U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

60%↑

40%↑

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 28, 2008 03:54 AM UTC

Man-made global warming disproved; how will Ritter, Udall, K. Salazar recover?

  • 112 Comments
  • by: Another skeptic

Drudge is featuring,”2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved,” by Christopher Booker in the Daily  Telegraph.

The story will add to the growing doubt about man-made global warming, which always has been a political scam designed by power-greedy politicians and unscrupulous scientists who cooked the books in their computer models.

How will Obama, Ken Salazar, Ritter and Udall finesse this one?

They can’t afford to invest in anti-global warming projects because of the credit crisis and economy, and the growing acceptance of the fact that there never was a scientific consensus on man-made global warming is Goring their plans.

I hope the global warming fanatics find another religion real quick.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com…

Tweet
Share

Comments

112 thoughts on “Man-made global warming disproved; how will Ritter, Udall, K. Salazar recover?”

    1. As long as they have the magic fairy dust they sprinkle around while chanting “global warming is a myth” they don’t need peer-reviewed science. After all, that’s just a grant driven racket anyway.

      2. Over at UrgentAgenda.com:

        http://www.urgentagenda.com/PE…

        Frank Tipler, the distinguished mathematical physicist at Tulane University, is an Urgent Agenda reader.  We recently asked him for his view of the global-warming controversy, and he was kind enough to send us this thoughtful reply.  We reprint it in full.  Recommended reading:

        As regards global warming, my view is essentially the same as yours: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a scam, with no basis in science.

        A few comments on my own particular view of global warming:

        (1) I am particularly annoyed by the claims that the “the debate is over,” because this was exactly the claim originally made against the Copernican theory of the Solar System.  Copernicus’ opponents said the idea that the Earth was the third planet from the Sun was advanced by Aristrachus in 300 B.C. (true), and had been definitely refuted by 100 A.D.  The debate is over!  Sorry, it wasn’t: the Earth IS the third planet.

        (2)  It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself.  As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this.  The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience.  NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period. In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory.  A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.

        (3) In contrast, the alternative theory, that the increase and decrease of the Earth’s average temperature in the near term follows the sunspot number, agrees (roughly) with observation.  And the observations were predicted before they occurred.  This is good science.

        (4) I emphasized in point (2) that the average person has to be able to check the observations.  I emphasize this because I no longer trust “scientists” to report observations correctly.  I think the data is adjusted to confirm, as far as possible, AGW.  We’ve seen many recent cases where the data was cooked in climate studies.  In one case, Hanson and company claimed that October 2008 was the warmest October on record.  Watts looked at the data, and discovered that Hanson and company had used September’s temperatures for Russia rather than October’s.  I’m not surprised to learn that September is hotter than October in the Northern hemisphere.  

        It snowed here in New Orleans last week and it was the second heaviest snowfall I’ve seen in the 25 years I’ve lived in New Orleans.  According to the local newspaper, it was the earliest snow had fallen in New Orleans since records were kept, beginning in 1850.  I myself have looked at the relative predictive power of Copernicus’s theory and the then rival Ptolemaic theory. Copernicus was on the average twice as accurate, and the average person of the time could tell.  Similarly, anybody today can check the number of sunspots.  Or rather the lack of them.  When I first starting teaching astronomy at Tulane in the early 1980’s, I would show sunspots to my students by pointing a small $25 reflecting telescope at the Sun, and focusing the Sun’s image on the wall of the classroom.  Sunspots were obviously in the image on the wall.  I can’t do this experiment today, because there are no sunspots.

        (5) Another shocking thing about the AGW theory is that it is generating a loss of true scientific knowledge. The great astronomer William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, observed in the early 1800’s that warm weather was correlated with sunspot number.  Herschel noticed that warmer weather meant better crops, and thus fewer sunspots meant higher grain prices.  The AGW people are trying to do a disappearing act on these observations. Some are trying to deny the existence of the Maunder Minimum.  

        (6) AGW supporters are also bringing back the Inquisition, where the power of the state is used to silence one’s scientific opponents.  The case of  Bjorn Lomborg is illustrative.  Lomborg is a tenured professor of mathematics in Denmark.  Shortly after his book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” was published by Cambridge University Press, Lomborg was charged and convicted (later reversed) of scientific fraud for being critical of the “consensus” view on AGW and other environmental questions.  Had the conviction been upheld, Lomborg would have been fired.  Stillman Drake, the world’s leading Galileo scholar, demonstrates in his book “Galileo: A Very Short Introduction” (Oxford University Press, 2001) that it was not theologians, but rather his fellow physicists (then called “natural philosophers”), who manipulated the Inquisition into trying and convicting Galileo.  The “out-of-the-mainsteam” Galileo had the gall to prove the consensus view, the Aristotlean theory, wrong by devising simple experiments that anyone could do.  Galileo’s fellow scientists first tried to refute him by argument from authority.  They failed.  Then these “scientists” tried calling Galileo names, but this made no impression on the average person, who could see with his own eyes that Galileo was right.  Finally, Galileo’s fellow “scientists”  called in the Inquisition to  silence him.  

        I find it very disturbing that part of the Danish Inquisition’s case against Lomborg was written by John Holdren, Obama’s new science advisor. Holdren has recently written that people like Lomborg are “dangerous.”  I think it is people like Holdren who are dangerous, because they are willing to use state power to silence their scientific opponents.

        (7) I agree with Dick Lindzen that the AGW nonsense is generated by government funding of science.  If a guy agrees with AGW, then he can get a government contract. If he is a skeptic, then no contract.  There is a professor at Tulane, with a Ph.D in paleoclimatology, who is as skeptical as I am about AGW, but he’d never be considered for tenure at Tulane because of his professional opinion. No government contracts, no tenure.

        Hat tip: Powerlineblog.com: A scam with not basis in science:

        http://www.powerlineblog.com/a…

        When Aristotle asks for links, I try to oblige. 🙂

        1. I never made it past 3rd year in college as a Physics major and this supposedly reputable Physicist is making me embarrassed for my almost-profession.  I can only assume he’s being paid to completely ignore scientific principles and concepts of theory, as well as those of honesty, since he completely misrepresents the scientific process and the proposals of his opponents.

        2. AS, until you demonstrate you know the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific report compared to a newspaper article or other media interpretation of science, I don’t think it is worth much to “debate” with you.

          We don’t appear to share in common an appreciation for what constitutes evidence. Thus, we will just talk past each other.

          Scientists do not look to the mass media for the latest updates in their fields. Indeed, the media tends to focus on (or create?) “controversy.” If a reporter can find one person that is willing to speak against the prevailing view, then there is sufficient “controversy” for some in the media. And, for “balance” the media then gives each “side” nearly equal amounts of time.

          At scientific meetings, the naysayers are given a fair amount of time – generally less than 1%.

          1. If you read the previous threads that I’ve linked to in this thread, you’ll see plenty of other articles that agree with this one.

            You can’t put down legitimate arguments against Gorial warming by demanding peer reviewed articles. As the author notes, peer reviewed articles are political documents based on often fraudulent and manipulated data.

            Peer review is no standard for evaluating an article. A good editor can do a better job of vetting and evaluating an article than a bunch of grant-greedy academics who have little intellectual integrity.

            By demanding peer reviewed articles, you’re demanding articles based on old data, old technology and old thinking.

            Which is what you get in too many, if not all, peer reviewed articles.

            1. on how science works. NOT.

              Ask anyone who has earned a graduate degree in a field of science. The path to success is to show that the current paradigm is wrong. More graduate students would be showing that anthropogenic climate change lacks evidence IF this was the actual case.

              You are hopeless, Another Naysayer.

                1. that this is NOT how academics work.

                  However, if you are so desperately in need of a bogey man, I guess you might be able to convince yourself that it is necessary for this to be true.

                  Of course, yet another thing that you don’t seem to get is that Gore is merely a messenger. He is a “populizer” of a very well established body of science that has been building for over 100 years. He acts very much like the journalists who write popular stories that you like to link to. If you were truly a skeptic, you would be as wary of media stories that support your ideology as you are of Gore.

                  I rest my case.

            2. That is so absolutely false that I’m literally speechless.

              Still, I can type. You have just destroyed your already miniscule credibility with this statement.

              Peer review is the foundation of science. There is no science without peer review.

              You’ve just helped me to distill a point I will be making in my promised science diary.

              Anyway, this statement of yours is a demonstration of how someone who values internal beliefs over external facts can be in abject denial. It’s also a demonstration of how the right wing machine deals with inconvenient facts.

              Lastly, this post is a good example of your style, AS – make a bold but unsupported statement. You will find expert on either side of this debate who will support such a proclamation.

              1. And, I guess that’s a no no.

                Over the years I’ve read so many reports about academic lying and cheating, that I’m comfortable in questioning peer reviewed articles as the end all and be all.

                If you don’t get it, that’s ok. If you have a stake in peer reviewed articles, please tell us.

                Peer review is a racket for the publishers of peer reviewed journals, their editors, contributors and the pharmaceutical companies’ ghost writers.

                1. Which one? All I saw were biased editorials and a couple of articles about skeptics who can’t get reviewed by their peers. But nothing even talking about your claims of racketeering and corruption in the peer review process. Put up or shut up, AS.

                  And keep your projections to yourself. I’ll gladly read a credible (ie, documented) story about this stuff when you provide it. Don’t pretend that you have already fulfilled that requirement.

                  If you have a stake against doing anything about global warming (eg, you work in the energy industry) please tell us. I have no stake in peer review, whatever that means.

                  1. so many times, you obviously are upset and befuddled.

                    Every time you’ve asked for links to articles that support my skepticism, I’ve provided them. But you don’t read the links, preferring to blindly follow Gore and the jokers at the UN and in Golden.

                    While I didn’t own energy stocks when this conversation began a year or two ago, I do have small positions now. But that doesn’t affect my skepticism. I also own a corn farm, which, until recently was profiting from the ethanol scam advanced by Ken Salazar (D-Mexico).

                    1. I’ve read your links and shown why they’re not credible. They’re all blogs and editorials with nothing but more blogs and editorials to back them up. They don’t have any science behind them at all (and no, the grousing of scientists who don’t study climatology isn’t science). So it’s not me who is upset or befuddled. Why should I be upset? This is the best you can do, endlessly saying the world is flat because these other people who aren’t navigators or astronomers say the world is flat.

                    2. Climate prediction occupies many scientists who aren’t climatologists.  But the rantings of a Physicist whose first instincts are to misrepresent the studies of those he disagrees with don’t qualify as material for disproving anything (except the universal reliability of scientists…).

                      AS – Aristotle is right: you still haven’t provided a single article that has any sound theories to back it up.  Your main article was an op-ed by a non-scientist, quoting easily disproven “theories” and logically deficient arguments.  You follow it up with a quote from a scientist who takes himself out of the realm of scientific rigor within the first paragraph.

        3. 1) The scientific process as we understand it was not in place at this time. It would take until Newton’s day for that to shake out. Therefore comparing the consensus of the scientific community today to the dogma of the Church and their lackeys then is illogical.

          2) He’s misrepresenting the findings here. If he wishes to produce any published papers that say what he says they say, I’d like to see it. Further, science is not about what the “average” person can check – should the average person diagnose a neurological disorder? His comment makes about as much sense.

          3) No one ever said this was 100% a man-caused phenomenon. That doesn’t mean that the man-caused portion isn’t problematic and can be left alone.

          4)This point is a mishmash. First he repeats his flawed “average person” comment, then claims some report had bad data (can I, an average person, check that please? No? Okay, but I won’t take your word for it), and finally talks about snow in N.O… which may support the sunspot thing but still doesn’t disprove man-caused global warming.

          5) Again, is there anything to this claim that I can verify? This guy is starting to sound like he’s got a case of sour grapes.

          6) This bears looking into, but some quick research I’ve done finds that the book wasn’t peer reviewed. It’s unclear what qualification Lomberg had to make his claims. Criticisms show that the book didn’t fit into scientific methodology, and it doesn’t seem that the author is a scientist at all (he’s a business professor). Neither is Al Gore, but still, going to support this guy seems to make as much sense as supporting the bestselling memoirist who turned out to have fabricated his biography.

          7) What stake does the government have in funding global warming science? How does this profit them? Without an answer to the question of WHY anyone would fund this stuff, such charges are baseless. OTOH, energy companies who stand to lose BIG have a reason to fund skeptics, just like Big Tobacco did with cancer research in the 70s and 80s…

          1. Solar output/sunspots just keep going up and down. Sometimes you can imagine a close correlation with temperature, other times (say, the last 30 years) the lack of correspondence is remarkable.

            Try here: http://www.realclimate.org/ind…

            The third graph down is highly illustrative of the lack of good linkage. S(t) = solar output (blue line) & Tglobe = average global temperature (bold red line).

      1. Why is it that you can never find news articles (as opposed to editorials like this one) to support your views? I hope for your business’s sake that you don’t take this approach to researching your plans at work.

        1. I will admit that down the thread, I posted something that was an editorial.  

          But here’s an article:

          On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is “unequivocal,” and that human activity has “very likely” been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had “likely” played a role.

          The addition of that single word “very” did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.

          http://topics.nytimes.com/topi…

          1. about the basics of what makes for good science and what makes for bad. It will make the undecided understand why AGW skeptics should not be listened to until they can come up with valid science to counter climate change theory. Give me a day or two.

            1. I would recommend including an explanation of just what a ‘skeptic’ is, also. The self-proclaimed AGW skeptics are anything but skeptical. They tend toward the ideological, agreeing with what reinforces their ideology, regardless of the evidence against.

              Scientists are hard-core, trained skeptics who stubbornly resist bandwagons (in general). Thus, when you get 90/95/99% of scientists from many countries and cultures agreeing on something, non-scientists should sit up and take notice.

              2. no connection to reality, Another Naysayer.

                The connection between elevated CO2 and surface temperatures has been known for over 100 years.

                Just because you have failed to learn science does not mean everyone else is as ignorant.

  2. …believe it’s a myth when a number of reputable scientists come out in agreement saying it is a myth.  

    As for you, one might argue that you are part of the religion of Global Warming Deniers.  

      2. And quite frankly, it fails to convince me.  Maybe because it was written and promoted by people who want to push their agenda.  You are just someone who tries to find one little shred of evidence that supports whatever point of view you have and pushes it on all those who disagree with you, because God forbid that anybody disagree with you.  

        You want to have a real discussion about things?  You should treat other peoples’ opinions with respect.  Otherwise, you just come off as a useful idiot.  

        1. How the hell did I do that? LOL!

          What I was trying to say… was, are those 600 scientists peer reviewed? Because if they’re not, it’s not science.

          Remember, the tobacco industry found plenty of scientists who said that smoking did not cause cancer. Global warming skeptics are largely cut from the same cloth.

          1. …good question.  And one might have had to ask our so-called “skeptic” that question as many times as you posted.  Typical.  Tell people what you want them to hear.  Funny that he was telling people to do their research.  Yet trying to use their spin to convince you their right.  

          2. When I first saw that I laughed out loud. How many times has anyone on this blog asked him that and he has never responded. Then I notided the time stamps.

            Well played internet gods.

            1. for deleting my multiple posts. I had somehow managed to post that “but were they peer reviewed” comment – the one with a header but no body – 19 times. Thanks for cleaning up my mess.

      6. Einstein didn’t believe in the quantum theory. Also wrong. As a scientist myself I can say that 99% of the people who study climate support the AGW hypothesis. The rest are mostly profs emeriti who won’t be with us much longer.  

          2. Like fundamental particle physics and the physics of the universe, AGW is constantly being refined, but the basics of the AGW hypothesis haven’t been much in dispute for some years now.  Real Scientists use the word “hypothesis” long past the point where laymen would use the word “fact”, to indicate that the work isn’t finished.

            But like particle physics theory, climate change is getting down to the fine details, leaving the basics of AGW all but undisputed by those working in the field.

            1. that has not yet been proven.  For the theory to be proven, a direct correlation needs to exist between increased atmospheric greenhouse gasses and increased temperatures.  There have been times in recent history (considering the earth is billions of years old) where temperatures have been warmer, yet when GHG gas accumulations have been lower than today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…

              There are many reputable scientists from many reputable places that don’t believe in the GW theory.  Ignore the admittedly inflammatory title of this blog, but scroll down to the many studies from “real” scientists from “real” academic instiutions (like Harvard) and see for yourself.  http://www.globalwarminghoax.c…

              The bottom line for me is this policy question:  Should we radically change how we produce and use energy, which will lead to significant economic disruption, when there is so much uncertainty about whether global warming exists and, if it does, if it’s permanent and if man has any influence over it?

              1. The mechanics of gravity are a theory that has not yet been proven.  There are times when gravitational forces don’t act exactly as expected.  Is this beginning to sound familiar?

                We do know what the effects of various gasses are on global warming: CO2 traps heat, as does methane; sulfur compounds, water vapor, and particulates are cooling agents in our atmosphere.  These and many other things contribute to the complex models that scientists investigating the Earth’s climate use every day.

                Your “revelation” that sometimes one particular global warming gas doesn’t correspond to an increase in temperature aren’t revelations to those working in the field, and those instances are included in the working models.

                As to whether or not we should change our use and production of energy, a couple of questions for you:

                1. Is competitive domestic renewable energy better than foreign or exhaustible energy?
                2. Is a controlled switch to new energy technologies any more disruptive than a spike in petrofuel prices?
                3. Hasn’t innovation long been the strength of the U.S. economy?  And if it has, then given our recent decline in that department, isn’t a new round of innovation called for economically?
                4. Finally, given that AGW is widely accepted a sound theory with ample modeling to back it up, isn’t it economically worthwhile to consider it while also moving to better domestic security and economy through development of efficiency and renewable domestic energy sources?

                1. differentiate between one GHG or another (assume you’re referring to CO2).  Anyway, whether AGW exists or not (you and I can amicably choose to disagree since we’ll never convince each other), allow me to answer your questions.

                  1).  We need all forms of energy production, both renewable and non-renewable.  We also need reliable energy (by this I mean reliable electric energy).  The only form of reliable renewable energy today (energy that can be dispatched 24/7) is hydro power.  Wind and solar are intermittent and always will be by their nature.  Hopefully, large-scale energy storage technologies will be developed soon, so more renewable forms of energy can be developed and used when they’re needed, just not when they are available.

                  2).  Petrofuel is only part of the energy picture.  When we can develop transportation fleets that don’t rely on fossil fuels, I’m all for it.

                  3).  We defintely need to continue to be innovative.  But, we can’t innovate our way out of relying on traditional forms of energy production.  I include nuclear power in the definition of traditional energy production.  It’s the only realistic way we can meet the demand for electricity without adding GHGs to the environment.

                  4).  AGW is widely accepted by some, but, despite the rhetoric, not by all.  When nations commit to ambitious GHG reduction goals, and economics come into play, they back away.   Note that hardly any of the Kyoto signatories met their GHG reduction goals, and note that the U.S. Senate rejected ratifying the Kyoto Protocol by a vote of 95-0, based on economic considerations.  Development of renewables and efficiency are extremely important and definitely should be pursued.  However, we will never escape the need for the continued use of traditional resources.

              2. Global warming is a theory

                that has not yet been proven.

                No scientific theory has ever been “proven.”

                Theories can’t be proven. (Hypotheses can be shown to be false, though.)

                Theory is the grand culmination of scientific practice and thought. An idea doesn’t gain theory status until after it has passed numerous rigorous tests. Not until scientists have repeatedly tried, and failed, to falsify the hypotheses that follow from an idea does the idea get promoted to theory.

                Hypotheses regarding the relationships between radiatively active gases and surface temperatures have passed test after test for over 100 years. The tests have become increasingly rigorous the last few decades.

                A few op-eds (along with scarily ignorant statements by bloggers) will not overturn a century of careful scientific testing.

                    1. (BTW, the Petition Project is a hoot. I checked out the names from Nebraska. I only recognized two of the PhDs. One is a food scientist. The other a geneticist. Not terribly relevant credentials.)

                      All this does is demonstrate that you are gullible, not skeptical.

                      Oh, and what was your assertion, again?

              3. For your first “assertion” that there have been times in recent history when the earth’s temperature was warmer, you linked to a Wikipedia site about the Medieval Warm Period.

                Did you look at the graph of historic temperatures at the top of the entry? Did you notice that the period labeled “Medieval Warm Period” was COOLER than our current temperatures?

                That was easy. You really ought to read your sources. It’s amazing what can be learned!

              4. Your second link in your post above provides abstracts and links to lots of scientific publications. All of which document that many factors influence earth’s climate.

                So? No practicing climate scientist would deny this.

                Likewise, many factors affect your health. This in no way means that doing crack can’t affect your health.

              5. The bottom line for me is this policy question …

                But see, the veracity of the scientific findings are unaffected by policy questions. Or economic questions.

                For example, just because atomic weapons are more complex and expensive than some conventional weapons has no bearing on how much energy is released when an atom is split.

                Thus, it is obvious to me that the TOP line to you is the policy question. And because of this, you are unable/unwilling to consider the science. This is a pretty common affliction, so don’t feel too bad. It’s curable also.

                You are starting with the conclusion that this phenomenon is likely to be costly and disruptive. So, rather than trying to understand the phenomenon, you are just denying that it can be true. This is really not healthy.

                Happy New Year!

                1. So much time and effort on your part.  I stand by my basic points:  The climate is variable and many scientists believe that man has nothing to do with whether it cools or warms.  And, that given the great amount of uncertainty, it’s reckless and ill-advised for the U.S. to take unilateral steps to “solve” AGW by making it hugely expensive to create energy from fossil fuels.  Even if AGW was real, our actions will have no effect on the climate and trillions of dollars will be wasted.

                  1. Practically a non sequitur style manual!

                    Climate is variable. No practicing climate scientist would disagree with this. I challenge you to find any actual practicing climate scientists who agree with your claim that:

                    man has nothing to do with whether it cools or warms.

                    And, when the world’s climate scientists last came together they proclaimed that the uncertainty was small (in the range of 1-5%).

                    It is truly reckless to pretend otherwise.

                    It is a fact that generating energy from fossil fuels is expensive – unfortunately we encourage the fossil fuel industry to externalize these costs. In essence, we have given the fossil industry permission to keep two sets of books. Where is the ethics in that?

                    Trillions of dollars wasted? Give me a break. We regularly make decisions about what to do with large sums of money on much flimsier evidence. Do you recall the weapons of mass destruction farce? How about the bank bailout?

                    Your basic points are flawed and not pertinent. And not related to observed facts. Bummer about that.

  3. The Manhattan Declaration exists solely as a PR stunt endorsed by businessmen and hacks. Sadly, nobody seems to care about what all these morons are paid to think. Google “Manhattan Declaration” and you’ll find nothing but the text of the document and a bunch of blog posts lamenting that nobody in the media is covering it. Boo hoo!

    Another Skeptic, please go find something better to do with your time. You’re wasting ours.

  4. as the TV show Weeds has taught us, “global warming is just god’s will.  I like Range Rovers and the Prius is gay.”

    You don’t want to mess with god’s will, do you?  🙂

    —

    On a separate, equally ridiculous, note, I drove my friend’s new Hummer H2 SUT yesterday.  If you can find a better way to waste 70G’s all while doing your part to contribute to global warming, please, let me know immediately.  Coolest, most utterly useless vehicle I’ve ever had the pleasure of driving…

      2. Penile Deficiency Compensators.

        Just read today of a particular woman who loves the earth having grown up on a farm and now a citrus consultant.

        She drives a Hummer.

        How do these people say and do things like this with a straight face?  At least there’s no penis involved with her….unless Freud was onto something.  

    1. Yet some still don’t let statistics and Manhattan-sized chunks of ice shelf falling deter them from their mission to disprove anything that negatively affects the free market.

  6. “It’s cold this year – global warming’s a myth!”

    Oh, wait.  Now we’re getting record WARM temperatures creeping in to the Southeast.  Does that mean global warming is now proven beyond a doubt?

    Climate models for global warming do not predict daily, weekly, or monthly occurrences.  They predict long-term trends.  One month-long period of cold does not offset the abundant evidence of warming – thawing permafrost in Alaska, melting ice in the Arctic, and other new realities.  And, unfortunately for your editorial link, climate models do predict periods of cold as ice melt alters the salinity level of the oceans.

  7. Someone who doesn’t understand or value the scientific method is relying on an editorial by someone who also is not a scientist to claim that man-made global warming is “proven false.”

    No wonder LB is staying out of this one.

    1. And I am greatly troubled by how the Gorians are distorting and misusing the scientific process and scientists in their grab for power and personal wealth.

  8. you have to believe that all scientists, government officials, and journalists are totally corrupt, tainted by a conspiracy hatched by a small nefarious elite designed to destroy the economy so that they can take total power. And the only people who know the truth are a few brave CEOs and fringe right-wingers. Does that about sum it up?

    Sounds an awful lot like your standard anti-Semitic conspiracy theory to me. Hey AS, what do you think of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

    1. AS provides links to scientists who disagree with AGW and I guess they don’t count

      I have listened to the apocalyptic hysteria that the Global Warming crowd has been peddling for almost two decades.  I have heard the almost constantly shifting predictions, now changing from warming to cooling, that the “experts” shovel at us.  

      I watch as Al Gore increases the energy consumption at his mansion to the point he uses twice in a month what the average American uses in a year.  He flies on private jets, rides in SUV’s, and has just recently bought a houseboat that probably has as much square footage as my house.  He does not act as if he believes that we have an “Earth in the Balance”.  He acts more like a conman milking credulous marks.  

      I will start believing that there is a serious problem when those who tell me there is act like it.

      1. There are a few scientists funded by industry or fueled by bitterness against the rest of the scientific community who disagree. To believe they’re right, you have to believe industry has pure motives and government has mysterious evil motives. Which is fine, you’re a Republican, so you don’t know any better.

        Global cooling was never a serious concern, whatever the memories you created in the past few years may tell you. You can try reading the Wikipedia article on global cooling:

        Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.

        As for what Al Gore does, it wouldn’t be relevant even if it were true. Gore is rich, and he uses energy. He pays a premium for renewable sources and for being carbon-neutral, and people who are interested in debating honestly can figure out what that means on their own.

        You’ll start believing in global warming when someone pays you to believe in it. I won’t hold my breath.

        Happy New Year in any case.

        1. It’s absurd and intellectually lazy to simply dismiss those skeptics, including scientists, as being bitter or industry hacks.  You, sxp151, and other “true believers” suggest that we “non-believers” are simply ignoring facts when it is your group that will to even acknowledge there is the prospect the data and research is corrupt!  These, by the way, aren’t merely the second tier scientists who are trending toward the skeptical, there’re prominent researchers in their respective fields… http://thescholarsforum.org/?p…  And, it seems the list is growing…

          1. Intellectual laziness is ignoring evidence that exists to support your own view. This frequently takes the form of claiming that the evidence is not convincing enough for you, until the standard is essentially infinite.

            If God came down to earth and told you global warming was valid, you’d still wait until Exxon was convinced. That’s why you’re not worth arguing with.

            Inhofe’s report features two chemical engineers on the first page. I’ve known chemical engineers, and while they may be very good at chemical engineering, I wouldn’t trust their evaluations of climate science any more than I’d trust Sean Hannity’s.

            I’m done with this. Science will continue whether you accept it or not. Happy New Year!  

            1. I’m skeptical of a group wanting to change the entire global economic system, essentially turning it upside down based on a computer model.  I’m not saying I think it’s impossible, I just know that the same agency warning me based on computer models accidentally switched meters and yards, crashing a planetary probe a couple of years ago.

              Also, the money argument doesn’t float anymore.  Gore’s media initiative is spending upwards of $300 million on PR.  That vastly outweighs any money given to anyone by “big oil”.

              1. Too many people get hung up on the possible economic consequences and this then colors their interpretation of the climate science.

                If you truly have doubts about the science (and this is not an unreasonable thing to do) then you should be extremely skeptical of the predicted economic consequences.

                The errors of the global climate models multiplied by the errors of the regional interpolations multiplied by the errors of the models for the biological impacts multiplied by the errors of economic models should cause a reasonable mind to be very very very highly skeptical of the economic forecasts.

                But somehow, I don’t sense this level of skepticism in your evaluation of the economics. Phooey.

                Furthermore, just what is up with this fascination with Al Gore? He is acting in the role of a reporter. Whether you like him or not, or are suspicious of people who can raise large sums of money, this has absolutely NO impact on whether or not the science is sound. If you want to be taken seriously, don’t dismiss Gore and assume that this is an effective argument against the science.

                (FYI, NOAA and NASA are not the same agency. And, recall that there are teams of climate scientists in countries all over the world that are coming to similar conclusions.)

                1. My father was a scientist that built computer software systems at NOAA.

                  Nobody was more skeptical of scientists trying to relate hundreds of thousands of years’ climate variations to mankind’s behavior, and this was during “global cooling” in the 70’s.

                  How an economic ‘solution’ was derived so quickly that just happens to transfer wealth around is what I want to do more research on.

                  1. Your concerns about global cooling have been addressed, by real climate scientists, even though they are clearly exasperated with the whack-a-mole nature of the claims.

                    I don’t have a clue what you are talking about regarding an economic “solution.” All I was saying that possible economic impacts 5 or 50 years from now have zero influence on whether or not physical first principles are sufficiently understood.

                    The science has matured since the 70’s. Indeed, it has matured since the the late 80’s when I first started paying attention.

                    1. Absolutely certain that man’s existence is causing temperature fluxuation to dangerous levels, and that a cap-and-trade system will help?

                    2. One can never be absolutely certain – especially about things scientific. What a silly question.

                      And I certainly do not have the expertise to claim a greater certainty than the world’s climate scientists (who are claiming something like 95-99% likelihood of something around 2degC near-term warming, with appropriate uncertainty around that also, allowing for a range of human and ecological feedbacks).

                      As for economics … what a truly dismal “science.” Largely just a bunch of just-so stories made up after the fact.

                    4. Perhaps this will be useful background?

                      Or this?

                      Climate scientists accept the utility of the climate reconstructions depicted in the “Hockey Stick.”

                      Some reconstructions have wider confidence bounds than others. Some are more geographically limited than others. Some are, well, not so good. Climate scientists are quite capable of evaluating this.

                      Did you have a scientific issue with these reconstructions? Or were you just attempting to be cute?

                    5. Happy New Year, LB, AS, & others.

                      I’m taking a couple weeks off – my time now belongs to my family. So I won’t be chiming in with my $0.02 for a while.

                      I’ll leave it to the honor system that when you evaluate the likelihood of anthropogenic activity influencing trends in global climate you keep your concerns about potential economic consequences separate from your evaluation of the soundness of the science.

                      This is important. Really.

                      It’s always much more difficult to accurately identify the problem, and develop solutions, when someone is continually whining “That’s gonna be too hard.”

                      If I have to stop this car …  😉

              2. I just know that the same agency warning me based on computer models accidentally switched meters and yards, crashing a planetary probe a couple of years ago.

                You mean Lockheed Martin? Last I checked they were not a government agency.

                As for how much “big oil” (your quotes, not mine) has spent denying global warming, nobody quite knows because of the secrecy of right-wing groups’ funding, but it’s on the order of tens of millions of dollars. True, Gore’s campaign may surpass that eventually, but by itself that’s not a problem. There are certain funding sources that discredit groups who take from them, and “big oil” is one of them.

                But seriously, after your whole diary on global warming, where you casually posed a bunch of questions that many people took a lot of trouble to answer, and hardly replied to any of them, promising to eventually post a diary replying to all of them, this is all you have to say in the debate? No substantive discussion, just attempting to change the subject?

                Disappointing. So far I haven’t heard a serious argument claiming global warming doesn’t exist; even skeptics will frequently simultaneously say “The earth isn’t warming, it’s still cold in January” and “Even if the earth were warming, it’s not our fault!” along with “Al Gore is fat!” Eventually one starts to feel dumb even trying to reply.

                1. Been so busy and crazy, and still doing a lot of reading from the links people posted in the diary.

                  I agree that climate change exists, I just don’t buy that it’s all man-based. I also think there are some bad forces at work advocating that POV, where even if AGW is real, the cause is obscured by people that have a problem with the US, and perhaps with capitalism.

                  No disrespect, just doing a ton of reading and super busy over the holidays.

                  Cheers.  I’ll be up to buy you that beer in the first part of Jan. if you’re around.

                  1. Of course it’s not all “man-based.” (Women contribute too!)

                    Seriously, NO climate scientist is making this claim. Climate scientists are carefully dissecting out the natural fluctuations from the anthropogenic contribution.

                    If you create a cartoon of the state of climate science, you might convince yourself that AGW is merely a political contrivance, but you won’t convince me of much at all.

                    1. I’m hearing insults about my intelligence and endless links posted to politically influenced groups.  I can respond with just as many links to my own groups, but neither of us are listening.

                      I’m still reading, and I don’t think you’re stupid for disagreeing with me.  To me, that’s a sure sign of an argument that’s not as tight as one would like it.  I have some real questions, and I’d prefer to have them answered.  I’m not stupid, or dense, or unenlightened, and that act of feigning impatience with someone who is doesn’t fly on this topic, common as the tactic is.

        2. when the predictions made two decades ago by these same “experts” we are supposed be bowing down to today actually come close to reality.  When I feel that they actually believe in AGW, and not that they are using it as a means of fleecing suckers.

          1. eddys & cologeek,

            You are the ones claiming anyone is supposed to be “bowing down.”

            It is perfectly fine to be skeptical. But what is too common is for people with no special expertise to claim that they KNOW that the experts are wrong.

            It is true that the experts may be wrong. They’ve been wrong before. You are reasonably justified in admitting you don’t know whether they are right or wrong. But, if you are a non-expert, you lack the expertise to claim you are certain they are wrong.

            It is truly absurd and intellectually and morally dishonest to label others as “true believers” and to call research results that you do not understand “corrupt.”

            You are not demonstrating the characteristics of a skeptic. Rather, you are obviously gullible and clinging to ideology.

            1. Experts vastly over rate their expertise and integrity.

              Let’s see, an expert developed nuclear weapons for Pakistan and sold the technology to Iran and N. Korea.

              Expertise doesn’t correlate with morality nor selflessness.

              Smart people do dumb, dishonest things. See Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter. They were political experts.

              Atomic scientists working on the Manhattan Project spied for the Soviets. Plenty of scientists are against nuclear power, atomic bombs out of ideological ignorance and because of their pacifist ideology.

              Medical experts all to frequently tout the products of their clients in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

              It takes smart laypeople to analyze the work of experts. We take particular note of the skeptical experts and evaluate opposing points of view.

              When we see very smart, apparently honest people, express skepticism and even outright disagreement with experts who’ve won the sponsorship of known dishonest politicians, our skepticism is reinforced.

              Gore has been a liar and dishonest promoter of too many causes, including Bill Clinton’s so called integrity and of his own wisdom. He has shown other politicians from both parties how to politically profit from public ignorance of science and politics. And he has attracted the support of scientists who are in it for the grants, fame and prizes.

              So, I am skeptical first and most of all about the science promoted by Gore.

              And, of course, I don’t trust anything that Gore promotes or of anything that the lemmings who are trying to exploit his political success want to do.

              At this point, it is my very educated opinion that the promoters of man-made global warming are both ignorant and self-serving and that they don’t have science on their side.

              My expertise is in evaluating experts.

  9. begs the question: Is mankind incapable of affecting the environment detrimentally?

    Did the “Brown Cloud” over the Denver metro area form spontaneously? The smog over LA? Is there no such thing as Acid Rain? Are chemicals in the air extruded by industry in China incapable of being perceived these days on the West Coast of the United States?

    To say, “Well, we’ve been pumping staggering amounts of shit into the atmosphere for the past 150 years, but it doesn’t contribute to any kind of weather change” seems disingenuous to me. But that could be a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I’m no climate — or rocket — scientist, though.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

119 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols