Gore's Law

But, but....ZOMG AL GORE IS A FAT SOCIALIST NAZI ARRRGGGH!!

But, but....ZOMG AL GORE IS A FAT SOCIALIST NAZI ARRRGGGH!!

Uh-oh. Google seems to have it that Al Gore is replacing Michael Moore as the new Fat.

Search string [ "Al Gore" is fat ]: 431,000 hits.Search string [ "Michael Moore" is fat ]: 291,000 hits.

Gore's Law: As an online climate change debate grows more intense, the probability that warmers will descend into calling skeptics ,deniers, = 1.

PS. Another great post about science.

A happy denier
Peter Bickle

Gore's Law 3: As climate change evidence grows to show that anthropogenic climate change is real, the probability that deniers will descend into calling those who believe the evidence, alarmist, = 1

A "skeptic" who denies solid science is a denier, duh. A "skeptic" who repeats oft-debunked BS as part of his "skepticism" is a denier. Duh again. And that's what global warming deniers do. They aren't skeptics, not in any sane definition of the word, they're deniers.

I prefer denialist to denier since the former implies fetishization of belief. This is a big distinction socialogically.

Let's see Al recently garnered world attention for winning the Nobel as the alarmist in chief for the global warming cause and he is unleashing a 300 million dollar propaganda campaign to convince the world that we face a "climate crisis".

Don't you think that maybe he might be a legitimate target of criticism since he is at the epicenter of the global warming discussion?

"Don't you think that maybe he might be a legitimate target of criticism since he is at the epicenter of the global warming discussion?"

I don't know; however, I do not feel that criticizing Al Gore somehow "dbunks" AGW.

I claim firsties

"'But the more I've listened to these speakers, the more I've realized that for most of them, it's not about the science. Panels don't go five minutes without attacking Al Gore or comparing climate activists to socialists who want to destroy capitalism.' http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/4/155110/4814
I propose an extension of Gresham's Law."
Posted by: z | March 6, 2008 8:03 PM

z,

"I don't know; however, I do not feel that criticizing Al Gore somehow "dbunks" AGW."

Of course you're right. That's why in a recent post about CO2 lagging temps in the ice core record I made no personal reference to Al, just to his movie.

While I don't believe that AGW is a socialist conspiracy to end capitalism it is undeniable that the issue has become delineated largely along political lines. Solutions by those that claim we face the direst consequences from "business as usual" often advocate worldwide solutions that would not be market based but require punitive totalitarian actions.

#9 socialists attacking capitalism

What's really weird about this is that many of the people who do this (claim that AGW believers are attacking capitalism)

a) Have rarely, or never worked for an actual profit-making company that builds useful products or provides useful services.

b)A few work for PR/lobbying organziations that claim to speak for free-market capitalism. But, actually they generally lobby for that tiny subset of companies (of rich family foundations that own them) that make more money by imposing costs (negative externalities in economics) on their customers, employees, the public, or government. No company wants more bureaucracy than necessary, or to pay more taxes, but....
- fighting for cigarette companies
- for CFCs
- against pollution controls on acid rain
- against recognition of AGW

c) Consider the George Marshall Insititute "trio", now finally deceased. Once-great scientists, most of whose useful careers were paid for by taxpayers, they founded a K-Street lobbying outfit, disguised first as science, and second as free-market capitalist defense.

What they were doing had nothing to do with free market capitalism in general, which in fact contains many responsible companies who actually welcome reasonable regulations. Rather, it was for a small set of companies to pollute, or even sell deadly products. [Recall that the business plans of cigarette companies depend on hooking kids while their brains are forming, so they can wire-in lifelong addiction. Hence, candy-flavored cigarettes like "Twista Lime".]

d) Over in Rabett Run, similar discussions caused some idiot to accuse me of being communist, or a fellow traveler, or something like that, working to cause the downfall of market capitalism.

That was truly funny.

Anyway, I'd guess that most who think AGW-recognizers are attacking free market capitalism ... haven't often actuallyparticipated in the latter, at least not in the (mostly) responsible part thereof.

It's because they're using their limbic brains - the neocortex is out to lunch or pining for the fjords or something.

z,

Drat! There really is nothing new on the internet. In my defence I would argue that Gore's Law (my version) is based on Goodwin, not Gresham. Perhaps a 60:40 split of any royalties?

Those who support the AGW philosophy fail to understand the consequences of their actions. We see the future consequences by looking at the price of rice corn and wheat. Food riots will likely be not far behind unless major increases in grain production occur this year.

Warmists are always making excuses for the facts not complying with their misguided concepts of reality. It sure must hurt you to keep getting the truth ramed down your throats. Lance seems to be one of the few on this site that can connect the dots in a fashion that makes a picture. We are heading in a downward spiral and all you guys can talk about is CO2 this and CO2 that. No one cares about Al Gore anymore, he is past his best by date. The majority of people do not believe in AGW anymore, they realize there is a lot more to climate change than some minor greenhouse gas.
If you want to starve a few billion people all you need to do is reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should be trying to boost the level as fast as we can.

Lance:

Al [...] is unleashing a [...] propaganda campaign

The denialists just did it again.

Kent opined:

If you want to starve a few billion people all you need to do is reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should be trying to boost the level as fast as we can.

Kent, in spite of my better judgement I will morbidly pick at this festering scab and ask you upon what evidence you base this claim. Real evidence, I mean.

Oh, and semantic wrigglings such as hypothetical reductions to 150ppm can't reasonably be insinuated into your argument - unless you have firm evidence that such low levels are likely to be imminent.

Tim Curtin's ghost is hale and hearty, it seems.

Tim Curtin's ghost is hale and hearty, it seems.

Kent is displaying his mastery of Curtin's Eternal Carbon Uptake Law which overturned Henry's Law of gaseous dissolution in water. For an ordinary economist, Curtin has been one the great physicists and applied mathematicians of our time. He prefers to be modest about his achievements and one of the ways he does this is by the use of various aliases. See if you can guess what his latest one is.

This has probably been noted before, but it's worth a reminder: the major reason for the denialists' trashing of Al Gore is his role in the creation of algorithms, some of which are useful in the manufacture of hockey sticks.

"Uh-oh. Google seems to have it that Al Gore is replacing Michael Moore as the new Fat."

They just don't know how to spell "phat"! ;)

bi,

"The denialists just did it again."

What is your problem now? Is there a factual error in my statement? Al Gore did just launch a 300 million dollar ad campaign to address the "climate crisis". It is classis propaganda.

Christ the one I saw compared CO2 mitigation with civil rights legislation, fighting Hitler and the Apollo moon landing. You of course see this as sticking to the "science" I suppose.

At least it doesn't have children being run over by trains like the other blatant fear-mongering "public service" spots that aired recently.

If these ads don't make you cringe then you really will stoop to any level to achieve your goal.

The denialists on this list - including Lance, Climatepatrol, Harold Pierce Jnr, Tim Curtin and his doppelganger kent, amongst others - who are a bit peeved at Al Gore and the extent to which he apparently pollutes the global conversation commons with his uncriticised ideas, might like to participate in a serious conversation over at Real Climate about the merits and otherwise of various forms of peer review.

In the process I think that it would be instructive if they detailed the conspiracy, that must surely exist, that sees so little of their denialist proofs, and their rebuttals of AGW ideas, published in credible media. Forsooth, if they do have incontrovertible evidence that the whole idea of AGW is just a scam, there must be at least one respectable peer-reviewed medium that will bravely enlighten the world and bring all the poor deluded scientists to their senses...

Or is the rumour that denialists are just irrevelant these days really more than just a rumour?

For more on Gore's law, see also the Roger Pielke Jr. blog, Prometheus.

Bernard, you hit the nail on the proverbial head. When you write, "If they do have incontrovertible evidence that the whole idea of AGW is just a scam, there must be at least one respectable peer-reviewed medium that will bravely enlighten the world and bring all the poor deluded scientists to their senses".

But of course there aren't any rigidly peer-reviewed journals that publish much of the nonsense constantly spewed out by the contrarians. The anti-AGW brigade - in reality, the anti-science brigade - especially, the fossil-fuel lobby and the think tanks they fund, are doing everything to distort and mangle the science that they hate. This is being done to promte a pre-determined world view and a brazenly political (= neoliberal) and economic agenda. The key word is regulation, or should I say, de-regulation. Effectively, powerful, vested interests that think and act solely in terms of the fiscal year or even less are aiming to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit.

The bottom line is that these well-funded munchkins know that they cannot win the scientific argument, but that is not their aim. All they need to do is to sow enough doubt amongst the public and policy makers in order to undermine policies aimed at dealing with the problem. They have effectively taken the acknowledged uncertaintly over the outcome of AGW and applied this to the process of AGW itself. It's a classic example of public relations genius. That's why the anti-AGW mob has used information warriors, perception managers, and other tricks of the public relations industry to spread their gospel of doubt.

If you feel obligated to talk back to trolls point for point, they'll win - it's much easier to produce new spambots than it is to obsessively respond to them.

Hi Jeff,

I don't think that the science surrounding AGW is a scam. Some of it is quite good. Some of it makes conclusions not supported by its evidence and some of it is quite poor, both in the quality of its data and methods and the validity of its conclusions (Mann's hockey stick comes to mind).

The spin machine that uses this science is the problem, especially when abetted by such unabashed alarmist activist as James Hansen and Lonnie Thompson. Despite the hype of these vocal doomsayers the planet doesn't need to be "saved" and there are very large uncertainties involved that preclude irrational calls to disassemble the world's energy economy.

there are very large uncertainties

Funny how uncertainties only go one way for "skeptics."

Note, also, the strawman argument. Thanks for the illustration, Lance. At least we can learn something from you.

Also, wrt the hockey stick. When was the last time that a supporter of AGW used MBH98 as a reason to be concerned about climate change? The way the denialists prattle on you'd think it was the prime evidence.

It's okay, we look forward to hearing about it for the next ten years.

Some of it makes conclusions not supported by its evidence and some of it is quite poor, both in the quality of its data and methods and the validity of its conclusions (Mann's hockey stick comes to mind).

sorry Lance, but you ll have to be slightly more precise.

the conclusion of the "hockey stick" paper are very well supported by evidence.

it is NOT "poor in quality", either in data or in methodology.

the last erson on earth, able to comment on the validity of it s conclusions, is you.

but i am seriously waiting for your detailed analysis of the peer reviewed papers, taking apart the hockey stick...

Bernard Thanks for including me in such an learned group of heavy hitters.
Peer review is overrated. Drunks in a beer parlour are peers as well. CO2 at Mona Loa is behind the average and may actually drop this year for the first time in decades.

Here in Canada we are at least three weeks behind spring. Everything points to yet another cold year and all y;ou guys have is CO2 is a greenhouse.
Regardless of what any of us believe, if we have another poor grain harvest world wide things are going to get very rough for many of the world's poorest.
Three billion eat rice as their staple and the price of rice has risen close to 50% since the begining of 2008. Many of the worlds exporters of rice have banned the export of this staple, can food riots be far behind.Corn is up 300% and the list goes on. By focusing all your attention on CO2 you are missing the big events in the world. Who do you think is going to be blamed when the world realizes they have been distracted by warmists to the extent that millions have starved to death? It is not going to be your sceptics who take the blame.

Bernard Thanks for including me in such an learned group of heavy hitters.

Kent's author (sock daddy?) tips his hand that kent is a parody character.

Oopsie.

I think, however, Gore's Law has utility for replying to Letters to the Editor and on comment threads. It is yet another shorthand for pointing out that denialists got nothin'.

Best,

D

Best,

D

Here's my own version of Gore's law, and it's one that I actually follow:

If a global warming polemic contains an attack on Al Gore, the rest of it can be safely ignored without missing anything meaningful.

Yes, it's important to know how to APPLY Gore's Law. Steve points out a useful application.

Another useful application would be similar to Godwin's law - useful in the saving of Tim's bandwidth.

Best,

D

well, i confess that i owe the theoretical underpinnings of my derivation of the law to the fine experimental work of miles grant http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/4/155110/4814 so i declare any and all of my share of it public domain. proving what a commie i am.

"If a global warming polemic contains an attack on Al Gore, the rest of it can be safely ignored without missing anything meaningful. "

Also dovetails with the law of analytical rectitude, which says that the greater the asshole overtones of a usenet or blog post, the less content it retains.

Tim kentin.

Yes, there are serious concerns held for many of the global grains markets.

However, you have not explained how these emerging problems are related to the cataclysmic decrease in atmospheric CO2 that you predict will result from addressing human CO2 emissions.

If anything the fact that grain markets are beginning to wobble very worryingly in the face of continued atmospheric CO2 increase indicates that the grain shortages are a result of factors other than emissions control.

I think that you may be trying to mate a turkey with a chicken.

Kent, how many times does it have to be drummed in to you that you are confusing local, stochastic effects with determinstic processes? So what if spring is late in one small part of Canada where you live this year? Its the longer term trends over the biosphere as a whole that must be considered whern evaluating the effects of the human combustion of fossil fuels on climate. Over much of Europe and western Asia its been a very mild winter; in much of Russia, positively balmy, with Moscow being way, way above normal. But even this is irrelevant because its one place, one time, and thus highly unpredictable. As I said once before, the rela challenge for population ecologists and systems ecologists (of which I am in the former category) is to somehow bridge many levels of organization from the unpredictable processes that occur in localized ecological communities to the deterministic processes that emerge in ecosystems, biomes and in particular across the biosphere as a whole. Ecologist Brian Maurer put it nicely when he said that the meolcurles that make up a gas behave in very unpredictable (stochastic) ways but the gas itself as a whole possesses very predictable properties.

Most importantly, irrespective of your late spring in one small part of Canada (I say this because east of the Great Lakes its been a mild winter) medium term biotic trends reveal that breeding patterns in songbirds and other biota and range shifts indicate that the climate is changing very rapidly and is warming, even in North America. Here in Europe it is occurring much faster, and in the far north faster still. When abiotic processes change rapidly, biotic properties follow. There is no doubt that it is warming and warming rapidly, because there are numerous biological indicators telling us it is so, even if we as a species are not evolutionarily programmed to respond to what we see as gradual change. This is part of the problem: species and genetically distinct populations can and are responding to the current warming episode, but nature has been simplified by humans already in a myriad of ways that have effectively created barriers for dispersal. We've also reduced the abundance of most species and it is this that is reducing the ability of many to adapt to this suite of anthropogenic stresses. Given that biodiversity represents the working parts of our ecological life-support systems, there is great concern that a range of critical ecological services will be interrupted or eliminated altogether if the planet continues to warm at its present rate, in combination with other human assaults across the biosphere. Another concern is that unravleing food webs will reassemble in ways that also do not reach stable equilibrium. There are many things to be considered.

Let's see Al recently garnered world attention for winning the Nobel as the alarmist in chief for the global warming cause and he is unleashing a 300 million dollar propaganda campaign to convince the world that we face a "climate crisis".

Lance, my friend, the world as a whole has been convinced for a long time that we are in a climate crisis. Gore got his Nobel Prize for convincing Americans.

If you want to starve a few billion people all you need to do is reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should be trying to boost the level as fast as we can.

Ignorance speaks!

The only plants that directly respond to increased CO2 with growth are the conifers. Flowering plants don't show such a simple reaction. Apparently they invest more in the vegetative parts and less in reproduction = seeds = grain when the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases. Go spend a few hours in Google, and learn.

CO2 lagging temps in the ice core record

How often do you need to be told this?

Yes, in the ice core record, there is this lag. That's because ice ages are ended by astronomical causes. There is no cause for the increase of CO2 at the end of ice ages except the warming itself which leads to degassing from the ocean and the permafrost.

However, this time, there is no increase in insolation going on. There are no causes for the present warming -- except the increase in CO2, which is manmade (witness the lack of 14C and the lack of dramatically increased volcanic activity).

It is rare that the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases for reasons other than a change in the global average temperature, but examples are known. One are the Deccan Traps, layers of basalt that cover about a third of India. The volcanic eruptions that produced them about 66 million years ago dumped huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, et voilà, the temperature rose by 3 °C, and immediately dropped back to the status quo ante when the eruptions were over. Conversely, when the Tibetan Plateau was lifted above the treeline a few million years ago, it started weathering much faster than before, and when silicates weather, they take up CO2 from the atmosphere. This well-documented decrease in CO2 made the current series of ice ages possible.

Lance writes:

[[Despite the hype of these vocal doomsayers the planet doesn't need to be "saved" and there are very large uncertainties involved that preclude irrational calls to disassemble the world's energy economy.]]

No one is advocating disassembling the world's energy economy.

"KENT! This is Jesus, again. You remember Me from our little chats when you were at Pacific Tech?

Stop telling lies! That's a sin. And you're just not GOOD at it. You tell STUPID lies that no one will believe.

And stop touching yourself down there!"

Jeff; All across Canada it has been colder this winter than the last 15 years. Highest level of snow since records began.32 inches last weekend in a Northern state.
David; most plants benefit from higher CO2 levels ask any greenhouse business. They become more drought tolerant and keep growing up to 50 degrees C.
It turns out that the current level of CO2 is about the lowest it has been in hundreds of thousands of years( ok millions of years). Don't forget that the 270 ppmv they tell us was the level of CO2 pre-industrial isn't the real number it was closer to 335ppmv.
Insolation had been increasing but is dropping now. The theory about solar source of heating and cooling. is not about insolation it is about magnetic flux and the effect of Cosmic rays on cloud formation.
With solar sunspot cycle 24 still not yet here and cycle 23 approaching 13 years things are not looking good for you who are true belivers in AGW.
Jesus, Pacific tech? Don't thinks so.

Bernard you suggest that the current grain shortage must be related to something other than CO2. I agree the shortage is not related to CO2. Drought, increased cloud cover, increased usage, food to fuel programs, even speculation, all have their parts to play. Just like climate change. Many drivers of the climate and CO2 is just one of them. By focusing only on CO2 we are making a massive mistake. According to the CO2 theory it is the main driver but with the leveling off of warming and a cooling trend with La Nina we are seeing that there are other powerful drivers that can cause big changes within a short period of time.

Hey #27

Last time MBH98 was used was in Gore's movide!!!

for tfor those of a conservative bent, here's John McCains position on global warming.

http://www.johnmccain.com

click on the video for his actual words
it seems that all candidates for prez agree on global warming, so get on board as most will

Last time MBH98 was used was in Gore's movide!!!

When Gore Gore Gore is the only person whom you denialists obsess over, it's easy to arrive at this conclusion.

Kent, First, David is correct. I work in a department with plant scientists (I also work with plants) and his answer is totally correct. Carbon if often not a limiting nutrient for plants: nitrogen is. Higher C levels mean other nutrients, including nitrogen, phosporous etc. are shunted out, leading to higher than optimal C:N ratios. So you can give up this hopeless argument, even though the contrarians wheel it out all of the time.

The other problem is that, as C levels increase and N decreases, herbivorous insects often are forced into compensatory feeding, because they are really constrained by low N levels in plant tissues (N is vital for insect ontogeny). So in a C enhanced world expect plant feeding damage to increase exponentially. But why take my word for it? I only study interactions between plants and insects, and publish papers on the subject. I am sure Darwin's observation I attributed to another writer in another thread applies here, too.

As for Canada's winter, the east was mild; Quebec was above normal as were the Maritimes. And much of Russia had it warmest winter ever. But as I said last time, this is irrelevant. You are mistakenly correlating a short-term process (one winter season in one region) with long term patterns (long-term climate across the biosphere).

Lastly, given the confidence you express in your conclusions, I was just wondering how many papers you've published in ecological/biological journals?

kent writes:

It turns out that the current level of CO2 is about the lowest it has been in hundreds of thousands of years( ok millions of years). Don't forget that the 270 ppmv they tell us was the level of CO2 pre-industrial isn't the real number it was closer to 335ppmv.

No, it was closer to 280 ppmv. Where did you get your figure? And in any case, the level now is 385 ppmv, which is higher than 335, not lower.

Insolation had been increasing but is dropping now.

No it isn't. Sunlight has shown no trend either way in 50 years:

http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/LeanTSI.html

Don't forget that the 270 ppmv they tell us was the level of CO2 pre-industrial isn't the real number it was closer to 335ppmv.

Wow.

The desperate will believe anything, won't they?

Yer a hoot, son.

Best,

D

I am probably older than you are Dano and you are right about the desperate, they/you will believe anything.
Barton I went to the site you gave and I you should have noticed the data stopped at the year 2000. I know you guys are living in the past but come on ths is now 2008 we are living in keep up to date.

Jeff David is not correct when he wrote that Conifers are the only plants that are effected by CO2, besides conifers are also flowering plants. While I agree with you about limiting factors in plant growth, outside of greenhouse operations the only factor that we don't control is the level of CO2.
I don't know what you mean when you talk about nutrients being "shunted out" because of high levels of CO2. They get shunted by osmotic pressure at the root hair nutrient interface.
Your accademic snobery is showing when you ask how many journals I have been published in. They say those who can, do those who can't teach. I don't confuse publishing with the ability to figure things and you shouldn't either.
Bit off topic Jeff
So you play with bugs do you? OK lets play, you say that bugs need nitrogen so in nitrogen depleted plants they will eat more? Won't they breed less in these plants? Just asking. If they need nitrogen then the more nitrogen in the plants the more food they will have which usually means more reproduction.
As for Canada's mild winter? Record/high snow falls all across central and eastern Canada not to mention many norther states does not make for a mild winter in my estimation. Yes, it is only one winter but it is outside the computer model's prediction. It was not supposed to happen, The model/s is/are wrong. How many times does a model have to be wrong before it's output is questioned. Almost everything the IPCC has put out has been proven to be incorrect. They tell us our CO2 production stays in the atmosphere from 50-200 years but the majority of the studies give a value of 5-10 years.

kent, warmer winters don't necessarily mean less snow, as I'm sure you're well aware.

You are just trolling. You are the weakest link. Goodbye!

P. Lewis, Colder winters mean less snow. You must be what is called the missing link. Hello??

P. Lewis, Colder winters mean less snow. You must be what is called the missing link. Hello??

actually temperature currently shows lttle effect on winter snow.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/summer-snow/#comments

Tamino has a rather nice expalnation:
It seems to me that this sequence of events fits the pattern expected from global warming. Higher average temperatures cause earlier and greater snow melt, leading to significantly less summertime snow cover. But they also increase the total atmospheric water vapor, allowing more snowfall during winter to compensate the decrease caused by snow melt, leading to no net change in fall/winter snow cover. This is just speculation on my part, but it makes sense to me.

kent, you demonstrat withevery post, that you know and understand absolutely nothing. please keep them coming!

"Colder winters mean less snow. You must be what is called the missing link. Hello??"

kent kindly demonstrates the principle of ignorance squared. If he had ever lived somewhere cold he would have heard people say "too cold to snow" because very cold air
(< -40) is too cold to hold anything more than a trace of water vapor. Hence the well know (at least in Montana) phrase "too (Insert your favorite expletive) cold to snow"

Of course kent is too clueless to know that he is clueless, hence the entertainment.

The earth is in dire straits. We need to act now before it's too late and Global Warming becomes insurmountable. I'm talking about major catastrophies and cataclysmic events.
That's right, the end of mankind as we know it... with famines, huge floods,incurable diseases and horrific weather events such as massive hurricanes,tornadoes and tsunamis. Many species such as Polar bears will be wiped off the face of the earth....soon to be followed by mankind itself (Ted Turner says we will become Cannibals)
The debate is over.
There is only one way to stop these events from occurring, and if we act now, if we act immediatley, we can all be saved and live in the Utopian world which we only dream about.
Here's what we must do.....
I want you all to swear to give up any unecessary form of energy that doesn't directly relate to your need to live.
We need to enact Laws that make it illegal to waste any energy for the sole purpose of recreation, entertainment or luxury.
No more vacations,parties,gatherings,sporting events,concerts,theme parks,carnivals,recreation vehicles,air conditioning or second homes.
Cities and towns need to eliminate all street lighting and ban all unecessary lighting for things such as advertising, parking areas, walkways, holidays lighting etc..
Here are a few examples of wasteful industries and events that are unecessary and destroying the earth..... ski areas,Ice rinks,stadiums,Disney,game rooms,golf courses,casinos,movie theaters and making movies,broadway shows,all award shows,little league,scouting,bake sales,fairs,zoos,NASCAR,aquariums,museums,swimming pools,hot tubs,recreational boating,air shows,parades,the Olympics and all sporting events in general.
In addition, people should be forced to eat at home (and make coffee at home) to avoid any unecessary traveling and eliminate all the energy that that goes into running and lighting wasteful restaurants,delicatessans and coffee shops. We also need to put limits on all television,stereo,video and computer usage.
Any unecessary home maintenance that requires the burning of fossil fuels should be a felony offense ie; lawnmowers,leafblowers and snowblowers.
This isn't a joke.... if you honestly believe we have but a short time to act before there is no turning back.... then I'm sure you will agree that we need to stop the selfish, self centered attitude that we all have and put the earth first....or there will be no earth.
It is our lust for comfort and entertainment and our desire to enjoy ourselves that has gotten us into this mess and it's about time we learn to make sacrifices and lower our standards and egotistical attitudes so that other generations and species can live in harmony with the world.
The wasteful activities that we desire for our own sense of enjoyment are endless....I'm sure you can think of many more.
May I suggest that instead of participating in this sort of destructive behavior,you read a book (not one made of paper) or write a novel (just not on paper or on the computer)....perhaps you could plant a tree (that was already on earth, just moved from one location to another) or better yet, grow a tree.
Why not go jogging (just don't exhale too much C02) or go biking (also easy on the exhaling). On second thought....biking for recreational purposes needs to be banned due to the C02 output caused during the manufacturing process of the bicycles, materials, factories,transportation of product, heating and lighting of bike shops etc......the less bicycle production, the better off we are. Only bicycles made and used for the necessities of traveling to work and for chores will be permitted.
There are so many things we can do...but first, let's get some laws passed and start making some personal sacrifices.
Let us not be hypocrites.......can we save the earth?....can we live guilt free?...YES WE CAN!

PS......If you can't do any of the above...... buy some carbon offsets and everything will be just fine.

Hmmm...

I'm guessing Betula pendula, the weeping birch, or perhaps Betula pubescens, the downy birch - because you're obviously very down about it all. Perhaps Betula hysterica var Troll?

Just stop and blow into a brown paper bag for a few minutes.

Ya know, I expected you to finish with "you must email this to at least 15 other people within the next 5 minutes, otherwise you will be cursed by the Agents of Gore so that you and 7 generations of your descendants will be afflicted with Suppurating Pustules, and Giants Heatwave Flies that will lay their eggs upon you so that their maggots may devour your livers, which will of course regrow every evening so that they may be consumed by maggots again the next day...".

"It turns out that the current level of CO2 is about the lowest it has been in hundreds of thousands of years( ok millions of years). "

kind of... prior to the carboniferous era, CO2 was at 1500 ppm. of course, the temp was ten degrees warmer then. that state of affairs had lasted for a billion years, one may view it as the earth's most stable climate state. (skip ahead if you've heard me say this before) over the next hundred million years, plants pulled that much carbon out of the air to get it down to current levels, and got buried. temps dropped; as temps lowered, so did sea level as more water got sequestered in ice sheets. there were essentially no land animals you might recognize until towards the end of the carboniferous.

we are now engaged in a vast experiment to see if replacing a large quantity of that buried carbon into the air over a century or so, a million times as quickly as it was removed, will maybe reset the climate from the current metastable state to the state it was in prior to the carboniferous era. i'm not one of those who would bet that it won't, and i'm not at all sure why some people would bet that way.

yes, the rising of the continents also affected sea leve, and no, evolution of land animals won't reverse itself. nevertheless, nothing any human living or dead would be familiar with existed in conjuction with such conditions.

is that what you meant?

"Yes, it is only one winter but it is outside the computer model's prediction. It was not supposed to happen, The model/s is/are wrong. "

wtf??

and finally, i reiterate, if increasing carbon dioxide will lead to a vast agricultural golden age, the folks buying all that expensive fertilizer made by use of lots of fossil fuel are way off base.

On a slightly less flippant note, I wonder if Betula would care to comment on the status of his/her "few examples of wasteful industries and events that are unecessary and destroying the earth", and of many of his other cherished pass-times, in about 50 years or so. Irrespective of whether there is any climate change.

Paint the picture for us - the world according to you, as you think it will unfold. One page or less will be fine.

Oh, and since you are obviously as sure as the troll (Un)real climate is that no species will become extinct with the climate change that even any but the most lalala-I-can't-hear-you flat-earther warming denialst concedes is happening, perhap you could inform the deluded scientists here exactly how they have it wrong. I'd love to see your evidence.

Or are you ultimately just parodying your own denialist stance through your misbegotten attempt to denigrate those whom you oppose?

kent writes:

Barton I went to the site you gave and I you should have noticed the data stopped at the year 2000. I know you guys are living in the past but come on ths is now 2008 we are living in keep up to date.

Okay, here are the figures for 2001-2005 for TSI, in watts per square meter, according to Wang et al.:

2001 1366.6654
2002 1366.6022
2003 1366.6807
2004 1366.2461
2005 1366.0668

See a big decrease there, kent? Or a steady decrease? Or any significant trend in any direction at all?

"Paint the picture for us - the world according to you, as you think it will unfold. One page or less will be fine"

Bernard....the picture has already been painted by fortune tellers and soothsayers such as yourself....yours is the final word. Lowly people such as myself don't have the ability to predict the coming doom and gloom the way you do.....we take your word for it.
You seem upset by something I wrote.Which part of my suggetions for reducing AGW do you disagree with? I was merely repeating what I have read and applying logical, common sense solutions.Would you rather be a cannibal in 20 to 30 years?
Now,in response to your self admitting flippancy.....perhaps I am Betula Nigra (Black Birch), because I see a black future unless we take drastic and immediate measures to control a dismal future only you can guarantee. Or perhaps I am Betula Papytifera (Paper Birch) because I see AGW as a Paper Tiger.
Please let me know which one you want me to be so my agreeing with you doesn't disagree with you.
Oh how I long for the day's of climate consistency when we didn't have to carry on with such discussions.

PS. In 50 years or so my pastime will most likely be decomposition....releasing my C02 contaminated body back into the soil.....if by some fate the C02 hasn't killed me, I'll be too old to catch someone to eat and to weak to avoid being eaten. As for my son, I'm having his incisors sharpened to give him an advantage.

Betula, who has a talent for parody but not much for logic, is putting forth the straw man argument that in order to mitigate global warming, we have to immediately move to a caveman lifestyle. Betula, no one -- NO ONE -- is saying that, except would-be humorists like you. All we have to do is switch to renewable sources of energy. Conservation helps, certainly, but no one is telling you to give up cars, etc.

Barton.....switching to renewable resource energy is a great idea, however, it can't exactly be done overnight. My understanding is that we have very little time and need to act now....in 30 years we will be cannibals. I am told I need to switch my lightbulbs and write on the back of a sheet of paper to save the Polar Bears.....wouldn't it be easier to just rid the world of unwarranted luxuries? I mean, if I switch my lightbulbs and then go to see the Broadway lights in New York,I feel a bit foolish. Why is it illogical to wonder why people watch Nascar races while scribbling on the back of a sheet of paper?
You call it illogical, I call it being a realist.....if we are running out of time, then shut down the waste.I just read that the travels of the Olympic Torch used 5200 tons of CO2...
So would you rather do without the Olympics or have your neighbor for dinner in 30 years?
By the way, for every action there is a reaction....so what damage are we doing and what new problems are we creating with a quick switch to renewable resources....only because we panic about cosequences we aren't sure of.
Strange, I don't remember saying someone is telling us to give up cars....in fact, I don't remember cars being on my list unless it was for recreation or sport....
If you are as serious as you claim....then fight for the banning of all motor SPORTS ie; cars,planes,boats,motorcyle racing/dirt bikes,snowmobiles,go-carts,jet skis, etc.C'mon guys, the seas are rising,the cute Polar Bears are dying (of course that means less Seals are being eaten).....but forget about the Seals....they aren't cuddly and don't sell well as stuffed animals. And let's face it, a poster of a Polar Bear sinking it's teeth into a Seal with all the blood spurting and the Seal crying out for it's mother, well...that wouldn't help sell the cause.
Finally, if we asked the person on the street how many Polar Bears have drowned due to AGW, what would they say? Of course they would be shocked that only 4 Polar Bears have been spotted floating...and it was ASSUMED they drowned...it couldn't have possibly been from any other cause because we all know they live forever.
Is this part of the straw man argument?........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54

...and if you don't email this to 14396 friends in 11 seconds...

Oh, and does someone have a few spare carriage returns? It seems that they are drying up with the heat.

As lame as a response as that is, I can understand your reasoning for it.
You see, if I were to list well known scientists who disagree with you, then you would dispute them. If I were to show data that disputes your theory, you would dismiss it and counter with other data that fits your theory.If I were to show weather patterns around the world that don't live up to your predictions, you would show me weather patterns that meet your criteria. If the world temperatures were to drop for the next 10 years it still wouldn't matter, you would show a 100,000 year graph and dispute it.
The fact is, AGW is in your lifetime to stay and no matter what happens....the debate is over and all those who disagree with you will be dismissed as flat earthers.

The fact is, AGW is in your lifetime to stay and no matter what happens....

Betula, take a breath and put the birch down before your whip yourself raw.

The fact is, I hope beyond hope that there might be a longterm overpowering, by non-carbon dioxide factors, of the climate forcing resulting from anthropogenic CO2.

The fact is, as an ecologist working with species extremely vulnerable to alterations in their bioclimatic envelope, I really do have a vested interest in hoping that there is an alteration to current trajectories.

The fact is, I continually check the updates to data myself, and the comments of both pro- and anti-AGW commentators, to see if global warming really might be magicked away by some miraculous realignment of the planets or whatever, so that I can concern myself with any of a number of other pressing issues that the ecology of this planet faces.

The fact is, in all the numbers I see, and in all of the fallings of the cards after considering all of the numbers I see, the denialist view is not supported, and the warming premise is continually reinforced.

The fact is, this is my own, personal conclusion, made as objectively as I am able, with no hysterical need to subscribe to an internal cataclysmic myth-fulfillment.

The fact is, that the vast majority of considered and balanced-thinking folk I know reach the same conclusion.

The fact is, almost to a person the denialist cases I see presented are done so based on ill-conceived and poorly constructed arguments and data, and with no cohesive narrative.

The fact is, if the objective and impartial scientific evidence ever comes to pass that indicates that the current warming trend is disappearing over the hills of history, I will be one of the first to cheer its demise.

The fact is, the "it stopped in 98" chestnut is a rotten one, so don't try to use that one to challenge me on my previous paragraph - I am speaking of real changes in the warming trend.

The fact is, you waste a lot of space trolling here, but I grant you that you do at least try to minimise your use of space by not hitting that enter key.

Them's the facts.

Betula scandiatroglodytes, a strange, rare species of the family Betulaceae.

It has increasing rarity, but when it does surface it is considered a pest.

If perchance you enter its domain by accident, then it is best to ignore it completely. Another strategy is the Peer Gynt move: run like f**k the other way, don't look back, and add it to the killfile. Done!

Bernard,
Now if I had said that, I'm sure I would have recieved some quote like "There are no fact's, only interpretations."
As an ecologists, you can't explain AGW on the fact that 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct.
As an objective person, you would admit that us becoming cannibals in 30 years may be considered alarmist.
As a reasonable person, you wouldn't call fellow scientists such as Dr. William Gray or fellow ecologist such as Patrick Moore unbalanced and ill conceived.
As an educated person you would agree that in a solar system, the sun may play a roll....and there isn't a computer model in the world that can take on all of earths complexities and processes.
As a logical person, you would agree that someone can realize that Global warming is happening without jumping on the "Sky is falling" AGW band wagon, riding pell mell into the CO2 toxic cloud.
As an honest person, you will admit Al Gore is not a scientist and has exaggerated a 20 rise in sea levels, that only 4 Polar Bears have assumed to have drowned, that the IPCC is not made up solely of scientists and that the climate has and will always be changing.
As a person with a sense of humor, you will agree that we disagree, and vow not to eat me when we resort to cannibalism in the near future.

P.Lewis,
Is that response one of those ill conceived and poorly constucted arguments with no cohesive narratives Bernard was talking about or are you just happy to read me?
If you don't mind,I prefer to be called an invasive species, one who's growth is in direct proportion to an increase in CO2.

Betula:

and there isn't a computer model in the world that can take on all of earths complexities and processes

Yet another person sucked into the belief that there is no empirical estimate of the climate sensitivity. FYI, a list of papers with empirical estimates for climate sensitivity is here, along with a list of papers with estimates derived from models. The Annan paper in the models estimates list also has emprical estimates.

Did I state there was no empirical estimate of climate sensitivity? I apologize, I don't remember stating that. Of course, now that your on the subject, I notice 6 different approaches to estimating this and they all have different results......boy is that conclusive. Are they conclusive estimates or estimates of a conclusion?
What I mean't to state was that there isn't a computer model in the world that can take on all of earths complexities and processes.

Did I state there was no empirical estimate of climate sensitivity?

No, you wrote a troll who's most important significance in this context is climate sensitivity.

I notice 6 different approaches to estimating this and they all have different results

No kidding. Maybe your're trying to suggest climate involves deterministic processes.

......boy is that conclusive.

Funnily enough, you seem to be concluding that it should be assumed to be insignificantly small.

Betula posts:

there isn't a computer model in the world that can take on all of earths complexities and processes.

So what? They are as accurate as they need to be to draw general conclusions. There isn't a computer model in the world that can take on all of the complexities of a shuttle launch or an airplane's performance, either, but we model them well enough for them to fly. There isn't a computer model in the world that can take on all of the complexities of the stresses and strains on a bridge, but we still model bridges before constructing them and most of them work just fine. Yes, there are airplane crashes and bridge collapses, but in most cases those involve factors like not performing proper maintenance for long periods of time.

Right....I see your point.
So... much like we create airplanes we create climate,and much like we maintain bridges and space shuttles we can maintain climate.
We make imperfect models of the climate we created and then find ways to maintain or change that climate through those imperfect models...
Ironically,the airplanes and shuttles that we create and maintain,are part of the cause of climate change,therefore, by contolling our use of these things,we are maintaining the climate that we created through their use.....based on imperfect models.
Ok, I know you were just making an analogy, but obviously the complexities of the earth and the solar system,along with maintenance issues ie; politics, different cultures, languages,available resources etc...may be a little more complicated than driving over a bridge.
The problem I have is with AGW hysteria such as cannibalism and the (thinking inside the box) mentality.....who's to say what optimum temperature is best? If polar bears die, how many Seals are saved? If people die from heat, how many are saved from lack of cold? If climate change is the new mantra, when was the climate consistent? If the "debate is over" you cannot possibly be objective to any change of circumstances,events,weather patterns,temperature changes,ideas or new information.....a closed mind.
Trying to scare somebody into buying something is like selling insurance.....you can buy insurance for everything you fear may happen, lowering your standard of living in the process while the insurance companies get rich.
Let me ask you a question my eight year old son can answer.....When does cutting down trees create more trees than are cut down?

Make that three times in a week...

In case of hyperventilation break glass and press "enter <--|"

19 minutes of silence between 2 non-answers.

I forgot to comment on Betula's early post:

On second thought....biking for recreational purposes needs to be banned due to the C02 output caused during the manufacturing process of the bicycles

Ah yes, the "If environmentalists don't all kill themselves then they're hypocrites" trope.

hm, i must have missed the part in the IPCC report, talking about CANNIBALISM.

could you please provide some links to scientific sources or simply SHUT UP?

sod.....that comment came from one of your minions..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LZuC1xLHXRc

Betula writes:

who's to say what optimum temperature is best?

It doesn't matter which climate is best from some ideal theoretical viewpoint. Our agriculture and our economy are adapted to the unusually stable Holocene climate we've enjoyed for the past 10,000 years. A movement away from that in either direction is likely to really screw up food production, among other things. The danger of global warming is not that we'll all burn up; it's that more droughts in continental interiors, more violent weather along coastlines, and sea level rise will together result in millions of deaths and trillions of dollars worth of property damage. Ted Turner's cannibalism comment was over the top, I agree. On the other hand, if there is a massive failure of food production, you'll be surprised what people will do. There was cannibalism in the civilized, literate Ukraine in the 1930s when Stalin cut off their grain.

Barton.....you are the first person on this site to admit that Ted Turners remark was over the top. Thank you. Now I can take other things you say and look at them objectively because I know you are reasonable.
Obviously warming can cause many changes, and possibly worse case scenarios like you stated. The truth is, any steps to conserve energy and switch to renewable energy sources needs to be approached in a way that doesn't alienate, isn't divisive and is understanding of differences of opinion.
It was a huge mistake to say the debate is over....this turned many people, including scientists, into believing anything they say or think isn't important... so they become defensive....in addition, I believe the media has made a mockery of the issue by blaming evrything on AGW....not just cannibalism, but a lack of beer, a decline in circumcisions, the NFL threatened etc.....it at times becomes unbelievable......particularly for those who aren't scientist and would never read a scientific report anyway....which is most people.
It's all in the approach....and calling people denialists, flat earthers and holocaust deniers isn't going to win them over......if that's really what you want to do.

"hm, i must have missed the part in the IPCC report, talking about CANNIBALISM.

#76sod.....that comment came from one of your minions.. "

IPCC, Ted Turner, same diff.

Z.....you miss the whole point.Most people on this planet aren't scientists and would never read the IPCC. Most people hear someone like Ted Turner and go one of 2 ways with it....either it's all nonsense or my son will need to stock up on barbeque sauce for the coming feast.
If you(z)disagree with Ted Turner, then perhaps you can see where the "ALARMIST" attitude of some people comes from.
I might also add...that if I were confront Ted Turner on his cannibal comment...he would call me a "DENIER".
So if you disagree with Ted are you a DENIER z?