Inhofe: less honest than the Discovery Institute

Inhofe's list of 650 scientists that supposedly dispute the consensus on AGW reminded me of another list: The Discovery Institute's list of scientists who dissent from Darwinism, so I thought I'd compare the two lists.

First, numbers. The Discovery Institute's list has 751 names, while Inhofe's has only 604. (Not "More Than 650" as he claims -- there are many names appearing more than once.)

Second, how do you get on the list? Well, you have to sign up to get on the Discovery Institute's list, but Inhofe will add you to his list if he thinks you're disputing the global warming consensus and he won't take you off, even if you tell him to do so. Yes, there is someone less honest than the Discovery Institute.

Third, what sort of scientists are on the lists? Well, the Discovery Institute list has a distinct shortage of biologists, while Inhofe's is lacking in climate scientists. It does have a lot of meteorologists, but these are people who present weather forecasts on TV, not scientists who study climate.

Fourth, who is on both lists? There are five names, and two are from the University of Oklahoma.

Here are the five people who couldn't stop at rejecting just one science:

Edward Blick, Professor Emeritus of the Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma. In an article published by the Twin Cities Creation Science Association, he wrote:

The predecessors of today's unbelievers replaced the Holy Bible's book of Genesis
with Darwin's Origin of the Species. Now with the help of Al Gore and the United
Nations they are trying to replace the Holy Bible's book of Revelation with the U.N.'s
report Anthropogenic Global Warming. They tell us that man's use of fossil fuels
results in too much atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which causes excessive warming
and melting of polar ice caps. They say if we don't take drastic steps (trillions of dollars
of taxes, year after year, after year), we will either roast to death, or drown in the rising
seas. The plan is for the U.N. to take control of the world's economy and dictate what
we can use for transportation (bikes?), what we can eat, where we can live, and what
industries we must shut down. This whole scheme is a "Trojan Horse" for global
socialism! ...

For thousands of years our earth has undergone cooling and warming under the control
of God. Man cannot control the weather, but he can kill millions of people in his vain
attempt to control it, by limiting or eliminating the fuel that we use. How does God
control our warming and cooling? Scientists have discovered it is the Sun! Amazing,
even grade school children know this. The Sun's warming or cooling the earth varies
with sunspot and Solar flairs.

David Deming, Associate Professor of Geosciences, University of Oklahoma. In an op-ed in the Edmond Sun he wrote

Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As the weeks pass, more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.

So you can guess that his writing about climate in this week's Washington Times is likely to be as accurate as his election prediction:

But the last two years of global cooling have nearly erased 30 years of temperature increases. To the extent that global warming ever existed, it is now officially over.

i-80019a093fdc112d2a043fd6f1393550-06.13.08.globalairtemp.png

Despite a strong La Nina this year, 2008 was much warmer than any year in the 70s.

Guillermo Gonzalez, former Associate Professor of Astronomy Iowa State University.

Robert Smith, Professor of Chemistry University of Nebraska, Omaha

James Wanliss, Associate Professor of Physics, Embry-Riddle University

And I must also include this awesome quote from Edward Blick:

In an absolutely beautiful description, [Isiah] declares that these obedient ones "shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint" (Isa. 40:28-31).

In addition to the obvious spiritual truth conveyed in this context, science has determined that this passage was rather ahead of its time in terms of aerodynamic information.

Dr. Edward F. Blick, who served as a professor in the School of Aerospace at the University of Oklahoma, did extensive wind-tunnel studies at the university with eagles. In doing research in 1971, Dr. Blick and his colleagues discovered that the eagle's six-slotted feathers (at the end of each wing) curve upward in gliding flight. Wind tunnel measurements demonstrated that this design reduced the size of the vortex (whirling current) that emanates from each wing tip. This, in turn, reduces drag on the wings and allows the eagle to soar great distances on the air currents--without even having to beat its wings.

Professor Blick, impressed with the accuracy of the Bible in this regard, stated: "Thus 2,700 years after the scripture in Isaiah was written, science has stumbled onto the same truth."

Categories

More like this

Back in 2001 The Discovery Institute paid for advertisements with a list of a hundred scientists who disputed the theory of evolution via natural selection. A notable feature of their list is that the vast majority of the people were not biologists. Now The Cato Institute has paid for…
Randy Olson (maker of Sizzle) has an interview with Mark Morano. RO: Are you an anti-evolutionist? MM: Haha, not at all. In fact, you know it's not an issue. The implication of your question is that somehow the skeptics are aligned with creationists. In all my years of dealing with Senator…
I dont purposefully watch Bravos 'Real Housewives' series. I mean, if its on, I leave it on as background noise, I dont actively turn it off, umm... *looks shadily back and forth* Anyway, theyve got the series in Orange County, New Jersey, New York City, Atlanta-- I think they should do a version…
So, I after looking at who was on Inhofe's list of scientists that he claims dispute global warming and on the Discovery Institute's list of Darwin dissentors, I thought I should see who was Inhofe's list and this list of HIV/AIDS "rethinkers". The HIV/AIDS list seems to be even dodgier than Inhofe…

you didn't happen to go through the religious associations of the 2500 contributors to the IPCC papers did you? I'm sure by the law of averages you would find similar.

That's why ad hominem attacks are frowned upon when it come to science.

When I look at this temperature chart

http://www.weatherquestions.com/UAH_LT_since_1979.jpg

I see a temperature gain of .25C since 1979 (29 years) I also see a fall in temperature over the past 3 years.

Now please explain to me and Dr Spencer without attacking Dr Roy W Spencer ( a highly respected climateologist) why I should see something different!

janama, there was no ad hominem attack. Tim was (rightly) laughing at the pathetic attempt to blame the Sun.

And your link doesn't work.

"you didn't happen to go through the religious associations of the 2500 contributors to the IPCC papers did you? I'm sure by the law of averages you would find similar."

Creationism is the issue, which only counts as a "religious association" in that it is religiously motivated pseudoscience.

religiously motivated pseudoscience.

well so is believing in virgin birth and The Ascension. I'm sure there are many IPCC authors who are practicing Christians. - it all a level of degree really.

> all Tim has done is attack the people on the list.

Or rather, criticize the people on the list. But of course every criticism of a climate inactivist is itself an "attack", and every "attack" is an ad hominem, which is Latin for "grievous crime against freedom and democracy and wealth creation".

You see, if climate inactivists don't like you, then clearly you're in the wrong. On the other hand, if you don't like climate inactivists, then clearly you're just being intolerant, which means you're still wrong.

Therefore, every "attack" on climate inactivists is proof that the Warmist Cult is like the Inquisition. Since the Warmist Cult is like the Inquisition, therefore by the "Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too!" rule, the inactivists are also allowed to act like the Inquisition.

But that's OK, because the inactivists profess Freedom!

This is how Science works.

"well so is believing in virgin birth and The Ascension. I'm sure there are many IPCC authors who are practicing Christians. - it all a level of degree really."

I beg to differ, religiously motivated pseudoscience is marked by the fact that someone claims scientific support for some religious doctrine. I'm sure that there are more Christians on the IPCC than those willing to make such a claim.

Janama, just use HTML. Calling the blog software stupid because it interprets text entered as text, as text, is a little like calling a dishwasher stupid because you put a turkey in it and it treated it as dishes.

I note how neither your image, nor your blog post, tell us what method Spencer used to smooth that data. It honestly appears hand-drawn, but I don't even have enough information to conclude that. You can download the dataset yourself and play with it if you want; I'll do that myself in the morning, and I'd be surprised if there's any statistically significant trend that supports Dr. Spencer's claims.

Second, it's interesting you'd home in on Spencer. Not only is there evidence of unusual analysis bias in UAH, not only does Spencer have a recent egg-on-face incident that he hasn't responded to... but Roy Spencer, like those on the Discovery Institute list that Tim brought up here, is a creationist.

Oh, and he also peddles the DDT ban hoax, the debunking of which is one of Tim's specialties. I suggest you look up the terms "Crank Magnetism" and "Dunning-Kruger", Janama.

weatherquestions.com is a Roy Spencer production. He claims to have a PhD in meteorology -- see Tim's fourth paragraph, above.

By Matt Platte (not verified) on 13 Dec 2008 #permalink

Sadly, my fellow Okies reelected that most despised of senators. We tried to defeat him. I made my first political donations ever to his opponent Andrew Rice. With his defeat I learned to two things: 1. Inhofe knows when to shut his mouth. So he knows when he's lying. He know when he's making outrageous statements. 2. Just how deeply entrenched willful ignorance is in Oklahoma. No other state gave a higher percentage of the vote to McCain/Palin. Every county went. Red. No wonder Inhofe got reelected.

On behalf of the rational minority in Oklahoma, I apologize that we could not defeat him. I am deeply deeply embarrassed and ashamed that our state keeps sending him back to Congress. I can only hope he'll continue to be marginalized in the Senate.

ok - so we have discussed religion, a US senator and a list he's compiled.

So when is someone going to answer why the graph of temperature that Tim posted dramatically differs from the graph of temperatures I linked to?

That's why the US senator can obtain the list he has - because you acolytes of the Church of GW won't answer a simple question and won't face a simple fact i.e the earth has stopped warming! It may be brief it may not - you don't know and neither do I.

It's not a question of scepticism - it's a matter of scientific fact!

Janama, that answer's bloody obvious to anyone who can read a title -- Spencer's is from UAH's analysis of satellites, Tim's is from the Met Office's instrumental temperature record. Plot the Met Office's monthly data from 1979 (note that they use different baselines to compute their zero point!) and you'll see that the only deception here is Spencer not telling us how he smoothed his data.

See also my earlier comment.

> That's why the US senator can obtain the list he has - because you acolytes of the Church of GW won't answer a simple question and won't face a simple fact

Oh. I thought Inhofe was able to obtain the list because Obama didn't accept McCain's invitation to attend town hall meetings.

Seriously, janama, your 'logic' makes no sense.

Spencer's is from UAH's analysis of satellites, Tim's is from the Met Office's instrumental temperature record.

oh so they are different and that is the difference?
I think not. Lay them out and they are two different readings.

Spencer's actually drops in temp from 79 - Tim's doesn't.
Now why is that?

janama:
> I'm sure there are many IPCC authors who are practicing Christians.

No doubt there are some, but the tendency to believe in Bronze Age fairy stories decreases with level of education / IQ: e.g. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=402381 . And my experience is that the Deniers of ACC also usually possess lower education / intelligence.

Regardless, it's completely irrelevant to the science - unless they're using it as evidence for ACC in the same way that some Deniers use their god as 'evidence' against it. If you can find someone using a god as evidence for ACC, let us know.

> ...Dr Roy W Spencer ( a highly respected climateologist)[sic]...

Highly respected? By whom? Not other climate scientists - or evolutionary biologists:

* http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views_on_Intellige…

Highly respected? By whom?

By NASA who employs him to operate the Aqua satellite - I notice they didn't ask you!

keep coming with the ad homs - how about anserwing the question I asked about the difference in the temp charts?

The URL parser is broken because it converts words wrapped in '_' to italic. I've reported to webmaster.

Here's that Roy Spencer link: http://tinyurl.com/5fcsrj

> ...how about anserwing the question I asked about the difference in the temp charts?

It's been answered for you already. If you want to participate in a conversation, you really need to read some of the replies.

P.S. You also _really_ need to read this because 'ad hominem' is evidently not what you think it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

DavidONE - no one has answered my temperature chart request and I don't need a link to the definition of ad hom. Thank you.

care to answer the temp request? they are very different. Now which one is wrong and why?

One difference between the distorters of climate science and evolution theory could be that the first care even less then the second about being polite... It's just about money?

monthly data vs years...

again: those graphs are in agreement.

Janama
The different data sets also measure different things. UAH and RSS measure across a large section of the Lower Troposphere, to get an average, whereas GISS and Hadley measure if from the surface. So, RSS and UAH are someway up in the air, Hadley and GISS at the surface. It's no surprise there is a difference as they measure different things. The most surprising thing is that they are largely in agreement.

monthly data vs years

so which is more accurate?

janama: Look, Inhofe was able to compile the list of 650 because no one could explain why global warming has stopped! Ad hominem! Ad hominem!

Us: No, global warming has not stopped.

janama: I'm ignoring all your answers so that I can claim there are no answers!

Us: Also, Lambert didn't make an ad hominem attack.

janama: It is an ad hominem! Because I say so! Acolytes! Zealots! Argh! Vicious attacks! Argh!

Us: Also, if we give you the "explanation" you want, how will that prevent Inhofe from compiling the 650 list?

janama: I'm ignoring your question. Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem!

Check these figures

http://www.climate4you.com/

scroll down to the combined graphs - they are all saying .2C - .3C over 30 years - or .8C by 2100. Just like last century.

janama: Which is more accurate, GISTEMP or UAH?

Us: They actually agree quite well, so the question is moot.

janama: No they don't! Which is more accurate?

Us: They agree quite well.

janama: NO THEY DON'T! WHICH IS MORE ACCURATE? THEY DON'T AGREE! I SAY THEY DON'T AGREE! LISTEN TO ME! WHY DON'T YOU JUST TELL ME WHICH IS MORE ACCURATE? THEY DON'T AGREE! I SAY THEY DON'T AGREE! SO WHICH IS MORE ACCURATE? WHY WON'T YOU WARMISTS LISTEN TO MEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

janama: Here's a graph from some random web site.

janama: Here's another graph from another random web site.

janama: Here's another graph from another random web site.

janama: Here's another graph from another random web site.

janama: Here's another graph from another random web site.

janama: Here's another graph from another random web site.

janama: Here's another graph from another random web site.

janama: Here's another graph from another random web site.

janama: Here's another graph from another random web site.

janama: Here's another graph from another random web site.

frankbi: How about simply getting your data directly from GISS and UAH?

Janama has a searing insight into the operation of science, as demonstrated at the paragon of scientific endeavour that is Marohasy's miasmatic marsh:

Comment from: janama December 13th, 2008 at 7:31am

"Perhaps with the assistance of all these "experts" the Australian "sceptics" can be mustered to write a single climate science paper relevant to AGW in a real science journal."

why? - skeptics don't accept AGW theory - it's up to those who propose the theory to write the papers to prove it. Obviously if there are still people who are skeptical after reading the papers the theory hasn't been proven.

Janama, it seems that you don't have even an introductory acquaintance with the practice of science.

As I find myself repeating again and again, on this and on other blogs, science is about the formulation of hypotheses which are tested by experiment and/or evidence, and thus are supported or refuted. If experimentation and/or evidence forms a sufficiently robust basis to support the hypothesis, it may be regarded in the scientific community as a theory - which, importantly, is not the same as what lay people frequently believe a theory to be.

Significantly, the scientific process involves no proof of a theory nor of a hypothesis; just support or refutation. A theory or a hypothesis may be supported for years, for decades, or for centuries, and may be regarded as 'fact', only to be disproved at some point with new evidence or with new technology.

It is therefore an indication of your ignorance of scientific process that you make the fallacious claim that "it's up to those who propose the theory to write the papers to prove it". Rather, it is up to those who dispute the theory to 'write the papers' to disprove it.

So far that has been happening with underwhelming momentum.

And then above

...you acolytes of the Church of GW won't answer a simple question and won't face a simple fact i.e the earth has stopped warming! It may be brief it may not - you don't know and neither do I.

It's not a question of scepticism - it's a matter of scientific fact!

Posted by: janama December 14, 2008 12:07am

To use your inverted take on science - no cooling has been proved, and indeed no 'plateauing' has been proved. This is simply because one decade is far too short a period of time in a climatic context to have statisitcal confidence in the movement of temperature over this span. And indeed, if one were to approach it in a more scientific fashion, one would find that the warming trend is not 'disproved', and that the general weight of data, whilst statistically insignificant, is still consistent with a warming trend.

Do yourself a favour: read Tamino's posts on time series analysis (someone might even be kind enough to bother to put up links for you), and learn a bit about high-school level science before making erroneous statements on matters about which you obviously have little knowledge.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

To use your inverted take on science - no cooling has been proved,

my chart (Roy's chart) shows cooling after 2005 - proven.

and indeed no 'plateauing' has been proved.

my chart shows plateau. - proven

This is simply because one decade is far too short a period of time in a climatic context to have statistical confidence in the movement of temperature over this span.

My chart spans 3 decades.

And indeed, if one were to approach it in a more scientific fashion, one would find that the warming trend is not 'disproved', and that the general weight of data, whilst statistically insignificant, is still consistent with a warming trend.

agreed - .2C over 30 years or .8C over 100.

nothing to get your knickers in a knot about!

Janama, they're not your charts.

See we can all play stupid childish games.

What you need to do is publish a paper with all that information in it. Blogging about science isn't really doing it.

> agreed - .2C over 30 years or .8C over 100.

janama: The globe is cooling.

Bernard J.: No, it's warming.

janama: Yes, it's warming. But the warming rate is nothing to worry about! Errgo, it's still cooling.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Science As She Is Did.

Since when did I say I was doing science NT? and when did I claim the charts were mine?

Bernard. Yes - at this rate we have a warming rate that is equivalent to the past century. My father didn't notice it, did your grandfather?

clarencegirl - just one asprin a day for my heartache, not my headache.

janama: It's warming, but very slowly, so it's actually cooling! It's warming, so it's cooling! It's warming, so it's cooling! It's warming, so it's cooling! IT'S WARMING, SO IT'S COOLING! IT'S WARMING, SO IT'S COOLING! IT'S WARMING, SO IT'S COOLING! IT'S WARMING, SO IT'S COOLING! IT'S WARMING, SO IT'S COOLING! IT'S WARMING, SO IT'S COOLING! IT'S WARMING, SO IT'S COOLING! GALILEO! GALILEO! GALILEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Janama.

A hint, young fella-me-lad.

When we speak of 'warming' or 'cooling' in a climate context, we do not simply compare what the temperature is over one year with what it was in the previous year. We do not even compare the temperatures of several years with those of a group of several previous years.

Using your logic, the area where I live must be about to head into winter, because it's been colder for the last few days than it was a month ago - up to 17C colder for the recent daily maxima.

Of course, as I live in the southern hemisphere that is bollocks.

And it is bollocks because I cherry-picked an inappropriate span of time with which to perform my 'analysis'. Nevertheless, with your technique I should be telling my community that it is going to get colder over the coming month, even though science tells me otherwise.

Sadly, your narrative is uninformed.

Even more sadly your narrative is incoherent, and even more incoherent than Frank points out at #39:

my chart (Roy's chart) shows cooling after 2005 - proven.

my chart shows plateau. - proven

And indeed, if one were to approach it in a more scientific fashion, one would find that the warming trend is not 'disproved', and that the general weight of data, whilst statistically insignificant, is still consistent with a warming trend.

agreed - .2C over 30 years or .8C over 100.

So, it's warming except when it's plateauing, and except when it's cooling. That just about covers all of it I think... Clever, indeed.

Janama - a question: when does warming/cooling due to meteorological noise (and overlying non-GG forcings) become a climate trend, and no longer a weather trend?

And a supplemetary: if you were able to make a distinction in the previous question, why did you confabulate two different measures?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

Janama: a blip in a graph, even a relatively large blip, does not prove a new trend. You need to take some basic statistics courses and, before you insist that you have some statistical knowledge, the 'law of averages' you referred to in your first comment is the hallmark of someone who knows no statistics.

"my chart (Roy's chart) shows cooling after 2005 - proven."

"my chart shows plateau. - proven"

"My chart spans 3 decades."

". . . when did I claim the charts were mine?"

Think before writing.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

David Deming:

To the extent that global warming ever existed, it is now officially over.

Pretty arrogant isn't he?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

So it took us 2,700 years to catch up with Isaiah's discovery that Eagles can fly. If I were so religious, I might be more concerned about Revelation 11:18, which promises that "small and great", the Lord shall "destroy them which destroy the earth."

Is it just me, or does "Janama Goose-now" have a perverse ring to it?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

janama:
> I don't need a link to the definition of ad hom.

Here's the source of your problems. Despite deep ignorance on many subjects, you've somehow convinced yourself you know it all. This condition has a name: [Dunning-Kruger effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect). You enjoy and protect your ignorance because it keeps your certain and safe world free from uncertainty.

P.S. Hot tip: posting links to denier blogs in support of your 'argument' won't float many boats amongst the scientifically literate.

P.P.S. A copy / paste of mine that never receives a (coherent) answer:

Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms that [recent climate change is due to human activity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change).

Provide **evidence** that these tens of thousands of scientists (and supporting personnel) have been wrong or lying in unison *and* fabricating supporting data for *decades* in a massive global conspiracy.

If you cannot provide that evidence, you are nothing more than a delusional idiot, no different to creationists, flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers.

P.P.P.S. Even though I just called you an idiot, it's still not an 'ad hominem'. Keep taking the aspirin.

The Sun's warming or cooling the earth varies with sunspot and Solar flairs.

And then he can't even spell flares! ROTFL!

Since when did I say I was doing science[,] NT?

Science is the only way to argue with science. So, you better had been doing science!!!

By David MarjanoviÄ (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

janama :

my chart (Roy's chart) shows cooling after 2005 - proven.

Yes, the end slope of a cubic regression on such noisy data has SO much statistical significance.

This is simply because one decade is far too short a period of time in a climatic context to have statistical confidence in the movement of temperature over this span.

Amazing. His conclusion is based on the slope that relies on three years of data and then he says that ten years is far too short a period of time to have statistical confidence. None so blind as those who do not see their own hypocrisy.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

Chris at #51.

The second quote you give is actually janama quoting me at #36, in my penultimate paragraph, but without using any punctuation or html. Hence the apparent contradiction.

Nevertheless, his (only) point was that 'his' chart "spans 3 decades", so that obviously somehow makes his interpretation of three years of data valid.

And it should be noted also that he did not actually acknowledge that a decade is too short a time in which to draw climatic conclusions; he merely implied that a three-decade span of a 'chart' validates his non-statistical conclusions about the last few years at the end of the x axis.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

Denning is a gem. Wiki quotes him thusly in response to a female gun control advocate:

I just want to point out that Kletter's 'easy access' to a vagina enables her to 'quickly and easily' have sex with 'as many random people' as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. Let's hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs.

The dangers of an unregistered vagina are nothing compared to the danger of an unregistered asshole like Denning.

You knew it was coming... (pun intended)

"Vaginas don't kill people. People kill people"

Janama:

"at this rate we have a warming rate that is equivalent to the past century. My father didn't notice it, did your grandfather?"

My maternal grandfather's family was driven off the plains by the Dust Bowl drouth in the 30s. My paternal Grandfather's family managed to stay intact on a Missouri dirt farm, but with several serious drouth-related crop failures during the 30s, leading to extreme poverty in my father's childhood years. So, yes, both my grandfathers noticed it.

Janama,
Add a cycle (El Nino/La Nina) and a rising trend (global warming) and you will get sudden peaks (eg 1998) and plateaus (eg now). The proof of global warming is that the temperature has plateau-ed, even during a La Nina downturn. It hasn't dropped, which is what one would expect in the absence of warming. When the next El Nino comes around, expect to see a peak like 1998, only much hotter.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

janama tried ignorantly:

oh so they are different and that is the difference? I think not. Lay them out and they are two different readings.

They are indeed. UAH TLT is an interpretation of microwave soundings from an average of 4-7 km above the surface. The Met Office is the actual readings at the surface.

So if you want to follow temperatures in the atmosphere because we all live in dirigibles, good for you.

Now, where's that [killfile]? Oh, yes.

Best,

D

I've prepared a website listing the 614 authors of IPCC's AR4 wg1, with a link to their homepage at a university or government research institute, wherever available (over 560 links found). I've also got a longer list of over 1350 climate scientists, built up by collecting names of co-authors of wg1 authors, colleagues within their department, etc.:
Top-cited climate authors

For fun I also gathered URLs of a photo of each one where possible (over 450). I'm in the process of tabulating the number of citations of their four top-cited scholarly publications, as found via Google Scholar (a bit over 2/3 done those stats) as well as the year of their PhD if stated. I include links to do the Google Scholar search for yourself to see what they've written.

I use a simple perl script to convert my tabular text file into the HTML pages of this site.

This may be useful as a counter to the suggestion that the Inhofe 400 or 650 either carry as much weight, have similar qualifications, or that they include a significant fraction of IPCC scientists (they don't). Eventually it might make sense to subject at least a sampling of the Inhofe list to this same treatment, though this is pretty labour-intensive. I've got about a dozen names in my longer list that are 'known skeptics' that do actually have publication track records. I'm thinking about how to present them within the longer list to show how few of the authors in the scientific literature identify as skeptics.

I'll be out of town for two weeks starting next Friday, with only dial-up access, so I will rest from my labours on this until the new year. Happy holidays to all.

Jim Prall
Toronto, Canada

Excellent work, Jim - added to my Denier Slayer war chest.

Jim.

Outstanding work - kudos.

It would be interesting indeed to see this treatment applied to Inhofe's list, as bob and others appear to be doing.

Being the sort of geek who will plot just about anything if it can be quantified (I graphed my partner's contractions - cool!), I would be interested to see a metric of the credibility of both sides of the matter.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

I came to this blog via a link from Denialism blog (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php). It's remarkable how well janama fits into their descriptions of denialists as a group. Reading the above page has convinced me of the futility of engaging a denialist head-on. It's worth a look, but it may result in less blog traffic over time 8^).

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

Janama: "My father didn't notice it, did your grandfather?"

Ah, argument from *inherited* personal incredulity. So persuasive.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 14 Dec 2008 #permalink

I've just updated my list with the latest batch of citation stats I've been able to collect - up to letter R of AR4 wg1.

I noticed the prominent Dr. Erich Roeckner of the Max-Planck Institute, father of their ECHAM-4 climate model, and I thought I'd seen his name in another list. Yikes! Sure enough, there he is in the Inhofe 400 and the new 650, quotemined out of a hatchet job in Der Spiegel where he is quoted saying "Clouds are still our biggest headache" and that "No model will ever be as complex as nature." (no duh)
The catch is that those are not the words of a skeptic - they're honest reflections of the limits of the state of climate science and modeling by a really heavy-hitting "alarmist". Here's a quick counter-quotemine:
ThinkExist (great site for quoteminers, whether for evil or for good.)
I've cross-posted this find on Rabett Run and one other place. I should have added it to my own blog first I guess - oh well.

Boris's insight at #53 provides a revealing picture of Denning. If he really thought the comparison of guns with vaginas was valid, well, he's both a king-sized prat and probably a prime target for some serious head shrinking.

Little penis syndrome, maybe?

Of course, he might be correct; after all, people with vaginas tend to live longer than people without them, so maybe it is advantageous to carry a vagina.

If so, there should be a clause in the constitution that protects everybody's right to bare vaginas.

What would the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) say?

Someone please tell me that Denning was being ironic.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Dec 2008 #permalink

If so, there should be a clause in the constitution that protects everybody's right to bare vaginas.

I would support an amendment.

Are not homonyms grand?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Dec 2008 #permalink

Levity aside, I find it bemusing that the First Ammendment permits specious comparisons, such as Deming's likening of female anatomical features to weapons, to pass without challenge. It seems to me that something else was violated in that crass metaphor.

Somewhat less crass would have been a replacement of 'vagina' with 'penis' - if any organ is comparable to a gun, it is this one. Of course, then his argument might have fallen down...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Dec 2008 #permalink

Jim,

Nice work indeed. You should check with How to talk to a Climate Skeptic and Skeptical Science to see if they have a section that could link to it. Links to the authors' university webpages are a nice touch.

Jim Prall:

Thank you for your efforts. Outstanding work, sir.

And we also thank your countrymen for the political theater.

Building on Bernard J's theme, I say: "Save a gun, eat a beaver."

Best,

D

In defense of the University of Oklahoma:

David Deming is no longer in Geosciences. He is a Professor of "Arts and Sciences", a man with no department and no teaching responsibilities, since his vagina letter and other embarrassments. Tenure can be a terrible thing.

As for Blick, he has been retired for years. The Oklahoma Board of Engineers revoked his engineer's license years ago because of unethical behavior.

As for Blick, he has been retired for years. The Oklahoma Board of Engineers revoked his engineer's license years ago because of unethical behavior.

What'd he do? Bare his vagina?

dhough: You can't just drop a sentence like "the vagina letter" without some explanation. That's just too tempting.

[David Deming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming#Sexual_Harassment_Charges)

In February 2000, Deming wrote a letter criticizing Yale University student Joni Kletter's February 18, 2000 syndicated article on gun control published in the University of Oklahoma's student newspaper, The Oklahoma Daily - a letter for which the professor was charged for sexual harassment. In her article, Kletter had claimed that "easy access to a handgun allows everyone in this country...to quickly and easily kill as many random people as they want." In his rebuttal, Deming used Kletter's own argument against her, stating[51]

"I just want to point out that Kletter's 'easy access' to a vagina enables her to 'quickly and easily' have sex with 'as many random people' as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. Let's hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs."

well, i guess we all understood the context.

the problem with it is, that it isn t just offensive. it is stupid as well.

yes, you can put "guns", "vaginas" or "nukes" into that sentence. and yes, it makes a difference.

Perhaps the USAdians here can enlighten me...

Dening's piece in the Washington Times surely carries little or no weight amongst the paper's readership? After all is sliced and diced, his reputation after that letter must sink any credibility he might have with people acquainted with it?

'Ceptin' of course with the gun totin', 'baccy spittin', brigade... And do such folk read the Times?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Janama doesn't note that the rise in sea level "slowed" in 1999 in the same fashion he is arguing that it has slowed recently. As we can all see from the graph, that slowing was just noise.

What does this show? Janama is either 1) an idiot 2) dishonest or 3) both .

By t_p_hamilton (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

John B- who cares. A petition has no scientific weight. Creationists can get together similar lists, with the same lack of information.
The only use for a petition or survey is to find out how many people think something. In the discussion about climate change, it is nothing more than propaganda.

Thank you! That quote from Blick clears up alot for me. I've been puzzled at the connection between Christian fundamentalism and global warming denial. So, apparently, they're complaining about AGW contradicting their own special addition to the Bible: Revelations. Somehow, AGW is more threatening than any of the other examples of man made pollution changing the environment. Could also be a chicken and egg problem though, religion being used as a cover for the actual political inspiration. Could be more fear of Al Gore to this than fear of God. And since many of the far right in the US are also fundamentalists, they look for justification in religion. Its still confusing though how the recent evangelical environmentalism movement relates to this phenomenon. The evangelical environmentalists don't seem to have a problem with AGW, and they're just as Republican, and just as creationist, as their brethren. Maybe Janama can shed some light on this?

Mike: Re: Environmental evangelicals. Funny you should mention that just now.

Yes, the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, a long-time climate advocate, was the target of ejection attempts by other evangelicals, and was finally removed a few days ago due to a less-than-intolerant stance on civil unions.

What about the 30,000+ signatories at:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
(includes more than 9,000 with PhDs)

Two things must be noted here:

1. Petitions signatures can be faked. A dozen verified experts are more credible than 30,000 questionable supporters.

2. Appealing to popularity for a position is a logical fallacy.

By Dale Husband (not verified) on 18 Dec 2008 #permalink

janama posts:

religiously motivated pseudoscience.
well so is believing in virgin birth and The Ascension.

Neither has been advanced as science, so they can't be pseudoscience. Christian belief is that they are miracles; i.e., events introduced into nature from a supernatural source.

janama writes:

you acolytes of the Church of GW won't answer a simple question and won't face a simple fact i.e the earth has stopped warming! It may be brief it may not - you don't know and neither do I.
It's not a question of scepticism - it's a matter of scientific fact!

Well, no. It's a counterfactual belief held by you due to your ignorance of statistics.

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Ball.html

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Reber.html

DavidONE writes:

I'm sure there are many IPCC authors who are practicing Christians.
No doubt there are some, but the tendency to believe in Bronze Age fairy stories decreases with level of education / IQ: e.g.

You mean, the kind of education that lets people know that the Bible is A) Iron Age, not Bronze Age, and B) not a fairy tale, since a fairy tale is a specific genre from Renaissance Europe that the Bible in no way fits?

I've got a degree in physics, and I'm a born-again Christian. Am I a contradiction in terms, or might the world be a bit more complicated than in your religious prejudices?

While Barton and I certainly do not share spiritual viewpoints (I'm an open atheist, although more of the Victor Stenger variety than the Richard Dawkins sort), I do agree with him that David's categorization of Biblical beliefs was incorrect. I would also like to add that it's perfectly possible to be secular and religious at the same time, simply by holding your faith to be personal as opposed to social (a classic example would be the US Founding Fathers, who were (on the most part) pious deists but governed on secular principles). Many of the religious scientists I know operate like this, recognizing that supernatural events (if they exist) are outside the domain of science, sort of in a Gould-esque NOMA argument. (FWIW, I also hold a degree in physics, though I openly admit Barton's the superior physicist; I'm woefully out of practice, having worked in cognitive science for years.)

That said, last I checked, university professors were, as a group, among the most likely to declare "no religion" or some variant thereof, with the propensity to identify with a religion increasing as education decreased. This does NOT suggest that individual cases of educated theists, like BPL, are contradictions -- just that they are a minority. (To claim otherwise is to fall in the same trap that critics of Oreskes fall into when they say her study showed no papers dissenting from the consensus; there is a difference between "zero" and "statistically indistinguishable from zero". In this case, it's larger than zero, but the point still holds.) I'd have to check the statistics again, but to the best of my knowledge Barton's disputing a correct point, possibly because it was delivered disrespectfully.

Barton, your expertise is wasted arguing points like this; indeed, I would argue that your perspective here is invaluable at demolishing the "Church of AGW" claims, in addition to the usual debunking of just plain ol' bad physics. Very few of the regulars here are openly religious and thus are more likely to be unskilled in countering faith-based arguments compared to one familiar with both faith and science.

Global warming the New Religion

Here is my 2 cents.
Go to Icap.us and read what you see there.
Also go and read http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/39278#comment-14496 it contradicts what this article says

Back in the early 1800 it was global cooling then in late 1890s and early 1900 it was global warming. In the 1930's to 1970s it was global cooling. Then from the lat 1990s to recent it was global warming again now it Global cooling. Is this not a pattern? The respecting pattern. I few years ago I was reading an article that talked about global temperature patterns. In this article it was saying that there are patterns in the 200k year, 18k to 20k year, 1500 to 2000 year, a 400 year, a 200 year, a 40 year, 20 year, and a 4 year cycles where you can go back and see the temperature flux. They were saying that we were at the end of the 18k to 20k year cycle, the 400 yr cycle the 200 yr cycle, the 40 yr cycle, and 4 yr cycle. Now to be at the end of all the cycles and the end of the solar cycle does that not mean something? It was also saying that the larger 18k to 20k could end any time in the next 50 year. 18k years ago Chicago, IL was under one mile of Ice.
With this recent warming there have been the uncovering of mines and farm in places like Alaska, Canada, and Green Land that have been covered with Ice for over 200 years. Tool were stowed for the winter but never were returned to.

Global Warming has become a new religion by environmentalist and those that want to take your freedoms away by laying guilt on you for destroying the environment. They don't want you to be free to travel when you want, or to drive what you want. They want to say were and how you can live and at what temperature you can heat or cool your house. What lights you can use. Incandescent light don't use that much electricity any the don't hurt the environment when you throw them in the trash I dare you to brake a florescent bulb on the steps of the capital or city hall and watch the ferry or environmental hoops they got to jump threw to get it cleaned up. If you drop a one of each bulb in two rooms, one in one room, and call the health department and see what the process of clean up is and see what room you are allowed to go in to you will be amazed.

They green movement want to control every aspect of your life even what you eat, that sounds like Communism to me. You can be environmentally responsible with out someone telling you that you have to do it.

Green Tax, Carbon credit, florescent lighting, Bio fuels, Farm animal tax by EPA, SUV and Fuel tax, No new nuclear plants, No to clean Coal, No off shore drilling, endangered animals. All of this is just a big joke. Green Tax only hurts the poor and stifles business. Carbon credits don't save Jake. You're just moving money around not cleaning anything. Florescent light bulbs are some of the most dangers light bulbs produced due to the mercury in them. Bio fuels produce more carbon that any fossil fuel and drove food cost up as well. EPA wants to tax Farm animal farts. What about the deer, Bears, and Moose they get a tax too? There are way more of them. Some places have a Fuel consumption tax on SUVs and other low MPG vehicles. Were good does that do just another money grab. Nuclear plant are the cleanest production of energy currently available and the fuel can be recyclable and can reduce the stoke pile of spent fuel by 90% if it were allowed but recycling is FORBIDEN. Also environmentalists don't want any new nuclear plants, why? Clean coal is very cheap and with the new run on killing the coal industry will hurt the poor and others with utility bills going up by 100% or more. If we don't drill for our own oil the where will we get it? I can go on and on but just think about it.

Shane, can you give some references as to where exactly those supposed "mines and farm in places like Alaska, Canada, and Green Land that have been covered with Ice for over 200 years" are located and who discovered them?

Anyone who is at all knowledgeable will know that these claims have been discredited.

One farm in Greenland was uncovered but it was not covered in ice but with sand and silt from melting glaciers (see: GÃ¥rden under Sandet or the Farm under the sand: http://www.ualberta.ca/~publicas/folio/38/16/03.html)

You deniers sure are taken in very easily by shoddy reporting in your denier web sites.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 18 Dec 2008 #permalink

You deniers sure are taken in very easily by shoddy reporting in your denier web sites.

In spite of calling themselves skeptics they have no skepticism of their own position at all. They're not skeptics they're hypocrites.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 18 Dec 2008 #permalink

No, Shane can't be real. It's too good. We're being punked.

Is there a Christmas rush on denialist trolling?

Shane displays so many of the hoary old chestnuts of AGW denialism that one would need a wheelbarrow to haul them to the hearth for roasting.

Shane, you are a little paranoid, and a lot wrong.

And sometimes you're not even wrong: "Clean coal is very cheap..." Um, can you point us to where 'clean' coal even exists outside of a fossil fuel proponent's wet dream? And if it's so cheap, you surely have the proof to demonstrate this - please, could you share?

Now, if we could tax Stupid, we'd be halfway to solving the genuine problems of the planet.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Dec 2008 #permalink

This is my first visit to this Blog and I must say I'm impressed. Well done.

It was my impression that clean coal was not about the coal itself but the processes and filters applied in the plant. This would make clean coal quite expensive not cheap.

Have I missed something, or is Shane just making thing up?

Shane's making it up, though your understanding isn't off. "Clean coal" doesn't refer to the coal, but rather is short for "clean coal power". When the coal industry uses the term it refers to stuff it's already done, things like capturing the sulphur dioxides that led to acid rain. When the reality-based community uses it, it refers to coal power that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, which doesn't yet exist.

To put this in perspective, last I checked, average electricity generation rates were around 6 cents per kilowatt-hour. Coal with carbon capture and sequestration is considered uneconomical at around 9 cents, and even then it can't be deployed everywhere (depends on geography). (Additionally, nuclear works out to around 13 cents per kWh. Proponents of nuclear tend to ignore that little detail.)

You are calling me a denier and paranoid. Of what? I did not say the earth was getting hotter or colder. I was saying that it goes threw cycles, respecting cycles. One of the articles that I've red in the past some guy was saying that we were coming to the end of a few of them. If I made it seem like the earth was going to freeze over I'm sorry I did not mean that.
Do we know what the hottest or coldest temperatures ever were on earth? No we do not. We have only been keeping track temperature for the past 200 year or so and even at that the record are not world wide. Much of the US has not kept record past 100 years. Also these records may not intrepid the true temperature do to any number of reasons. To accurately keep track of temperature you would need to find an area that was undisturbed with few building with glass and little concrete or asphalt around it. Glass and artificially increase the temperature by reflection of the sun. Asphalt traps heat casing temperatures to remain hotter for longer period of time. So if you had a thermometer on your back porch that was open with a tree in the back year and it faces the south you would have a good read as long as the were no window that reflected the sun close to the thermometer. Now you cut down the tree, and you glass in your porch the temperature read will no longer represent the true temperature. The glassed in porch will hold in heat and with the tree gone the sun now directly hit the porch causing the temperature to increase. Here in San Antonio, TX. The international airport on the north side is about 4 degrees cooler the AFB on the south west side of town. So it also depends on it the location of the temperature reading has changed.
I can go to several sites that support or appose GW and they will have temperatures supporting their view. Supporters that support GW say that 1998 was the hottest year on record, but other say it was 1938 or 39. To get the real temperature change you would have to pick X amount of locations around the world and average them out. You can NOT add or take away from those sites so if you have 100 sites around the world 300 years ago you would have to have to same 100 site today. Any addition or subtraction to these location and number would alter toy averages.
Since we do not have more then about 100 to 200 years of partial data and the addition of satellites did not come tile the 70 there is no way to be 100% certain what the condition were prior to that. And who is to say what the average temperature is really supposed to be. According to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/ the temperature in the recent years may be warmer then the last few hundred your or so its still colder the it was with the dinosaurs. There is also a great chart of Greenland over the last 18000 years. So if you look at all the chars and read thought it what we see in temperature change is just normal changes that the earth goes through.

Shane, you just described all the conditions and issues which climatologists and meteorologists and others have known about and built around for decades. For example in answer to your point about a glassed in porch, the Stephenson screen was invented in the 19th century.

The point about dinosaurs is irrelevant as well, after all I am sure you don't want to live in a swamp, not to mention the air-con needed.
The point is that the current climatic conditions and sea level are ones we have grown used to, and spent trillions building infrastructure which is good for living in the current conditions. When conditions change, things get expensive and in many, many cases much harder, as rivers fail to rise due to lack fo snow melt or too much rain happens at once.

Shane, the AGW claim is NOT that the modern temperature increase has never been seen before in the Earth's history. This is patently false. However, it has never been seen before in [i]human[/i] history. All of human civilization -- including that extremely climate-sensitive field of [b]agriculture[/b] -- appeared in a relatively narrow temperature band. Human civilization has formed to the climates it grew up in. Start monkeying with temperature, and those climates shift, essentially spinning the roulette wheel with your entire culture.

Oh, and as for the surface station siting problems, John V at ClimateAudit essentially showed that wasn't a problem. He took only the best-sited stations (as determined by SurfaceStations.org), ran them through the published GISS algorithms, and compared the result to GISS' official analysis using all stations. The result was astonishingly good agreement, which suggests that either GISS properly adjusts for poor siting and/or that the criteria by which stations are judged were poor.

By the way, an example of WHY you think we call you "denialist": A classic denialist property is selectivity, or 'cherry-picking' data to support your view and only your view. The problem with doing this is that you often select data poorly and end up contradicting yourself. Your reply spends a LONG time talking about how we only have a few hundred years of temperature data and thus can't see further back, only to end by mentioning we have data going back to the dinosaurs. Doesn't this raise a red flag about a flaw in your thinking?

(On a related note, it's not the "warmers" who cite 1998 or 1934. It's the denialists. The 'warmers' acknowledge 1998 was an El Nino year and thus an outlier on the temperature record, and that 1934 was only the hottest year [i]in the continental United States[/i] (roughly 2% of the globe). The denialists point to both years and claim the globe's cooling.)

Now what I was saying about GW as the new religion is that there are some that are trying to use GW as a way to kill capitalism. They do not want use to be free and want to control what we can and can't do. You can say that I'm paranoid here if you want, but when some one tells you that you can drive your car or heat your house because you are killing the planet and tell you what light you can buy then we got a problem. I do not like when environmentalists and other like Al Gore promotes Going Green and does not like by example. Al Gore has made about $50 million off this whole green thing that he is cramming down every ones throat. And why do we need carbon credits? They are a joke, just another tax. There are many ways to be responsible with out taxing or mandating unrealistic goals that will choke our economy. And I'm not saying not to have regulation and fined for dumping waist in rivers and lakes.
We can not do squat to change the temperature on planet earth the temperature is controlled by the Sun number 1. With no sun we become a ball of ice. After that in no particular order, Water vapor, ocean currents, wind currents, Ocean temperatures, the amount of Dust and other particles in the air. The tilt of the earth in relation to sun, the orbit pattern between earth and sun, any volcanic activity, tectonic plate movement and a few other thing I cant thing of just off hand. Now if the temperature increases CO2 leave increase as a result. But lets say the green house gases did make the temperature rise. It would also increase the amount of water vapor in the air. This can cause a reverse affect so it balances out. I will try to write up an article explaining it in detail with references. But for those who are absolute about your side there will be no amount of information that will change your main even if you are freezing your back side off you will still blame humans for. I can not change what I can not change so I adapt.
Here in Texas it get hot in the summer, over 100+ f so we have air conditioners to cool the homes here. In the winter it can get in the 20s f and teens, so we also have heaters to keep warm. This year at my house I've seen our low temperatures in the high 20s f for a total of 6 day between November and December. We are healthier today with the technology that we have then we were 100 yrs ago and to force new laws and taxes to changes the way we live is not a viable solution. Would you rather breathe dust and horse manure or car exalt? With a horse you could not go very far or very fast. I have both and I prefer to drive my car the 52 mile I need to go to work then ride my horse.
Take a look at all the thing you use on a daily bases and list me the thing you can not do with out then look at what was used to make those things. There is more pollution in the manufacturing of a Toyota Preis then driving of an H2 hummer for 300k mile due to the nickel and Zink in the batteries and all the plastic in the car to keep it light enough to balance the power to weight ratio. I also tried finding the cost per KWH for each of the types of power plants like wind, nuke, coal, gas, and solar but with all the subsidies and taxes and environmental legal cost, and lake of maintenance figures and every site promoting their favorite power I can not get an accurate costing. I would like to see some data that is non bias and non promoting of a particular type of power. Every site I came across says why there type of power is better. For example is wind they don't take in consideration of the amount of power produced compared to the overall cost of maintenance and power line required to run the power to the city. Here in San Antonio if you want to you wind power you bill goes up $0.14 per KWh. But with all the new taxes that coal will be getting it screws the number up.

Okay, back to my troll race.

I need to do it on my geocities, I think, vs. my bloggy thing.

It's like a cockroach race.

so, I will restart the race:

shane:

According to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/ the temperature in the recent years may be warmer then the last few hundred your or so its still colder the it was with the dinosaurs. There is also a great chart of Greenland over the last 18000 years. So if you look at all the chars and read thought it what we see in temperature change is just normal changes that the earth goes through.

(IR/W*) *Illiteracy read/write

janama:

Obviously if there are still people who are skeptical after reading the papers the theory hasn't been proven.

(BI*) Breath-taking idiocy

so the troll race starts now:

shane
|###|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

janama
|###|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

I must be masochistic.

Shane, I don't use this term lightly, but you are fractally wrong.

1) You bring up folk trying to kill capitalism, when anyone who's been following green economics lately knows that
a) Saving energy means saving money in addition to cutting carbon
b) Investment in green technologies has continued to grow in spite of the recession
c) Modern free-marketer thinkers, including Thomas Friedman, and Nobel-prize-winning economists like Paul Krugman, are calling for green investment
In short, all of these folk are trying to *use* capitalism to solve the problem, not kill it. (This sets aside that free-marketers have apparently ignored the full costs of energy in much the same way that Enron ignored costs; trying to fix this wouldn't result in "killing freedom" but rather fixing a problem. But I digress.)

2) Al Gore means dick-all to the problem. He's a populist, nothing more. Denialists tend to be the ones who bring him up -- this is actually known as Gore's Law. (For the record, though, carbon offsets -- provided they are legitimate and not faked -- essentially amount to a charitable donation where the beneficiary is the atmosphere. Think of it that way.)

3) Your grasp of climate is weak. Climate comes down to one, and only one, thing -- the Earth's energy (im)balance. This is fundamentally a factor of three things: Insolation, albedo, and the thermal properties of the atmosphere. The former hasn't changed in at least 30 years (there's even evidence of a slight decline, which leads to many of the "we're going into an ice age!" denialist memes). The Earth's albedo can and has been impacted by human means (to whit, this is why it cooled mid-century: Increased industrial emission of aerosols). Similarly, the thermal properties of the atmosphere easily can be impacted by human activity: Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm it up, and this has been known for over a century now. The only question is how much, and you appear to argue that value is zero.

4) You state that rising water vapor as an impact of rising temperature will "even [it] out". Water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas. It just isn't a forcing due to its low residency time; it acts as a feedback since its atmospheric concentration is heavily dependent on temperature. This means that a small increase in atmospheric temperature means a bit more water vapor goes into the atmosphere, which heats the atmosphere more, causing more water vapor, and so on. (It isn't linear and will eventually reach a new equilibrium rather than running away on us, but I'm trying to explain this at your amateurish level.) Our understanding of water vapor's role as a feedback points to it being a *positive* feedback, not a negative one, meaning that it will not "even out" any temperature increase -- it will compound it.

5) Weather at your house is not the same as climate over the globe. You seem to be confused yet again.

6) The Prius/H2 myth has been thoroughly debunked. (That's just one of several such debunkings.) That you mention it means you haven't bothered to critically check your own positions and instead choose to parrot unsubstantiated claims that support your bias.

...I could go on but my lunch break is already almost over.

On one final note, look down, specifically underneath your right pinky. See that? It's the [Return] key. It puts in paragraph returns. Your lack of paragraph breaks, compounded by your lack of spellchecking, only serves to paint you in a negative light when folk come to assess your credibility. When combined with the fractal wrongness of your positions, as shown above, you only dig yourself a deeper pit to hide in.

...Summer Glau

BPL:

For that matter, evil Al Gore is a Christian (Southern Baptist) and a strong believer in free market capitalism. (For which, at the time, I critiqued Earth in the Balance endlessly, for letting the capitalist world off because Gore paid zero attention to externalities caused anywhere but the tax base of the multinational corporation involved).

I am a non-christian and think capitalism is a pseudoscientific cult worse than marxism-leninism, but the idea that some sort of strawman pc leftisim is a requirement to be able to read data is just sad.

It's boilerplate. Everyone that believes in evolution is supposed to be Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, too.

Because I don't want Mike Godwin on my ass, I won't point out which movement most used that tactic of compiling all its diverse enemies into a monolithic and threatening allied Other* - although the W admin is doing a good job of it, too.

*And the irony was, of course, that this is usually a self-fulfilling prophecy.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

I am sorry for any type-o and grammar errors in my writings I blame MS Word for some of it but writing has never been my strong point but I'm working on it. And if you want me to stop writing just say so it will not hurt my feelings.

I do understand how the climate works and my bad if I did not complete the thought on it. Yes green house gases do have an effect on global temperature to a degree. My observation is not 0 nor a very small part. I just see to many site that blame it solely on humanity and CO2 outputs.

Here is a task for you, give me the amount of annual contrabutions of CFMs and Green house gases that Humans, Volcanoes, Forest fires, and Oceans give off.

Yes with the increase in temperature it also increases the amount of water vapor. When I meant it could or can cause a reversal affect was not saying the affect would be immediately. Tell me what happens if you increase the amount of water vapor in the Polar Regions? Will you not have an increase in the amount of cloud cover? Will or will not there be an increase in snowfall at Polar Regions? If you have increase cloud cover does this reflect sun light out or trap heat in? If you have in crease snow does this reflect light or not?

What was the cause of the 1816 cooling? Volcano emissions? Increased cloud cover?

Why does that the earth has different seasons? Why is it that the southern hemisphere has winter when the north has summer? How it is that winter is colder then summer? Would we have seasons if the earth was at a 90 degree angle to the sun verses the 23 degree angle that we are currently at? And what would the seasons be like if we were at 45 degrees angle?

As far as I know but Please correct me if I'm wrong, we have summer and winter due to the angle at which the sun hits the earth. So if the earth was at 90 degrees then we would have constant temperature. If it was at a 45 degree angle then our winter would be real cold and summers really hot. If this correct? Also if the earth average angle is between 20 and 24 degrees and we are at 23.x then would this affect the overall temperature?

I read that the North Pole shifted 4 degrees is this true and if so how would it affect the weather?

The oceans act as a heat sink. They help regulate the surface temperature so if the sun put out more radiation causing an increase in temperature they help buffers it. If there is a lack of solar activity this affect will help keep us warmer. Is this not right? Is this the reason why we see the change in the earth's temperature a few years after a steady increase or decrease in solar activity?

So lets put the sun aside for a bit, and look at just green house gases which help trap heat in keeping the planet warmer. Oh if there is no sun output then what redaction will the green house gasses be able to trap. Oh my bad a bit of sarcasm, sorry.
Let say that the sun was a constant and did not change its output. And no volcanoes to screw with the climate. We now have GHG, Ocean currents, Ocean levels, trade winds, polar caps, and what else I'm missing something here? Ok let just go with that.
Earth gets warmer because of increasing GHG with melts the polar caps. Now one of two things will happen here. If the sea levels rise then that may change ocean currents by connecting bodies of water casting What? Or just the arctic melts causing the desalination of the north Atlantic and the arctic sea. That would do what? Would it increase the amount of water in the air crating cloud cover possibly causing it to get colder?

I got to run will be back later.

(I started this hours ago whilst doing more productive things, and I have been gazumped several times by other respondents, and especially by Brian D's excellent post, but what the heck - I'll proffer my two bits anyway just for the record...)

Shane.

Global Warming has become a new religion by (sic) environmentalist (sic) and those that (sic) want to take your freedoms away... They don't want you to be free to travel when you want, or to drive what you want. They want to say were (sic) and how you can live and at what temperature you can heat or cool your house. What lights you can use... They (sic) green movement want to control every aspect of your life even what you eat, that sounds like Communism to me.

Erm, maybe it's just me, but those rambles 'sound like' the sort that someone touched by a little paranoia might come up with.

Do you check under your bed every night before going to sleep?

As to what it is that you deny, how about the 'A' in AGW?

Now what I was saying about GW as the new religion is that there are some that are trying to use GW as a way to kill capitalism. They do not want use to be free and want to control what we can and can't do. You can say that I'm paranoid here if you want

Ok, since you insist - you're paranoid.

[W]hen some one tells you that you can drive your car or heat your house because you are killing the planet and tell you what light you can buy then we got a problem

Yes, but it's not the problem that you believe it to be.

The problem is that if we continue to drive our cars the way that we do, or to heat our houses the way that we do, then the whole planet will pay a hefty price. No-one's saying that we can't have transport and heating - just that we need to be a bit more clever about it if we're all going to expect such luxuries.

And in energetic terms they are luxuries. Have you ever sat down to calculate the energy budgets required for sustaining these human activities? Have you ever tried to calculate the energy budgets required to provide every human on the planet now, and in the next few generations, with the standard of energy consumption that the Western countries currently maintain?

Nice incoherent ramble about the heat island effect: it will probably come as a great surprise to you to find that scientists have understood about the 'effect' for decades and take it into account. If you only glean your material from denialist sites you wouldn't be aware of this.

And who is to say what the average temperature is really supposed to be.

The point is not what average temperature is supposed to be, but rather how quickly it increases to a point where ecosystems, and attendant ecosystem functions, cannot cope. In the past species and ecosystems have adapted over evolutionary scales, or have become extinct. With the rapid forcing resulting from human emissions we are essentially removing any chance of evolutionary adaptation, so the choice for many species is... extinction. And if humans are fortunate enough to avoid extinction, well, there's still a significant potential for a much less congenial environment for future generations.

If you don't understand this you obviously do not understand how reliant humans are on the biosphere, once you lift up the skirts of technology.

But lets say the green house gases did make the temperature rise.

They do. Whether we 'say' it or not.

It would also increase the amount of water vapor in the air. This can cause a reverse affect so it balances out. I will try to write up an article explaining it in detail with references.

Oo, goodie - physics. Your article will be anticipated with much enthusiasm by those here who have read and worked with just this sort of material in their professional lives.

Seriously, I would suggest that you uncurl your fingers from their tight grip around the denialist pseudoscience that you've brushed against, and start here in answering your questions. Read the physics and the analyses performed by real scientists, and not the cobbled-together factoids of the ideologues and shills who haunt the denialist sites you seem to favour.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

Shane many of those are the kind of excellent questions that would be addressed in courses on climate, meteorology, geography (I guess), and so on.

Online there are good resources like Wikipedia and the IPCC (assuming you haven't been prejudiced against the latter by others' opinions).

shane posts:

But lets say the green house gases did make the temperature rise. It would also increase the amount of water vapor in the air. This can cause a reverse affect so it balances out.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, shane.

shane writes:

Here is a task for you, give me the amount of annual contrabutions of CFMs and Green house gases that Humans, Volcanoes, Forest fires, and Oceans give off.

According to the US Geological Survey, volcanoes emit about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. Human technology emits about 30 billion.

The oceans emit about 90 billion tons of carbon (not CO2) a year and take in 92; they are a net sink for carbon dioxide. This is the main reason carbon dioxide is not rising even faster in the atmosphere than it is.

I don't know about forest fires but I suspect the amount is negligible compared to human emissions.

Creationism and Climate Denialsim: Both are ideologies that have a set conclusion they then seek to 'prove' (the opposite of what science should be) both are pointless to argue against as they can never admit they are wrong and there is no evidence you can present that will sway them (see previous ideological point), both fight their battles with obfuscation 'cos they cannot win with the science, both claim there is a real debate to be had (there is just not where they are...) and both are funded by right-wing think tanks. Separated at birth? I think so.

After some long research I found what I was looking for. CO2 levels in the Atmosphere = about 383 ppm or about 0.083% of the air we breath. Yes it has increased over the last 150 year or more. But with the following data I can not say that it is cause buy Man or is the cause of GW there for I can not accept the argument for AGW. If you can give me different data that proves these numbers wrong I am open to it and will take it into consideration.
I have listed all my Wiki sources which I seemed to be linked back to by many of the sites I was looking at from both sides, so I decided to just list the wiki ones to cut the length of this piece.

First to get an idea of just how much CO2 we are talking about I wanted to find out the exact amount. I think one of the highest listing was something like387ppm, but wiki says 383ppm and 0.0383%. Almost all the charts I found did not run off a 0 axes but like 280 axes so the charts look worse then what they are.

According to Wikipideda which you have mentioned as a good source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
says that the earth's atmosphere is
780,840 ppmv (78.084%) nitrogen
209,460 ppmv (20.946%) oxygen
9,340 ppmv (0.9340%) argon
383 ppmv (0.0383%) carbon dioxide
18.18 ppmv (0.001818%) Neon
5.24 ppmv (0.000524%) Helium
1.745 ppmv (0.0001745%) Methane
1.14 ppmv (0.000114%) Krypton
0.55 ppmv (0.000055%) Hydrogen

So next I wanted to compare the CO2 levels to the temperature runs. I looked at many site and all have roughly the same charts but very a little here and there depending on the point they are pushing.

Here is a chart from junk science that shows CO2 levels and Temperature. And I see no coalition of the two over the 28 year track.

the CO2 seam to have a steady increase while temperature seem to dip, maybe the chart is wrong. So I when to other site and and I seem to be having a problem finding data or charts that directly compare Global temperatures and CO2 in resent years. Most are long term pulled from ice cores over thousands of year
s with some drastic spikes. Like the next Few which were link back to wiki.

Ice core data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice-core-isotope.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

After numerous charts like these here it seems that CO2 follows temperature change. I noticed that all the sites that correlate temperature to CO2 never seem to put the two on the same chart. Why is this?
After seeing this I decided to look up more on CO2 and its contributors and I found more of what I already new but my opinion out this is what I found. There is no real way to measure the actual amount of CO2 coming from Man, Volcanoes, oceans, and other earthly Natural sources. There are 2 main monitoring station and they are both on volcanoes so what else could it we compare it to? I did find this chart on several sights saying that its Fossil fuels.
Carbon flux and fossil fuel

But I see a problem here, CO2 started to go up before Fossil fuel burning and did not follow the same trend, interesting. I went back to the ice cores because I saw some solar reading in the ice, I found that the temperature and Co2 followed two things Dust in the air and solar output. With higher reading of dust in the ice shows lower CO2 and temperatures. Also when comparing solar activity with CO2 the CO2 level seem to rise with solar activity as well.
Temperature, CO2, and Sunspots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

Carbon-14 production

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14-sunspot.svg
So from this it tells me that the sun is the biggest contributor to temperature and CO2. if you block the sun with dust the temperature drops and so does CO2. unblocked Sun with higher output means higher temperatures and CO2.

This is why I do not believe in AGW.

more sunspot stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot-temperature-10000yr.svg

Wow. Somehow Shane got [unkill]ed and I read the above.

Shane, dude: you're hotter than Galileo, dude! You need to publish, man! Right away!

Best,

D

From Shane's site:
Limiting the speed limit to 55 will not say gas I have 4 cars and every 1 of them get better mpg at speed over 55.

You guys have devoted way too much time to this guy.

MarkusR
If you don't agree with the 55mph statement then that's your opinion.

Some cars will get better gas mileage at 55 mph. but most of those cars were built before the 90s. A cars gas mileage depends on 3 main factors, no. 1 Weight, no. 2 Power, ie horse power and flb torque, and no. 3 efficiency range of the engine under load.

So if the desired speed is 70 mph then when you build the car, you have to match the power of the engine to weight of the car so that the engine is not over worked in moving the weight of the car around. Then you have to find the efficiency rang of the engine. This is part of the power band that then engine works most efficient at, (the maximum amount of power with the least amount of effort or fuel consumption). So if your engine efficiency rang is from 1800 to 2500 rpm with a given load, then you would want your vehicle to be geared to run at 70 at about 1800 to 2000 rpm in the final gear.

So let's say that you wanted to run at 90 as you're cursing speed. You would need the correct gears to lower your engine speed to within your engines efficiency range in the final gear but you also would need the engine to be able to effectively push the weight at that speed. Then you best MPG would be at 90 mph.

However you would not put at 90hp Geo Metro engine in a 4000 lb vehicle and expect to get the 45mpg that the Metro got at 65 mph. The power to weight ratio is off so the 1.x L 90 hp metro engine will get ok mpg at a very slow speed as long at there is no additional load placed on the engine.

Look at the EPA estimated mpg for a Corvette and a Miata. In the city the Miata get the best MPG hands down at 20 mpg but on the high way they get the almost the same at estimated 26 Corvette to 28 mpg Miata. The Miata weighs 3200 lb and the Corvette at 3400lb.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

Thoroughly entertaining blog and comments. I'm six months late on it but hey.

I have two comments:

1. I agree that saying that Christians believe in Bronze Age Fairy Stories is simply inaccurate. It implies that all Christians believe in meaningless stories, rather than learn important lessons on morality and reality in the messages of the stories. Faith in the stories can be faith in the meaning of the stories.

2. More importantly, I think part of the problem with anthropogenic global warming denialists is that we haven't really understood where they are coming from. I get the impression that these are people who come across an authority figure of some kind saying common sense things that cast doubt on climate change. So, these people do research and find that there are lots of prominent people and websites that also have similar doubts.

And then they come to sites like this, or to neutral sites, and spout all the information that they have heard. What I think is happening is that they are really asking, "I heard this information that seems plausible, is it accurate?" But for some reason there isn't really a good, authoritative source on this, written by climate scientists and presented for the layman. This place would have a growing list of all the proposed information that appears to counter AGW, and simple, easy to understand explanations (maybe with advanced information in links to studies if they want to explore more). The explanation would have to explain why it is possible to misunderstand a particular aspect (if that's the case), but that the current understanding is so and so for these and these reasons. Of course, I'm sure a site that does this at least partly exists. But somehow I have not seen this kind of user friendly, informative, AUTHORITATIVE site.

The most important point, though, is that I wonder if it will help if people who have a good grasp on the science here assume that these denialists are really just asking for the truth.

(And the truth, is that companies want to make as much money as possible.)

I'm not a denier, but I came here to find out what the deal was with a sitting senator posting propaganda. And, no disrespect intended, a blog isn't an authoritative source.

I.e. there are zillions of blogs and unless you already know the blog scene and the information, it's very hard to tell which are written by scientists and which are written by kids.

Thanks for putting it there in a very easy to find place, frankis.

The big problem is that I haven't heard of these sites! (Well I have heard of Real Climate, but not in any mainstream place.) Skeptical Science looks like a great site.

I'll also add this:
Source Watch page on common claims and scientific rebuttals. I haven't heard anything biased about Sourcewatch.

The problem really is that when Congress requests scientific information you would think they would immediately fact check it, cross reference it with other sources, and then accept or reject it. And if they accept it they would tell us about the problem and then create legislation that acts towards a solution. Because they are not doing this, it makes people skeptical.

What I don't get is that people who own energy companies are also on this planet, as are our Congresspeople. How can they ignore or actively attempt to muddy evidence? I have the feeling this is not done out of some nefarious reason, but really some unconscious blinders or something.