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/m² 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