available for research that attacks the "consensus"? This is important, because a theory is only as good as the strength of the attacks it has withstood.

Many thanks, and good luck with your contributions to the public debate.

[Hi Rob,

I don't doubt that the biases you mention are real and could effect the progress of research. I would note two things though, firstly the first two effects you describe probably had to be overcome to get where we are. Global warming research is not new and it has taken a long time for the current consensus to emerge. Even now IPCC projections continue to be very conservative and many predicted effects are happening much faster than expected - arctic warming, sea ice melt, permafrost response. But your points are taken.

Secondly, the funding bias you mention seems apply pressure in the opposite direction. NASA is having its earth sciences budget slashed for example. And there is plenty of special interest money around supporting guys like P. Michaels and S Fred Singer and the Soon's etc.

Again though, your points are reasonable, scientists are human and humans have all kinds of concsious and un conscious biases. We must look carefully at all our information.

Thanks for the comment!

Coby]

Posted by: rob | August 19, 2008 5:48 AM

This is an interesting site--having read oodles of articles and comments on this subject,I am still an opan-minded sceptic.I am old enough to remember the dire predictions of an impending ice age .I believe it was in 1973 that it was postulated that we were all going to die from the extreme cold.I read everything I could find on the subject and, taking into account that the scientific results of the research were compiled by "climate change experts",I remained on the fence but wary.What happened to this climate change certainity?

Posted by: Dianne | September 8, 2008 11:01 AM

Wow. Cool site with lots of work. It must have taken you ages but you have done a good effort.

Posted by: Ben Tehan | September 11, 2008 8:19 PM

Great stuff. Thank you so much for collecting and organizing it.

I'd like to see your comments about this stuff which seems to be gaining traction lately. (short version: credited scientist expects cooling - blames solar activity):

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2006/08/25/Russian_scientist_predicts_global_cooling/UPI-75561156555554/

Posted by: Matt Whiting | September 20, 2008 5:59 PM

Here's the mindset one needs to have:

http://dailyelitist.com/?p=83

Posted by: DailyElitist | November 24, 2008 6:20 PM

Great resource! My Noel with GR study:D
Thanks for share.

Posted by: Global Warming Causes | December 23, 2008 5:45 AM

I'm sorry, but this "guide" is political in nature not scientific. Normally I stay out of things American, but I cant resist. Just so you dont put me in some pollitical group, some background I am european, an athiest, married to a catholic, and get paid to do research science for a large biomedical company. That out of the way, lets pick something at random:

"It's cold in Waga Waga"? that is answered in something similar to calling someone an idiot and walking away.

For example, I have just done a random temperature graph Ala Google
( http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=temperature+graph&btnG=Search+Images , Seventh result, Mean Maximum Temperature Graph
600 x 440 - 10k - gif go to the site to get the data)
for boulder colorado (not the whole world, but I have better things to do)using the data Here:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Boulder/Boulder.mm.maxt.html
(Found with the above search)
Do one yourself, I am too lazy to upload mine.

Why (using their colour coded breakdown) is 1951 - 1960 the hottest decade on record? not the hottest year, the hottest day, or the hottest month, but the hottest decade at 66.1775 degrees average for the ten years. Has boulder been cooling since the hottest year on record (1954 at 69.81666667 degrees)? Granted, the latter decades appear to have a bias at first glance, but considering the average of 64.73959735 for the period covered in the date, that is within expected standard variance. You cant just waffle on about that and make it go away out of sheer boredom, you have to get data showing something different.

If you want to convince people:
first show data that is accurate
explain that there have been no "corrections" made to the data
explain exactly how the data was obtained
explain how this can be reproduced
show that the world warms and cools because CO2 % rises and falls
ask someone else to check what you did, to make sure you are not cheating

That is how science works. Political retoric won't change that.

The above data in CSV format for anyone interested:

Year,JAN,FEB,MAR,APR,MAY,JUN,JUL,AUG,SEP,OCT,NOV,DEC
1893,42.91217391,44.96,51.58782609,60.66434783,68.54521739,78.38347826,83.31652174,80.86695652,74.33043478,64.3,50.6,49.5
1894,43.9,37.7,54,66,68.54521739,78.38347826,81.6,80.6,74.33043478,64.40173913,51.78086957,41.6
1895,39.7,37.8,47,66.8,70.6,72.7,83.31652174,80.86695652,74.33043478,64.40173913,51.78086957,44.92608696
1896,42.91217391,44.96,51.58782609,60.66434783,68.54521739,78.38347826,83.31652174,80.86695652,74.33043478,64.40173913,51.78086957,44.92608696
1897,42.91217391,44.96,51.58782609,60.66434783,69.5,74,81,78.3,75.6,61.6,51.1,39.9
1898,39.9,48.2,45.6,59.8,60.8,77.1,82.2,84.2,73.7,60.4,47.3,39.2
1899,41.4,28.4,45.9,62.5,70.6,78.9,81,83,78.3,61.4,58.6,47.1
1900,49,43.8,56.1,56.3,71.5,81.9,82.5,84.7,73.1,69.4,58,50.5
1901,49.1,40.8,51.7,58.6,70.8,78.2,87.8,83.3,75.4,67.4,61,46.8
1902,43.1,49.9,49.8,61.1,70.6,79.9,81.5,84.2,74.8,65.7,53.8,48
1903,49.5,33.1,47.9,60,66,71.4,82.7,82.6,73.5,63.4,56.1,51.9
1904,43.7,54.1,57.3,61.4,66.8,72,79.7,83,76.5,67.2,61,48.1
1905,39.2,37.8,54.7,56.4,63.3,77.2,79.2,84.9,79.1,60.2,54.4,46.9
1906,50.4,50.1,39.1,62.1,69.4,75,77.3,80.5,73.4,64.6,48.8,51.9
1907,46.1,54.8,60.6,58.9,60.6,75.3,82.5,82.1,75.6,66.1,52.4,47.2
1908,48.2,50.3,57.5,65.8,66.9,76.5,81,78.7,78.8,59.6,49.4,45.1
1909,49.2,44.4,42,51.3,66.6,77.1,83.4,84.2,74.2,63.2,52.9,29.8
1910,42.2,42.7,64.7,66.5,67.1,80.1,83.31652174,80.86695652,77.9,70.4,59,47.5
1911,52,42.8,59.5,62.7,71.6,82.6,80.7,84.1,78.9,60.7,51.7,44.92608696
1912,42.91217391,44.96,43.8,55.9,68.5,74.4,80.6,82.5,68.2,62.9,56.9,44.3
1913,44.2,35.9,49.1,62.4,69.3,78.8,82.3,83.9,72.8,61.2,58.3,39.3
1914,50.9,45.6,56.1,61.7,69.2,82.2,83.6,82.8,81.1,67.5,62.1,35.9
1915,43,48,42.8,63.1,67,75.9,81.4,76.8,74.8,69.4,56.2,47.6
1916,39,50.8,62.3,62.5,72.5,81.4,87,78.6,76.1,62.4,47.8,36.1
1917,40.1,44.4,43.4,57,60.6,82.5,90.4,83.6,77.7,66.1,60,51.9
1918,35.9,51.1,61.1,55.5,74.1,83.7,86.6,86.5,72.9,66.3,49.6,43.2
1919,47.6,45,52.5,62.8,71.9,83.7,87.8,86.7,78.7,63.7,50.5,51.5
1920,51.2,46.7,52.6,51.3,68.8,77.1,85.5,81.6,76.5,66.5,48.9,45.2
1921,46,50.1,59.6,58.8,70.1,78.8,86.4,84.1,80.6,72.6,59.2,49.5
1922,40,43.5,54.8,58.4,70.9,85.2,83.5,86.8,81.5,67.1,49.3,49.5
1923,49.4,41.6,45.8,59.7,67.6,76.3,82.8,79.4,72.7,53.2,53.7,44.9
1924,41.3,52.2,38.5,61,66.2,83.2,84.2,86.1,69.8,66.7,58.7,38.1
1925,43.9,55.3,59.8,64.9,70.8,79.3,86.1,80.5,76.9,51,51.2,42.5
1926,40.8,49.9,47.4,56.5,68.8,77.4,83.4,85.2,74.9,72.2,56,44.7
1927,51,51.9,51.3,63.6,75.4,77.5,84.7,79.1,76.2,70.5,59.5,40.8
1928,49.5,45.7,52.6,60.8,69.9,74.4,84.1,84.2,80.4,65.7,53.5,44.2
1929,39.3,36.5,51.7,59.7,69.5,83.3,88.4,86.4,72.5,66.7,46,51.6
1930,29.4,54.7,50.8,69.7,68.4,84.6,87.2,82.4,78.4,63.8,55,45.5
1931,48.1,50.9,50,61.3,69.3,85.3,90.7,86.2,82.7,68.1,51.8,46.9
1932,44.6,53.2,46,66.2,73.7,79.4,88,86.5,79.7,65.2,57.7,35.4
1933,47.8,42.6,56.6,60.2,67.3,86.1,89.5,82.2,80.6,73.4,61.2,56.9
1934,52.2,49.5,60.5,65.3,78.5,85.4,90.8,87.2,77.9,73.9,57,49.4
1935,53.2,53,57.3,59.1,59.9,79.5,87.7,85,77.7,66,48.8,47.2
1936,44.5,42.6,56,63.5,73.6,82.1,88.3,85,77.9,61.2,55.5,47
1937,29.3,45.8,49,61.6,71.2,76.3,85.4,88.1,79,66,52.4,44.2
1938,45.7,47,52.7,61.6,64.1,78.7,85.1,85.9,76.6,66.5,46.8,43.3
1939,45.3,36.5,52.9,61,73.8,80.7,87.9,81.5,76.3,63.6,52.2,50
1940,34.1,44.6,54.3,57.6,70.1,82.4,84.2,81.7,72.3,65,44.7,41.5
1941,43.1,45,44,51.2,68.4,73.5,81.8,78.7,69.4,58.4,54.6,45.5
1942,41.2,34.7,47.9,62.7,68.6,76.4,85.7,82.4,72.8,60,54.8,48.1
1943,46,52.8,49.1,67.2,64.1,77.8,87.6,86.1,75.8,66.5,55.1,44.2
1944,42.5,42.8,44.5,52.8,68.5,76.5,82.1,83.7,74.6,65.5,52.2,44.5
1945,44.1,43.2,53.2,52.5,68.7,72.3,83.9,82.9,71.9,68,54.4,42.5
1946,44.5,49.6,58.2,68.2,61.6,81.4,85.2,81.4,74.7,59.7,47.7,49.6
1947,43.5,43.2,47.8,57.2,65.6,74.3,83.31652174,89,83.8,70.3,46.6,48.1
1948,42.1,42,47.4,66.8,73.1,81.4,89.8,88.8,83.3,69.2,51.5,44.5
1949,34.1,46.8,54.9,66.5,73.1,80.6,88.5,88.1,80.8,65.7,66.8,50.1
1950,46.1,54.5,54.1,64.2,68.5,84.1,84.7,85.5,74.3,77.4,56.1,52.4
1951,42.5,49.3,50.4,59.4,72.6,75.5,89.2,85.2,78,64.7,53.7,42.7
1952,47.9,50.2,47.8,63.5,71.3,89.6,89.7,87.1,83.1,72.1,48.8,47.5
1953,55.2,48.3,59.7,57.4,67.8,85.8,89.2,87.4,84.9,70.7,57.9,47.1
1954,53.4,61.2,49.2,71.2,72,87.2,92.8,88.5,81.1,68.8,59.6,52.8
1955,42.4,42.3,51.5,67.2,73.9,78.7,91.2,87.5,80.3,71.7,51.8,49.5
1956,48.3,41.9,56.1,62.2,75.5,89.9,87.5,85,84.5,72.9,54.1,51.5
1957,39,54.9,53.7,55.5,66.3,81.6,88.6,88,78.3,65,50.6,56
1958,48.7,51.8,43.3,57.3,76.9,84.4,85.3,88.3,80.6,70.8,56.8,48.9
1959,45.2,42.3,53.3,60,69.5,85.3,86.9,87,74.8,63.7,55.8,51.5
1960,43,38.4,52.4,65.8,72.8,85.3,87.7,88.4,80.6,67.6,57.6,47.4
1961,50,52.1,51,61.8,71.6,80.6,86.3,85.5,70.6,66.2,49.7,41.5
1962,39.1,46.2,49.6,66.6,74.4,79.9,86.3,88.2,77.8,71.4,59,50.9
1963,36.9,52.9,53.8,65.5,77,83.6,91,82.6,81.5,72.7,58.1,46.5
1964,47.5,43.7,49.2,62.6,73.9,79.2,91.3,85.3,79.2,70.4,53.6,48.2
1965,49.9,45.9,43.4,64.7,72.1,78.2,86.2,83.7,68.8,72.5,58.6,50.6
1966,44.8,43.8,60.6,62.6,77.9,81.4,91.2,85.2,78.2,69,56.4,46.3
1967,49.4,51.5,60.8,65.9,67.7,73.9,85.4,83.6,77.9,70.3,54.6,39.9
1968,46.7,48.2,57.7,58.9,69,84.9,86,83.4,78.6,70.1,49.8,44.9
1969,49.4,48.9,47.5,67.6,74.3,73.7,89.1,88.7,80.4,52.9,54.4,47.6
1970,45.7,55.3,48.5,58.3,74.6,78.7,86,86.5,73.9,58.9,52,46.6
1971,45.9,44.6,53.5,61.1,67.1,84.1,86.1,86.3,73.1,63.7,53.7,44.8
1972,46.3,52.8,61,62.7,70.2,82.4,85.2,83.1,76,65.2,45,40.5
1973,41.2,47,50.4,55.9,69.3,82.8,84.3,88.1,73.3,69.9,51.3,46.9
1974,41.8,51,59.5,61.2,77,83.5,88.4,83.4,75.2,67.3,51.9,43.8
1975,45.5,46.1,51.9,58.1,67.8,78.7,87.1,86.3,75,70.6,51.5,49.8
1976,46.1,53.7,52.1,62.1,69.7,82.1,88.5,84.4,74,64.3,52,50.1
1977,42.3,51.4,53.7,63.1,74.5,86.7,88.2,82.1,81.5,69.1,53.7,49.8
1978,38.6,39.9,56.6,62.8,70.6,81.4,89.4,85.4,81.1,69.5,52.4,40.7
1979,35.7,50.5,54.3,63.9,68.54521739,78.38347826,87.7,81.1,81,70.9,46.9,52.3
1980,40.8,49.2,51.5,61.5,68.8,89.5,90.9,87.1,81.4,67.1,56.5,57.2
1981,52.2,53.8,55.1,71.2,67,84.9,87.6,82.5,79,62.7,57.3,48.2
1982,47.3,49.6,57.6,65.6,69.3,76.2,86.2,86.3,73.2,63.8,51.78086957,47
1983,42.91217391,44.96,49.9,55.7,66.2,77.2,87.3,90.2,82.7,70.3,54.1,31.7
1984,43.5,48.9,53.3,56.9,76.2,80.3,89.1,85.6,76,58,54.9,48.1
1985,39,43.4,55.6,65.5,74.6,83.8,85.9,89,73.5,66.8,41.5,43.9
1986,57.1,49.5,62.2,64.1,71.2,83.7,86.3,84.9,72.6,63.6,53.3,45
1987,45.6,48.1,52.6,68,71.7,83.7,88.6,82.9,77.1,67.9,53,41.7
1988,40.9,49.5,54.2,66.5,73.5,85.7,88.4,86.9,77.3,69.8,54.2,45.4
1989,49.5,35.3,60.1,65,74,78.6,89.5,80.86695652,74.33043478,64.40173913,51.78086957,44.92608696
1990,42.91217391,44.96,51.58782609,60.6,68.9,86.4,81.6,82.8,77.9,68.7,57.8,40.4
1991,42.3,53.2,55.1,59.9,71.6,79.9,84,82.4,75.7,66.5,47.2,46.9
1992,48.2,52.2,54.8,68.1,73,76.4,83,80,79.4,68.4,45.3,41.2
1993,39,40.9,53.9,60.2,70.5,79.3,84.3,80.86695652,73.4,61.6,48.1,47
1994,47.3,45.2,57.5,61.5,77,86.8,86.3,85,79.7,63,47.6,48.4
1995,46.9,51.7,55.2,57.2,62.4,76.1,86,89.8,73.7,66.6,57.8,48.3
1996,42.8,51,51,64.1,73.4,82,85.4,85.2,75.4,66.7,53.7,49.1
1997,43.6,43.3,60.7,55.5,71.5,80.3,86,81.5,76.8,66.5,49.6,44.3
1998,48.6,48,52.1,59.1,74.2,77.6,86.6,84.9,82.3,62.8,55.2,44.1
1999,48.9,55.4,60.3,56.8,69.9,80.1,88,82.8,73.1,67.8,63.4,49
2000,47.9,54.1,56,67.6,76.6,82.8,89.8,88.2,79,62.9,43.4,43.5
2001,44.2,43.7,52.5,63.9,72.2,85.1,89.9,86.1,80.5,68.9,57.2,47.1
2002,45.1,50.6,52.7,68.4,71.2,87.1,93.4,87.8,77.6,58.2,52.6,48.3
2003,53.9,43.1,56.4,64,71.6,76.2,92.4,87.3,75.6,73.5,49.8,48.3
2004,47.3,45.7,62.8,61.4,74.2,76.2,83.5,81,77.9,65,50.6,48.3
2005,47.2,49.7,53.9,61.7,70.6,79.9,91.5,84.2,81.6,66.3,58.4,45.6
2006,53.3,46.4,52.3,69.7,76,88.8,88.8,85.3,72.9,63.5,56.4,46.3
2007,39.6,47.4,61,60.6,72.6,84.6,90.3,88.8,79.6,69.7,58.7,42
2008,43.4,49.5,54,63,71.6,82,92,84.4,76.2,66,59.5,45

Posted by: Federick | January 7, 2009 1:02 PM

Hey, your boy won the White House, you can knock off the climate bull shit hysteria at Real Climate; find some other way to raise taxes to pay for your Lear Jet fantasy. Besides, there is no military draft with a hot war going on, requiring changing the subject to global cooling and the first Earth Day for New Left chicken hawks who couldn't work up the courage to show up with their home boys, the Vietcong. Get a life, dude.

Posted by: Don | March 7, 2009 11:54 AM

There's an excellent article at PJM today that points up the half-assed nature of your efforts on this site.

It's one thing to be smugly victorious, though it lacks class, but you FIRST have to prove your case. Your counter-arguments (very few of which address the scientific questions) do you a disservice, since they lack intellectual rigor. It's just a smug circle-jerk for people who want consensus based on shallow rhetoric. You're the 'self-satisfied AGW' Ying to the 'ostrich in the sand' Yang of the more extreme people who are in denial on environmental issues.

C+. Good effort as regards intentions, but I think you can do better on the ratiocination and methodology.

Professor Hazlitt

Posted by: Hazlitt | March 7, 2009 8:44 PM

slf....

Regarding the Moon's orbit expanding. I can't really believe someone would want to challenge such a notion. Look, nobody wants a denier for a teacher, and it sounds like you are one step away from being labeled a goal post moving strawman.

Here's my advice:

First, I think it is best to be honest with the students and tell them that there are poor people in the world who are suffering. Bring out their compassion.

Next, make sure they know the suffering is do to the hording and wasteful use of the worlds resources by wealthy nations.....particularly the greedy and imperialistic United States. This creates a feeling of guilt and/or anger depending on what part of the world you are teaching.

After that, you'll want to throw some fear into the mix. This is really quite easy, scary words are good, but it would be best to combine the words with pictures of death, destruction, famine and catastrophes etc......get them all worked up. Don't forget to throw in a few pictures of smoke stacks and cute animals to really pull at those heart strings.

Then you want to slightly touch on the subject of fairness and changing the world government to help spread the benefits of wealth and growth.

Now is the time you hit them with it.......THE MOON'S ORBIT IS EXANDING! WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME!

That's it. Now you can just sit back and wait.....their imaginations will take it from there.

Be reassured that many of these students will go on to become politicians and scientists.

If you still insist on challenging the absurdity, perhaps you can respond to them with an absurd solution....
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808403329/video/2961617#2961617

Posted by: Betula | April 11, 2009 9:15 AM

How do you make heads and tails with this article:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global-Warming/Antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking-/articleshow/4418558.cms

Just curious...

Posted by: Bill | April 18, 2009 1:18 PM

I am really not trying to be a cad, but what you wrote does not make sense. To say, "believe me, it's wrong' is not science. There are hundreds of scientists -- good ones -- who do not believe in anthropogenic global warming. That's the bottom line truth. If this is the case, which it is, then how can it be 'scientifically' true and beyond debate? Science, by definition is verifiable through empirical data that anyone, even the layman, can see. To say, 'But it's true' does not make it true anymore than me saying the sky is green makes it green.

Posted by: Bill | April 18, 2009 8:53 PM

Not all of our species. Just a few. And their numbers shrink every day. This AGW idiocy has nearly finished its run. I just can't wait until the next 'climate crisis,' and the inevitable 'the global warming scare was all media, no scientists believed it' line when I bring this current folly up.

Posted by: Chris | April 18, 2009 9:29 PM

Betula,

Sorry about my first email. I realized after the fact that you were being facetious. I have an uncle who has swallowed this whole thing hook, line and sinker and will not ever entertain the thought that there may be legitimate alternative explanations. It is a form of fundamentalism if you ask me. Many of these people are either atheists or some variation and this is there raison de etre.

Posted by: Bill | April 19, 2009 9:51 AM

Bill -

Many of these people are either atheists or some variation and this is there raison de etre.

Yes, notorious atheists like the Catholic Church.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19830
http://media.www.theloquitur.com/media/storage/paper226/news/2008/04/10/News/Global.Warming.Provokes.Reaction.In.Catholic.Church-3333765.shtml

Seriously, do you people even bother to do any basic research before you say something? If you don't want to be bothered with being factually accurate, you could always just take Betula's route, you know, and hide behind snarky comments. It frees you from having to put any thought into it, and keeps you safe and warm in a nice protective cocoon, keeping that big bad reality out.

Posted by: Adam | April 20, 2009 11:03 AM

And knowing you would mention it, that would be "cocoon".

Posted by: Betula | April 21, 2009 7:17 AM

This is a serious question although it may at first not seem to be. I've been reading a lot on global climate change when all of a sudden I thought, How do we know what temperature the earth should be? Why is warming considered bad while cooling is considered good? or should we hope the temperature of the earth remains at exactly this temperature? How do we know what to hope for?

Posted by: catman2 | April 21, 2009 6:15 PM

catman2

You may have noticed that Coby gave you a pre packaged answer that doesn't answer your questions.....

"the critical issue with what is going on today is not where the temperature is or would be and not with what it may end up being. The critical issue is how fast it is moving."

Maybe this will help...

1. We don't.
2. It shouldn't be that way. There are positive and negative aspects to both. We only hear the negative.
3. The earth has never remained at the exact same temperature and never will. But think of the horror if it were to remain at the temperature it is today, given all the flooding and drought and catastrophes going on in the world. Why just the other day there was a huge snow storm in Colorado. Let's hope the earth doesn't stay this temperature.
4. Hope for change.

Posted by: Betula | April 22, 2009 5:27 AM

Story doesn't contradict AGW it is actually in line with climate change. Most of ice on antarctica (as opposed to arctic sea ice) is on land or derived from land based precipictation (precipitation key word here)

Over most of antarctica its to cold or conditions don't favor precipitation and with warming and climate change you should see more.

Antarctica is warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/warm-reception-to-antarctic-warming-story/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html

the authors of which commented
"We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases.

Post 42 has it - same recycled denier garbage that's been discredited over and over

Posted by: neologizer | May 3, 2009 12:52 PM

How to talk to a AGW fanatic? - difficult - does it occur to you that the AGW hypothesis is crumbling and debunked as it fails 2 crucial tests of any testable hypothesis?:
1. It is not based on any historical empirical evidence that CO2 causes global warming.
2. It has not made any accurate predictions (such as the extent of warming - all these predictions have been wrong)
Has it occurred to you that it is you who might be in denial?
".. most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." Leo Tolstoy

Posted by: Richard | May 9, 2009 8:56 PM

Its not entertainment when a fanciful hypothesis which has failed to predict anything and is not founded on empirical evidence gains political clout and starts hurting my pocket. When I realise that I've been duped, I'm not amused, I'm angry. How dare they. Actually we have something to fear from the climate, but its not global warming, its global cooling. When the Swede Svante Arrhenius, first published a paper in 1896 arguing that CO2 could raise global temperatures, he was laughed to scorn. Thousands of scientists for half a century agreed he was wrong. So much for science by consensus! He was proved subsequently right that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, but was wildly off his predictions. What is forgotten is however he was quite rightly scared of another ice-age and thought that CO2 would save the planet by warming it. Today the AGW gang have turned CO2 into the bogey man. The defining climatic feature of the last 2 million years have been the ice ages with brief warm periods of about 10,000 years interspersed in between. We are on the latter end of that 10,000 years today. We should be grateful for a warmth we have the warmer the better. I'm freezing where I am in NZ. A few centuries would be just great. But the cold is going to come.

Posted by: Richard | May 10, 2009 10:47 PM

Thought you all would want to see this.
(For various reasons)

http://www.youtube.com/homeprojectDE

||Please note, none of the comments were meant to elicit a firestorm of responses, just points to converse, thanks.||

Posted by: Paul in MI | June 8, 2009 4:04 AM

Brilliant. I love it.

I've got an idea for the follow up which is what I'm experiencing at the moment. I dont so much have to convince people that climate change is real, as convince them that they need to start changing their behaviour. And it would be great to compile a list of rebuttals to some of the really lame and often infuriating reasons for why we shouldn't do anything.

A real classic is (living in South Africa, and therefore not an Annex 1 country) "if America isnt compromising on their lifestyles and reducing their emissions, why should I compromise on my lifestyle."

Posted by: Alexis Scholtz | June 23, 2009 8:26 AM

There is always going to be a debate when over 50% of your counter-arguments are specious at best.
I am personally convinced that climate change is occurring however I'd say half of your counterpoints are as debateable as the arguments against climate change and thats a win for no-one.

Posted by: cedley1969 | June 25, 2009 1:01 PM

Re this site. I have developed a positive connection between the Electron and the Nucleus of all atoms that show the relationship between the electron to its nucleus that generates what science has been calling Gravity. This point indicates to me that there is a positive magnetic effect being emitted from the Earth that is equal to what science is calling the Magnetosphere. This Magnetosphere is also reacting to our Sun's Heliosphere that reversed its magnetic polarity on the 15 February 2001. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm.
It was this switching that is generating our present Climate Change as it is changing High pressure systems that are being now over Australia as they were our previous Summer Highs. This is why we are having drizzle in our current Winter season as well as the current drought, ie: the Highs are now averaging just over 1025 mb. Rain will only fall when these Highs are near 1020 mb and below.

CO2 has nothing to do with this Climate Change.

As has been already mentioned in some of the above reports indicating that CO2 follows behind the natural rise of planet Earth's temperature by some 200 to 8O0 years. This solution is positively shown in ICE core samples taken from both poles by a scientist member called 'Vostok" Look it up and you will see his graphic proof. His findings dates back to over 400,000 years. It is a natural cycle.

The ice shelves breaking in the Antarctic is basically happening because of the FACT that the land mass of this part of the world is rising. It is also why land masses are falling in many parts of the world as well as in the Indian Ocean. The Tectonic plates that are constantly moving. It is not sea rising as spoken of. If you want proof of this, look carefully at the British Isles. Scotland and Wales are rising while London area is falling, due to the tectonic plates tilting. Australia is rising and moving north about 200mm per every 100 years.

I have more if need. I am not a Climate Change skeptic, I am aware of the truth and understand the reason why this is happening. There is money in it for Governments.
There is some good coming from it though. It has made mankind aware that Carbon Dioxide is being emitted with Carbon Monoxide and the latter is the prime cause for the smog we see in our cities. Electric cars need to have just as much CO2 to make the electricity to drive the car or to make them move with the Hydrogen systems.

Mankind is paying with one hand and taking it away with the other hand, pocketing it in the bank trust.

tomw

Posted by: Thomas T. S.Watson | July 8, 2009 5:59 AM

Thank you Adam. I am aware of those two addresses.

Climate Change is upon us now. The Highs that are now passing over Australia are SUMMER highs. The averaged Highs for our past Summer were 1016mb and the Lows were 1001.4mb. These values we should be experiencing here, now. Except, now we are experiencing Highs of 1028mb in June. This is a Summer High.

Green's, please check your atmosphere charts and ask. Why is it so? The G8 summit program is leading our Industries down a dead end alleyway with no escape. We must all look carefully at what and where our Australian nation is heading. I feel that we are heading for a financial and industrial collapse if this CO2 is accepted and passed by our present Government. Bring on more MP of the caliber of Fielding who has asked the question. Please, prove to me that CO2 has the capacity to change Climate Change? He has not been shown any proof.
tomw

Posted by: Thomas T. S. Watson | July 8, 2009 6:15 PM

Thomas T. S. Watson

Please, prove to me that CO2 has the capacity to change Climate Change? He has not been shown any proof.

I'm tired of repeating the same stuff over and over again for someone who doesn't do any background research and then claims there's no 'proof'. Considering anything I point you to will be dismissed out of hand, what evidence would satisfy you?

Posted by: Adam | July 9, 2009 9:39 AM

Its interesting to me that apparently intelligent and scientifically literate people appear on these discussions as GW skeptics. As a person with a science background (a doctorate in molecular biology) I have read about global warming for many years in the journals we keep around the lab, such as Science and Nature. I've been interested enough to read several good books on both climate change and energy as well. To my point of view the people who are making all these supposedly thoughtful and careful arguments against human greenhouse gas emissions as a cause of global warming are missing the point. Science is a matter of probabilities, anyone who has worked in any truly scientific field of science is well versed in statistics. OK, the skeptics could turn out to be correct in the end, (lets all hope and pray that they are), that global warming is not driven by our emissions, but the probability of that is low, unfortunately. What is the probability that the very long term and highly international work on climate change that shows the that human green house gas emissions are decisive in causing global warming is just flat out wrong? I put the probability of that as being quite low, a skeptic may put it for some reason as high, but no actually intelligent and scientifically literate person can give it a 0 probability. Given the weight of the science saying that climate change is happening and is human driven, only someone with an ideological agenda could be so blind as to put the probability of the existance of human driven and potentially disastrous climate change as an inconsequentially low number.

In my mind the people who post on these sites acting as intelligent skeptics who have studied the data and are just not convinced are most likely working for some conservative organization, because no one who actually understands science can just write this issue off. I won't argue with the skeptics, they are simply people with the wrong set of values, because to understand that there is some non-negligible probability of a human caused climate disaster is to be concerned, unless you just think that the environment was given to us by god to do with as we like and that all will turn out according to his plan. James Watt rides again, right?

Despite the constant declarations of victory by the skeptics, the reality is that around the world the majority among scientifically literate people who believe that climate change is real, caused by human emissions, and is potentially catastrophic is only growing over time. You can debate the fine points of this or that piece of evidence, but you cannot give an extremely low probability to the hypothesis that the majority of climate scientists who connect climate change with human emissions are correct if you are actually an educated and scientifically literate person. People who realize that there is a non-negligible probability of a climate disaster that can have huge human and ecological consequences and just don't give a damn anyhow have values that make talking to them a waste of time.

By the way, my politics are moderate and I have an equal lack of attraction to both the right and left. Don’t get me going on the ideas the left has on fighting global warming, they are as bad and un-scientific as the ideas the right has on whether climate change is human driven. Bad, ideologically-driven pseudo science is everywhere and is harmful from either side.

Posted by: Ian | July 18, 2009 3:30 AM

Vernon,

Now tell me how many studies say that human greenhouse gas emission are responsible for climate change that has catastrophic potential? Nearly an uncountable number, as you know. And the ratio between the frequency of each point of view? And yet you ignore the climate change side and favor not acting yet. If you are an intelligent person who understands something of how science works then you understand that there is at least a sizable probability that the “global warming community” is correct, even if you do not completely buy the whole set of theories. That very large chance should make you highly concerned, concerned enough to act.

If your son had just received a diagnosis from his cardiologist saying that his cardiovascular system is in serious trouble and that changes in his diet needed to be made to avert a potential catastrophe you’d make those changes, wouldn’t you, instead of quibbling about how the tests work? And yet an ecological catastrophe just leaves you wanting to argue that sometimes cardiologists or scientists are wrong (as they sometimes are, that’s how science works).

What is at work here are your values, more than likely, not your intelligence. Values that do not react to a vast body of evidence supported by the vast international majority of climate scientists claiming that we are on our way to a climate catastrophe are dangerous in my opinion. I hope they are wrong too, but I’m in favor of hedging our bets.

The intelligent discussion now is about what to do to lower our emissions significantly. That’s a huge task, the activist left does not begin to realize how huge and makes silly arguments about wind power and solar electricity as if we could nibble our way out while feeling good about our little sacrifices. Some of the largest elements would be: more nuclear power, limiting US population growth, which is almost entirely driven by illegal immigration, conserving electricity like crazy, as use of electricity in homes in the US makes nearly double the contribution personal autos do to greenhouse gas emissions, making smaller more fuel efficient vehicles and driving them less, and participating in international treaties in a meaningful way. The scope of the problem is still dismaying, to believe the best estimates of the scientific community we need to cut our present emissions in half and then wait a century for the system to recover. If this is so, and due to the high stakes involved it is prudent to believe so, even if it may be revised in the future in either direction, then cutting by less than 50% only gets you to the same dismal target more slowly. Removing (by magic!) the entire US contribution of 25% only would get us halfway to the target, that’s how large the problem is.

As well, to make the argument about reducing our GG emissions even stronger, most of the things that help have many other powerful effects, the best being to reduce the energy driven power and influence of thugs like Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, and that unspellable @#$%?@ Iranian bastard and to make it less likely that we will have to send an endless stream of patriotic young men and women off to their deaths defending the world’s energy supply (which I say as a former National Guard infantry soldier myself, whose former unit has been all over Iraq and Afghanistan, after my time). Its later than we think, and neither hippy arguments about solar power nor conservative denials of the connection between humans and climate change will help us.

Posted by: Ian | July 18, 2009 9:23 AM

Ian - with all due respect, your lengthy post indicates you've fallen for the fallacy of accepting that Vernon actually understands what those 17 papers say ... Vernon's got a downright Wattsian ability to draw exactly the opposite conclusion from a paper than the conclusion drawn by the authors.

Posted by: dhogaza | July 18, 2009 9:58 AM

Shorter Vernon, "let's waste even more time, let's do nothing since the models are not at 100% accuracy only in the mid to low 90's".

As you have been told before, things are looking a lot worse than what was predicted only a few years ago. This is confirmed by both models (which you don't understand) and by actual observations and measurements (which you refuse to look at).

Vernon does nothing while climate races to a state which will be very bad for civilization as we know it.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | July 18, 2009 2:40 PM

Ian does not like the studies or the facts I present so how about...Dr. Terrence Joyce, Senior Scientist, Physical Oceanography and Dr. Lloyd Keigwin, Senior Scientist, Geology & Geophysics of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Models of the overturning circulation are very sensitive to how internal mixing is parameterized. Recall that internal mixing of heat and salt is an integral part of overturning circulation. One recent study shows that for a model with constant vertical mixing, which is commonly used in coupled ocean-atmosphere climate runs, there is only one stable climate state: our present one with substantial sinking and dense water formation in the northern N. Atlantic.

With a slightly different formulation, more consistent with some recent measurements of oceanic mixing rates that are small near the surface and become larger over rough bottom topography, a second stable state emerges with little or no deep-water production in the northern N. Atlantic. The existence of a second stable state is crucial to understanding when and if abrupt climate change occurs. When it occurs in model runs and in geological data, it is invariably linked to rapid addition of fresh water at high northern latitudes.

And now perhaps you begin to see the scope of the problem. In addition to incorporating a terrestrial biosphere and polar ice, which both play a large role in the reflectivity of solar radiation, one has to accurately parameterize mixing that occurs on centimeter to tens of centimeter scales in the ocean. And one has to produce long coupled global climate runs of many centuries! This is a daunting task but is necessary before we can confidently rely on models to predict future climate change.

Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them. Errors in initial data can lead to poor atmospheric predictions in several days. So one sure pathway to better weather predictions is better initial data.

For the ocean, our data coverage is wholly inadequate. We can’t say now what the overturning circulation looks like with any confidence and are faced with the task of predicting what it may be like in 10 years!

Efforts are now underway to remedy this. Global coverage of upper ocean temperature and salinity measurements with autonomous floats is well within our capability within the next decade as are surface measures of wind stress and ocean circulation from satellites.

The measurement of deep flows is more difficult, but knowledge about the locations of critical avenues of dense water flows exists, and efforts are underway to measure them in some key locations with moored arrays.

Our knowledge about past climate change is limited as well. There are only a handful of high-resolution ice core climate records of the past 100,000 years, and even fewer ocean records of comparable resolution. Better definition of past climate states is needed not only in and of itself, but for use by modelers to test their best climate models in reproducing what we know happened in the past before believing model projections about the future. We are not there yet, and progress needs to be made on both better data and improved models before we can begin to answer some critical questions about future climate change.

Originally published: February 10, 2003
Last updated: May 21, 2009

Posted by: Vernon | July 18, 2009 3:37 PM

The models are using parameters that get tweeked to fit the past century, and actually are quite impressive. But until we have enough understanding of the drivers so that we could actually model the actual process.

Vernon has been told hundreds, if not thousands, of times that this description of how GCMs work is flat-out wrong.

Here's the documentation for GISS GCM Model E that makes it clear that Vernon's wrong.

Vernon will, of course, keep repeating his erroneous description until the day he dies.

Posted by: dhogaza | July 18, 2009 4:16 PM

dhogaza,

why do you keep misrepresenting what the authors are saying?

From an interview on carbonpurging, which is hardly a skeptic site.

http://carbonpurging.com/blogs/mjewett/2009/04/01/exclusive-interview-with-professor-anastasios-tsonis-on-has-the-climate-recently-shifted

CP: Would a break in the mean global temperature trend suggest that anthropogenic sources are or are not the main cause of average warming global temperatures from 1880 onward?

AT: If the overall warming is due to anthropogenic sources (and not some unknown very low-frequency feature of our climate system), then a break will indicate that at this point the natural variability signal is stronger than the anthropogenic signal.

He is quit plainly says that if the warming stops, the natural climate variability is stronger than the anthropogenic one.

Posted by: Vernon | July 18, 2009 6:05 PM

If you read closely, Vernon, you'll see that he didn't actually answer the question: " ...main cause of average warming global temperatures from 1880 onward?"

He's just saying that a break right now would indicate that AT THIS POINT - not before, not after - natural variability is obscuring the signal.

Man.

I don't think you've learned a single thing in all the years you've haunted climate sites. You've certainly not improved your ability to understand what scientists are saying.

I wouldn't want you engineering anything I have to use.

Posted by: dhogaza | July 18, 2009 6:14 PM

Ian -

I am truly amazed at the lack of organization and intelligent discussion in the scientific community when it comes to the next step, how we humans can obtain the energy we need to run our technological society, while cutting greenhouse gas emission in half. The legeslative responses I have read so far have been comical. The ideas I've heard from activists are even more comical. This is the next great debate and it has hardly yet begun in earnest.

Not to sound rude, but I completely disagree with most of this. There's a lot of discussion surrounding the specific ways to address reduction of carbon emissions. For one example, check out the Princeton Stabilization Wedge game:
http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/stabwedge.htm

Additionally, once there is a good structure in place putting caps on carbon emissions, money will naturally flow to the most efficient and clean technologies (especially with cap-and-trade). While the current legislative structures for this are wholly inadequate, as you state, getting strong, world-wide caps in place will get us most of the way there.

I do disagree with you that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50%.... we need to do far more than that.

One part of your comment that I do agree with is:
"Its dramatic, which I do not like to be, but unfortunately what I see in my own crystal ball are catastrophes, we will not react with full determination until climate change is producing a steady stream of catastrophes."

I fear that you are correct about that, but I sincerely hope not.

Posted by: Adam | July 19, 2009 7:32 AM

The truth about the use of parameters in GMC's from a review of current studies:

Lohmann et al (2005)

www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/atmosphaere/acc/Lohmann__etal_subm_BAMS.pdf
.... There are some physical arguments in particular related to the treatment of the indirect effects,why estimates of the aerosol impact by current general circulation model (GCM)
parameterizations suggest a stronger than expected cooling.

Eisenman et al (2007)

www.geo.arizona.edu/bgdl/geos596h/Eisenman_etal_2007.pdf
... However, adjustments to model parameters such as the ice albedo are sufficient to
compensate these errors, thereby leading to unrealistically good simulations of present-day ice conditions.

And I could keep going but why load up the site when you can read them your self here:\

scholar.google.com/scholar?q=parameters+in+GCM+"global+climate+models"&hl=en&scoring=r&as_ylo=2004

Sorry dhogaza, I know that you are being told that they do not use parameters but if you though about it, you would know that they have to. How else do they try and add in all the climate drivers that we know little about.

Posted by: Vernon | July 19, 2009 12:17 PM

Vernon will, of course, keep repeating his erroneous description until the day he dies.

I'm a prophet. I wonder if my skills would work on the stock market?

Posted by: dhogaza | July 19, 2009 1:00 PM

Adam,

I don't think you're rude, please feel free to disagree. Maybe I should phrase my statement better, there is plenty of talk about individual parts of the puzzle, what’s lacking is any big picture plan that makes the cuts come out near 5%, let alone 50% For one example, according to the data in a US DOE pdf file that I downloaded several years back, US electric consumption is responsible for about 36% of US GG emissions. Let’s say we somehow kept our population static and were able to cut these electric related emissions by 50% due to conservation and efficiencies in generation. Since the US is responsible for ~25% of human GG emissions that 50% improvement (cutting the 36% by half) would add up to about a 4.5% decrease in human GG emissions. Personal autos in the US account for about half of the volume of GG gas emissions that electricity usage does. So a 50% improvement in auto emissions (in other words a miracle) would net another ~2% cut in total human GG emissions. The total for these two huge steps would be a 6-7% reduction in human GG emissions IF you keep the US population static and make huge 50 improvements in both electricity usage and personal auto emissions, which are levels of improvement that no one has any realistic plans for at present. Meanwhile, China will simply continue to increase its energy consumption and will more than eat up the entire 6% of GG emissions we Americans might hypothetically cut.

I'm not saying we should not all make every effort to conserve, I'm just saying that to move from the exponential increases in human GG emissions that we have now (2008 was an exception due to the financial turmoil) down to merely linear increases, then a zero slope, and then finally to drastic reductions, well, so far many of us have been at working to conserve for quite a while and we still have exponential increases in total human GG emissions. I'd love to see competent analysts show me a realistic plan that would cut human GG emissions by 50%. People get so caught up in the individual ways we can save energy that they do not see the big picture, which is that these savings don't add up to much compared to the size of the problem. Sorry to be a downer, but they don't. I'd love to see significant money spent studying the feasibility of removing carbon from the atmosphere, I have no idea if that can be done at a significant level, and as far as I know, no one else has either, but it is one option that should be analyzed.

Anyone who is curious about where our (US) human GG emissions come from, piece by piece, can download a pdf file from the dept of energy that dissects all this. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html
For Claifornia here is a pdf on GG gases http://www.energy.ca.gov//reports/600-02-001F/2002-09-14_600-02-001F.PDF

Posted by: Ian | July 20, 2009 10:13 PM

Steve Buza: That's the same argument that creationists use.

When you hear arguments like "it's cold outside right now therefore global warming's a LIIEEEE", if you are at all familiar with the basic science, at least four inaccuracies in that statement should jump out right away. Pointing out those problems does not mean that the science is flimsy -- merely that it is being attacked (in this case by incompetent non-scientists). Pointing out what science *really* says (something that anyone with scientific training can deduce, but not everyone has this training) isn't indoctrination, it's just swatting down a straw man.

Exactly the same thing happens with evolution: People who don't understand the simple mechanisms of the theory strike out at their straw-man version of it. This doesn't mean evolution's a theory in crisis, or that the science isn't settled - merely that there's a manufactured public controversy that better science education can (hopefully) address.

It's for that reason - education - that this site and others exist.

See also the Dunning-Kruger effect, and note what role training has on it.

Posted by: Brian D | July 23, 2009 1:13 PM

Coby, Thank you for taking the time to put together this site. I've learned a ton about this difficult topic over the last week or so and look forward to learning more.

Posted by: Greg S | August 1, 2009 7:26 AM

Adam - you are confusing indoctrination with education. Science isn't an ideology - it's methodological empiricism for non-subjective truth - and therefore isn't equiavlent to what I'm guessing you are trying to compare it with - religious dogma.

Posted by: Mark Maultby | September 21, 2009 3:01 AM

The Mythbusters did once successfully test that a rope made from human hair was sufficiently strong to allow someone to escape from prison.

Posted by: ugg boots | October 12, 2009 12:22 AM

Hi ,
Thanks for putting this site up and being patient with people even when feel frustrated.
I am actually inspired to study Enviromental science , climatology or renewables at undergraduate or postgraduate level (I already have a degree but could do an Open University undergraduate degree or a PHD or masters) can you tell me what would eb a good field to go into for which there is a demand ?

Posted by: Gus Leudar | October 29, 2009 1:34 AM

Thank you for putting together such a great resource. I'll refer everybody I know who want to know more about this "climate stuff debate" here.

Nothing here will make a dent in the true climate skeptic, but then again nothing will...well, perhaps maybe a heavy enough club or something... ;-)

Great work anyway!

Posted by: Erwin | October 29, 2009 9:55 AM

According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[28] was underwritten by OPEC."[29][30] However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since.[31] Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a "slander" and as "libelous."[32][33]
Lindzen has contributed to think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from ExxonMobil.[30]

Posted by: Gus | November 2, 2009 11:14 PM

Oh and more from Lindzen from the BBC :

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6595369.stm

Hes well known to be members of several organisations that receive lots of money from exxon mobil - a real shame shows that money can corrupt anyone.

Posted by: Gus | November 2, 2009 11:35 PM