“Computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause”

Don Surber is airing some most inconvenient facts:

Global-warming-hoax-cartoon16 actual scientists have joined 1973 Nobel-winning physicist Ivar Giaever in calling global warming concerns overblown. In a letter published in the Wall Street Journal today, the scientists called for everyone to remain calm — and mocked the alarmism by UN bureaucrats over global warming and carbon dioxide.

They recommended that the world do nothing about global warming for the next 50 years.

“The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant,” the scientists wrote in their letter, which the Wall Street Journal headlined: “No Need to Panic About Global Warming. There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.”

The letter went on to explain that warming may actually benefit life on Earth: “CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.”

The scientists did not dismiss entirely the idea that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases may be increasing temperatures. The scientists simply said there is no proof that the globe is warming.

“The lack of warming for more than a decade — indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections — suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause,” the scientists wrote. “Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”

The scientists made many of the same points skeptics such as Anthony Watts and cynics like me have made: Global warming alarmism is an industry that has enriched many, many people.

The 16 scientists made a grand suggestion: Do nothing.

There’s more and it’s worthy.

Doing nothing however is something I’ll disagree with vehemently.  What needs to be done is being done but we need more rigor and vigor.  

What must be done is the continued unmasking of the fakery that is the global warming movement.  May many more scientists have the courage to stand as these 16 have done.

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 28, 2012.
Filed under Global Warming.
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Up to 90% off top rated local fun!
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • jim_m

    Why do nothing when you could use it as an excuse to dictate to people how they live?

    • GarandFan

      Exactly.  And you’ll note how easily “Global Warming” worked it’s way into “fairness”.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Note also all the jet setting by the proponents of the “Global Warming is a Crisis” position.  As Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds has noted, “I’ll start believing it’s a crises when the proponents start acting like it is”

  • Meiji Man

    There is a strategic opportunity here to defeat the Global Warming Movement so soundly that it will forever be used as an example when the next “Great Cause to Save the World” comes up.

    • jim_m

      40 years ago it was the coming ice age, brought on by air pollution from human activity.  Today it is global warming.  They have already coined the term “climate change” so they cannot be pegged down to their absurd and lunatic claims that never come true.

      Tomorrow there will be some other excuse to impose their tyranny in the name of bettering people’s lives.  It won’t end.  There is something in the nature of some people that they are compelled to try to force their ideology on others.

      • Meiji Man

        Think of the term  ”Ponzi Scheme”, that man was so successful they named the con after him. And today almost EVERYONE is automatically wary of getting into one of those. 
        By defining “the application of false science to create fear in a populace to support legislation that is profitable to the creator” as an “Algore Scheme”, and getting that definition into the collective consciousness of America will help to inoculate future american’s to possible scams.  This is what I mean by a strategic opportunity

  • 914

    Its called ‘Fudging!’  .. Kinda like what Barry is doing all over the Constitution and America.

  • Commander_Chico

    I suggest the cartoon illustrating this post mocks your premise. 

    I haven’t read the science journals on the subject, nor could I understand them, as I’m not a climatologist, atmospheric physicist or chemist, or meterologist.

    So I’m not qualified to argue the issues, but I doubt that one letter to the WSJ settles the issue.

    • 914

      “I haven’t read the science journals on the subject, nor could I understand them, as I’m not a climatologist, atmospheric physicist or chemist, or meterologist.”

      Yeah! Your not even an open minded individual.

    • jim_m

      There is actually a lot of good science that shows that AGW is a load of crap. You don’t have to go to the extent of demonstrating the scientific fraud that has been perpetrated by the University of East Anglia and others in hiding data and fudging their modeling, but the fact is that they have and it destroys the credibility of the movement.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Actually, Chico, you don’t have to be any of those things.  All you’ve got to be able to do is understand two things.

      1.  Any time any scientist makes any sort of claim regarding computer models constructed from data, it’s his responsibility to ensure the data is as pure as it can be.  ’Adjusting’, ‘normalizing’, or ‘correcting’ the raw data changes things from the realm of science to science fiction.   And there was one hell of a lot of ‘adjusting’ going on. That spelled to me that they were changing the data to get desired results. They also didn’t keep copies of the raw data, or – apparently – document their changes properly to the data sets.

      As I said – science fiction.

      2.  Any time any scientist makes any sort of claim regarding the results of computer modelling, they’d better be willing to make their process as open as possible.  This involves releasing computer code, data sets, interim notes… none of which the folks pushing AGW were ever willing to do, even when faced with FOIA requests.

      If it were really a threat, why hide things as much as possible? What didn’t they want people to see? If it WERE a threat, you’d think they’d have wanted peer verification of their claims – because they’d be hoping they were wrong. (“OMG! There’s an asteroid heading toward the Earth! We have to spend gazillions to construct this incredible deflector ray! You won’t be able to see the asteroid, we won’t tell you the direction the thing’s coming from, but we know it’s coming and you’ve got to let us spend the money or we’re all doomed!” – You’d want a bit more proof than that before you open the checkbook, right?)

      But what we got instead was concealment and paranoia. That’s some pretty thin stuff to build a case we ‘have to completely revamp the world economy to green energy or we’re doomed’ on.

      Put another way – if you were going to buy a car, would you simply sign on the bottom line without knowing the cost, the financing terms, or the payment?  Or even the car’s specs? The salesman assures you it’ll be affordable, you’ll like it, so why hesitate?

      If I were to do something like that, you’d call me a fool.  And you’d be right.

      The whole AGW scam (and scam it was, I think) was predicated on “We’re scientists – trust us. You don’t need to see the data we’re using, you don’t need to see the actual programs, you don’t even need to see the results we get, and we’ll fight like hell to keep you from doing so.  Buy these carbon credits we’re selling, and  it’ll all be good.”  

      Huh.  The Church of AGW lets you buy indulgences. Who knew?  Give to the Church, be absolved of your sins.

      Wattsupwiththat.com does pretty well at explaining all of it for the layman.

      BTW – long term forecast?  It looks like with solar sunspot cycle 25 we’ll be going into a real quiet time.  Over the next 30 years or so, expect serious cold.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/first-estimate-of-solar-cycle-25-amplitudesmallest-in-over-300-years/

      • Commander_Chico

        For me, the debate doesn’t make much difference.  Oil is going to run out anyways, and wars to compete for the remaining supply are a greater and much more immediate threat to people than AGW is.

        In other words, it’s more likely that a nuke war will happen in this century as nations blunder into fighting over diminishing oil supplies than mankind will cook next century because of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        So go new nuke, wind, and solar, and go now.  Save the oil for its best uses like aircraft. Unfortunately, the old nukes at Fukushima may have poisoned public opinion as they’ve poisoned the ground there in Japan.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          I agree – we really need to get off the oil standard – but there doesn’t have to be a “OMG!” rush to do it with crappy tech for windmills and solar farms that end up unused.  

          We go nuke for stationary power, natural gas for mobile, oil for situations where high energy densities are mandatory. Don’t think solar and wind are going to be in the mix unless there’s some flippin’ radical improvements, they’re intermittent power sources at best… and battery/energy storage just isn’t quite there yet to make up the slack…

          And AGW was never a real threat. Humans (and animals) adapt to conditions from the Arctic to Panama. Heat isn’t any problem – you probably remember the song “Summertime, and the living is easy”? It’s cold that kills…

          • Commander_Chico

            Solar and wind feed into the grid when available and thus reduce demand on other generating sources, no batteries are needed unless you’re using them stand-alone.

            Wind is very cost-competitive compared to other forms of generation, solar less so but getting better all of the time.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

            http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/16/smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-law-apply-to-solar-cells/

            There is also potential in tidal power and new forms of wind generators based on piezoelectric principles.

            http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-power-without-the-blades.html

            Small hydro can also be expanded.

            http://practicalaction.org/small-scale-hydro-power-2

            These are clean technologies which have the potential added benefit to literally “empower” local communities to take charge of their own decentralized energy sources built with local capital. Just like you can cut your electric bill by putting kWh into the grid by having solar panels on your roof. In that regard, they are a threat to Big Energy based on large capital-intensive plants, mining and distribution oligopolies. (See Warner Todd Huston’s post about PG&E above).

            Does the threat to Big Energy by the potential decentralization and dispersal of capital from carbon-free technologies motivate the attack on AGW as a concept? Is AGW a distraction from the real issues – small entreprenurial power vs. PG&E?

            Aside from the AGW controversy, this is also: dispersal of capital (many wind, solar and hydro producers, right down to the consumer/producer level) vs. monopoly power.

            Also, if you don’t think heat is life threatening, try Kuwait or Dubai in the summer.  You also can’t grow much in that kind of heat, it leads to desertification. 

            Again, I don’t think AGW is the threat that war over a diminishing resource is. I don’t even know if it’s really a threat at all, but either way the economy has to change, so the debate is sound and fury signifying nothing.  Only a fool would advocate continuing on the present course based so much on carbon fuels, even if AGW does not exist.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            As far as small hydro goes – there’s already plenty of advocacy groups who are dismantling dams, so trying to get more of them is laughable.  They’ll be blocked, for all the ‘correct’ reasons.  End result?  Zip on new power from that source.

            Wind fails when it gets too cold.  The folks in the UK are finding this out – and ask the folks in Germany about solar.

            I’ll point out Panama to counter Dubai.  Location actually matters, you know?  That was solid desert in the Little Ice Age.  Location, location, location… ;-)

            BTW, we were actually going in the right direction re nukes in the late 60s, early 70s.  Then Three Mile Island hit, and we found out that too complex a control room and badly trained personnel leads to problems.  Instead of rectifying that, the anti-power activists (and I think I’ll start referring to them as that – they can’t think beyond a reflexive denial of anything that produces electricity, including wind, solar, and hydro) got things slowed to a crawl via litigation, while costs skyrocketed, forcing abandonment.

            At least we’re more or less on the same page re nukes.  As a civilization we need power – it’s got to be steady, 24-7-365.  I think there’s too many enviros who believe that the pastoral scenes in movies about the 18-19th centuries are how it always was, and would gleefully shove us back into living like that whether we want it or not.

          • Gmacr1

            I’m all in on nuclear power but Hydro really is the cleanest, safest and most dependable  ‘renewable’ energy resource.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Droughts.  Silting up of resevoirs.  Lawsuits to remove dams and restore the valley to its natural state.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            I work in the energy industry.  My employer is one of the largest Nuc and Wind producers in the US.  And wind doesn’t even dent, and can’t dent, the base load needed to support the demands of the grid.  It’s a nice supplement in areas that have “just right” conditions, but without coal, NG or Nucs doing the heavy lifting, wind is just PR.

        • http://scum-and-villainy.blogspot.com/ Evil Otto

          Oil is going to run out anyways, and wars to compete for the remaining supply are a greater and much more immediate threat to people than AGW is.

          The US is sitting on vast reserves of oil shale, enough for many centuries at current rates of use, along with unbelievable amounts of coal and natural gas. Canada has vast reserves in its oil sands. We are SWIMMING in energy. There is no need to fantasize about some Mad Max future where people kill each other over gasoline.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          chicka asserts: “Oil is going to run out anyways…”

          Name for us the decade in which the proven reserves of oil and natural gas have decreased.

      • Gmacr1

        Just the mere appearance of “indulgences” was the biggest tell that they were looking to fleece the flock of believers and that it was a cult.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Z4UWLSSOOCOIUJ3IAC6OPVGREU d.

      I consider the cartoon a GW self-parody.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      And what make you think that we view that (“I suggest the cartoon illustrating this post mocks your premise.”) as a negative?  The only thing I can think of that would be a higher honor would be being denounced by algore.

    • http://www.brutallyhonest.org Rick Rice

      I suggest the cartoon illustrating this post mocks your premise

      The cartoon was chosen to make the point… perhaps in-artfully,  that it’s the anti-deniers who are in fact the deniers…

      My bad if that point was lost…

      • Brucehenry

        In-artful? Haww! The cartoonist’s point was manifestly the opposite of yours!

        • http://www.brutallyhonest.org Rick Rice

          Again Bruce… it’s those who ridicule the deniers who are in fact the actual deniers… but I can understand why that point was lost… I can especially understand how it was lost on people like you…

          • Brucehenry

            LOL, sure thing, Rick. If you say so.

      • Commander_Chico

        I don’t know why you’re so wrapped up on this issue, when the oil is running out and change has to happen anyways, Rick.

        • http://www.brutallyhonest.org Rick Rice

          Government policy is being drawn up and enacted based on a fraud Chico… policy costing jobs and impacting an economy already reeling…we should all be wrapped up on it…

        • jim_m

          Oil is not running out.   Argonne National Lab estimates that the oil from the Green River Basin in CO is enough to satisfy 100% of US consumption for the next 400 years.

          And that is just one source of oil of several deposits available within the continental US.

          The claim that oil is running out is contra-factual and nothing more than propaganda from the enviro left.  Real science, supported not by big oil but by the DOE, says that we have the resources to last another millennia without doing anything.

          Wake up.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Oil is not running out.  A little context, Chico.  I’m 62.  When I was in 6th grade, 50 years ago, I was taught that oil would run out in about 40 years [no problem, as I was also taught that we had enough coal for 200-300 years - obviously before the EPA was created].  Now, with advanced methods of extraction, the US probably [I say probably because technical advances are changing these measurements very quickly] leads the world in known reserves: “According to the new report, an updated version of a 2009 paper, the United States’ resources are larger than Saudi Arabia, China and Canada, combined. The report estimates that the U.S. has 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil and enough natural gas to meet the country’s demand for 90 years.http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/10/new-report-says-u-s-has-largest-fossil-fuel-reserves-in-world/#ixzz1ksO8hnLq
          I’m not against exploring/studying “renewable resources” and I’m certainly not against conservation – but not conservation that takes us back to the stone age.  Today we’re throwing large amounts of money out the window, crippling our economy and losing jobs based on claims that would make a snake oil salesman blush. As I stated below, renewables such as solar and wind simply are not ready for primetime.  The only change that is happening right now is that money is changing hands for no good purpose.  Rick is absolutely correct.

          • jim_m

            It really doesn’t matter how many centuries of resources we have to the left.  Oil is evil.  Coal is evil.  Nuclear power is evil. They will never accept actual construction of another nuclear power plant.

            They claim to want wind power, except that they oppose it because it kills birds, or it damages the view out of their vacation homes.  They claim to want solar power, until they realize the enormous footprint necessary to generate any meaningful power and then they oppose that.

            The truth is that the left wants the rest of us to live in some backward 16th century world where we no longer use industrial equipment to produce anything, include our food.  Hell, they would love to see farm automation go away, but then they will protest the abuse of oxen pulling a plow.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Don’t forget, Jim, oxen create methane – so oxen are out.  I really don’t know what would satisfy the left, short of humans dying out altogether [except for them, of course].

        • Walter_Cronanty

          My fingers are too slow, Jim M.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

    ““The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant,””

    And tobacco smoke is harmless. That’s what their “scientific research” determined back when big tobacco ruled the republican party. Now it’s big oil and we get the same bullshit.

    Big business buys whatever scientific results it wants, then feeds it to the rubes.

    • Steve Ryan

      Stephen,

      The only time CO2 is a pollutant is when you exhale.  When other animals (and humans) exhale, the CO2 produced is used by plants in the same manner as we use O2.

    • jim_m

      ROTFLMAO!!!

      Stephen removes all doubt that he is a moron. 

      Stevie,  do us all a favor and go upstairs out of your parent’s basement and I am sure your mom will be happy to stuff a sock in your mouth until you stop breathing, Then you will have done everything you can to save the environment.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

        Boy – me outing your bullshit repeatedly really has you upset. Suggesting that I suffocate and die?

        Wow. You’re one sick mofo. Hope you get some help, Jim, before I torment you into an asylum.

        • jim_m

          I’m merely suggesting that you put your ideology where your mouth is.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Indeed.  Anyone who truly believes that CO2 is a pollutant which will cause a global catastrophe should immediately cease producing CO2.

    • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

      Good freaking Buddha, but you are dense.  By your “standards” (such as they are) oxygen and H2O are pollutants.

    • retired.military

      Stephen

      CO2 is a pollutant per Obama.  you exhale CO2 when you breathe.  For the sake of the rest of us please stop breathing.

      Thank you

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

        CO2 was a pollutant per Bush’s administration as well. It was just suppressed at the behest of big oil.

        “The administrator proposes to find that the air pollution of
        greenhouse gas concentrations (GHG) may reasonably be anticipated to
        endanger public welfare.”
        That’s the opening line of the
        report done by Bush’s own EPA. The finding listed the same six
        greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, etc) as Obama’s EPA report does, though
        it focuses on regulating such emissions primarily from vehicles. The
        report also accurately details the impact that the emissions have on
        climate, from rising sea levels to melting glaciers. In essence, the
        report confirms that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global
        warming.

        Here’s the surprising part–President Bush initially accepted the findings of his EPA’s scientists. And according to E&E; Daily,
        Bush even lead the administration to take “several significant steps
        toward regulating greenhouse gas emissions.” So what happened?
        Essentially, Cheney and big oil stepped in.

        Here’s the report Bush and Cheney suppressed.
        http://www.eenews.net/public/25/12762/features/documents/2009/10/13/document_pm_04.pdf

        I can understand why elected Republicans suppress the truth – they are being  lobbied and paid by the oil industry. The funniest part of when you see rubes repeating the same nonsense (like CO2 isn’t a pollutant) just because they hate Obama.

        Vitamin D isn’t a poison, is it?

        Take too much Vitamin D and it’s toxic.

        CO2 is harmless in low quantities, but everybody who isn’t home-schooled know that its a greenhouse gas and is contributing to climate change.

        Bush knew it too. His own EPA told him as much. He just chose bil oil because that’s where his loyalties lie.

        What’s your excuse?

        • jim_m

          So a gas, which is naturally occurring, has existed in higher concentrations in the past, Is only 0.03% of the atmosphere and man’s contribution is only a small fraction of that, is driving global climate change?  That in the face of evidence that we don’t know everything that effects climate and that there are other greenhouse gases such as water vapor, that occur in far higher % of the atmosphere and have a far greater effect on temperature.

          Stephen, the fact is that the actual science of AGW is very poor.  the data is very incomplete and the data sources are largely unreliable (in specific I point to the GIS weather station data for the US which is claimed to be the most reliable and most complete has recently been shown to be anything but).

          However, I will agree that it is not obama calling it a pollutant and it isn’t Bush, but it is the clowns at the EPA, most of which are career bureaucrats.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

            Nice Red herring. Nobody said it is “driving global climate change, except you.

            CO2 is one of many greenhouse gases, but it’s the one greenhouse gas that the oil industry fights most because it’s a by product of fossil fuel consumption in power plants and automobiles.

            That’s why these “actual scientists” (lol) are railing against CO2….

            …because the oil industry wants them to.

          • jim_m

            All AGW legislation is based on carbon emissions, primarily CO2.  Don’t run away now and say that you weren’t claiming that global warming is not due to CO2 when you know damn well that was exactly what you and the rest of the warmists have been claiming.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            “Nobody said it [CO2] is “driving global climate change, except you.”  Really, Stephen?  You might want to read all of your CAGW prophets.  “James Hansen: Reduce CO2 in atmosphere or face catastrophe”  Michael Mann’s debunked “hockey stick” was allegedly based on CO2 and tree rings, remember?  Indeed, the IPCC AR4 claims that increased CO2 will cause warming in the range of from 2 to 4.5 C, and that it will cause more extreme weather events.  The EPA cites the IPCC AR4 liberally in its rationale for regulating CO2.  It’s what has driven [into the ditch] “carbon trading” and/or “carbon credits.”  It is what Kyoto and Copenhagen were all about.  Why are you trying to run away from what you believe in?

          • http://scum-and-villainy.blogspot.com/ Evil Otto

            (sound of crickets) Looks like Stevie fled the field, as he usually does when his standard-issue leftist arguments gets too embarrassing for him to keep making.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            If you really believe what you have written you will cease producing CO2.

        • retired.military

          I dont fawn over people who happen to be a republican.  Unlike you who gladly lick’s Obama boots when he says heel.

    • Mr Kimber

      I try to give you the benifit of  doubt knowing you must be young. I hope you are at least in your early 20′s…if not you are one ill informed MF.  Seriously people like you should not be allowed to reproduce. You actually think tobacco smoke and CO2 are the same. You are dumb and nasty. You add nothing to any conversation on  Wizbang.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

        Think they’re the same? No.

        Think that the industries behind them have similar tactics, yes.

        Another low IQ conservative shows off his “warez”….  thanks for playing our game.

      • Gmacr1

        Nah, he’s the comic relief.
        Badly done but still mildly comical.

    • Gmacr1

      I hear Dihydrogenmonoxide is a deadly chemical compound that kills thousands every year and is the biggest known spreader of pollutants on the planet.

      Why don’t you lead a crusade to relieve the world of this ongoing chemical tragedy?

      • jim_m

        It’s a powerful industrial solvent and is the leading cause of drowning.

        In fact you can actually overdose on it as there is a toxic level of consumption.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Z4UWLSSOOCOIUJ3IAC6OPVGREU d.

          Oxygen dihydride is equally insidious, and equally prevalent. For all intents and purposes it could be called one and the same thing.

          And just as evil as CO2.

          Professor Al Gore! We have another terrible windmill for you to tilt at!

          Save us. Save the polar bears. The coastlines are being deluged by flood waters.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Particularly toxic in its most pure form.

      • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

        I read that that stuff in a supercritical state can dissolve the tips of turbine blades in the hydroelectric power plants its used in.  Definitely not something you’d want in our food and drink.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      The statistical correlation between tobacco smoking and lung cancer is weak.  The statistical correlation between “second hand [tobacco] smoke” and lung cancer is non-existant.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

    The very first scientist who signed the letter is Claude Allegre.

    Check this out…

    “Asbestos
    In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of “psychosis created by leftists” The campus’ asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people and caused serious health problems in 130 others.

    Completely un-biased “scientific opinion” there, eh?

    The second name is J. Scott Armstrong. He’s not a scientist, he’s a paper-pushing bureaucrat.

    “Armstrong received his B.A. in applied science (1959) and his B.S. in industrial engineering (1960) from Lehigh University. In 1965, he received his M.S. in industrial administration from Carnegie-Mellon University. He received his Ph.D. in management from the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1968.[10]“

    Some climatologist, eh?

    Let’s jump down to the end of the list. Next to last is Hendrik Tenneke.

    “Hendrik (Henk) Tennekes (born December 13, 1936, Kampen) was the director of research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut, or KNMI), and was a Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University.[1] He is known for his work in the fields of turbulence and multi-modal forecasting. He authored the textbooks The Simple Science of Flight: From Insects to Jumbo Jets[2] and A First Course in Turbulence with John L. Lumley.”

    Flight? Turbulence? Again, not a climatologist,  but to the rubes a scientist is a scientist… lol.

    The last name? Anotnio Zichichi.

    Zichichi is regarded as an effective communicator who succeeded in
    focusing attention on the scientific world in the Italian media.
    However, he has been criticized from many quarters for his biased views.
    In his book on Galileo, Galilei, Divin Uomo:
    as many book reviewers have pointed out, this is a book with an
    ideological agenda, in which objectivity is sacrificed to the
    demonstration of the thesis that Galileo was a deeply committed Catholic
    more than a scientist and was therefore willing to renounce his
    scientific convinctions for his faith.

    Known for his opinions being driven by ideological agendas. Again, not a climatologist.

    Oh, but according to the article these are “actual scientists”… ROTFLMAO!

    • jim_m

      Sorry, dude.  I’m still laughing too hard from your claim that CO2 is a pollutant and that businesses paid for a study to claim that it was not.

      Maybe you should look up the CERN CLOUD Study.   This study, released late last year showed that solar radiation has 10x greater effect on cloud formation than any other factor previously identified.  What’s more, solar radiation is not factored into any climate prediction model.  Scientists have stated flatly, that this omission means that current climate models are all fundamentally flawed due to that fact.

      Maybe you would do better to address the science rather than resorting to empty ad hominem attacks.

    • retired.military

      VS Al Gore

      Who has a degree in making money off scaring idiots into thinking the earth is burning up.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Yes, Stephen, why would you believe the signers of this letter when you can believe “scientists” who have:
      - Refused to comply with FOIA requests and fight in court to keep from releasing documents that were paid for by US taxpayers;

      - Counseled others on how to avoid complying with FOIA requests by deleting their e-mails;

      - Refused to release their data or explain why their data was adjusted;

      - Refused to release the model that produced the results;

      - Have admitted that no one would likely be able to replicate their results (including themselves);

      - Tried to get scientists who questioned their results fired from their positions;
      - Attempted to fix the peer-review method so that those whose results raise questions or are contradictory cannot be published;

      - Deleted emails;

      - Deleted data; and,
      - When their data didn’t fit their theory, just fudged the hell out of their data.
      You make the followers of Harold Camping look absolutely sane and rational.

      • Sky__Captain

        Prediction: Stephen will completely ignore your post.

        • Oysteria

          Of course he’ll ignore it.  He’s posted no less than 5 comments since Walter’s went up.  Notice none of those 5 is in response to this one.

          Stephen is like your mother-in-law’s little lap dog who barks incessantly, craps on your carpet every time she brings him to your house and will deliver a nasty little bite should you get too close to him.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Z4UWLSSOOCOIUJ3IAC6OPVGREU d.

        I don’t need emails or these scientists/non-scientists’ rebuttals.

        Global-warming advocacy is not unscientific. It’s practically illogical.

        You don’t make predictions based on stats based on a single run. No wonder the U.N.’s own blue-ribbon panel on the IPCC told them to tone it down.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Or, on a couple of trees.  Apparently Mann had to do some serious searching in the Yamal province before he settled on, and dumped a lot of tree samples from the area that didn’t hold up the hockey stick.

          But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa’s small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.

          Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site?
          Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science. 

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/ross-mckitrick-sums-up-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-in-the-financial-post/ 
          It never was about the science, it was about the control, the chance to force other people to do what you decided was right for them.

          • Gmacr1

            It’s ALWAYS been about control.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Asbestos in place as insulation is a trivial risk, as it is not airborne unless disturbed (as in removing it).

      • Commander_Chico

        The problem is it always had to be disturbed or ended up being accidentally disturbed. How many dead Boiler Technicians, MMs, and shipyard workers could testify to that?  Even after it was supposed to be gone on ships after overhauls, it would pop up on the odd insulated pipe well into the 80s. It’s still around on a lot of buildings and does not give off any signs to warn you, unless you know what it looks like.

        But one good whiff and you’ve got fibers ripping inside your lungs year after year. Until you’re dead.

        • cirby

          Except that’s not actually true.

          Yes, some forms of asbestos are of the “spiky particle” type, but quite a bit isn’t.  It turns out that most of the asbestos (90%+)used for insulation is something called “chrysotile asbestos,” which has longer, curly fibers, and doesn’t cause asbestosis like amphibole types, which are rarely used in building insulation in this hemisphere – almost all of the asbestos found in North America is from Canadian mines – which are 95% chrysotile.  

          Chrysotile asbestos also has a different chemical composition than the others, and is fairly easily broken down by the body, as opposed to the other types (which are more like quartz and don’t break down).

           ”One good whiff” is a pure fantasy on your part – even people who work in asbestos mines with the worst amphibole types take at least years of continuous and heavy exposure to show illness.

          There’s been a big effort by some people to blur the differences, mostly trial lawyers who have invested a lot of time in asbestos-related lawsuits.

          • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

            “Show Dick some respect!”
            –John Bender

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Since you have claimed there are deat BT’s, MM’s (and other engineering ratings) due to asbestosis, prove your case.  Show data on the rate of asbestosis amongst those engineering ratings since 1945.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/NLDVHVBNBKSUODWOIAFHQBAHII Stan

    There is more C02 exhaled by the communist left saying global warming is real than any amount of the stuff that ordinary people exhale. The largest group that exhale the gas is the bureaucrats and the DemocRATs in Washington DC.

  • http://iSnark.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    Anyone who honestly believes CO2 is a pollutant should prove their conviction by ceasing to exhale it.

    • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

      I think Stephen should set the example first.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Indeed.  Not to mention ceasing to drive or ride in automobiles (including electric, since most electricity production in the United States produces CO2 as a byproduct) and Airplanes to help reduce their carbon footprint.

  • 914
  • David Higgins

    I Know that the Fossil Fuel Industries spent over a BILLION DOLLARS Last year on Advertising and the kind of ‘Research’ the Cigarette Companies did to prove their products were good for US. But EVEN SO how can Human Lemmings ignore their HOME on FIRE. 

    • http://profiles.google.com/rtssdorsai Jeff C

      “I Know that the Fossil Fuel Industries spent over a BILLION DOLLARS Last year on Advertising” …  actually no you don’t 

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Perhaps because it isn’t.  Pretty hard to ignore something that isn’t there…

  • John_LC_Silvoney

    You do realize that the little cartoon is a blast at the global warming “deniers”, don’t you, Rick?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

      Shhhh!

    • http://www.brutallyhonest.org Rick Rice

      The cartoon was chosen to make the point… perhaps in-artfully,  that it’s the anti-deniers who are in fact the deniers…

      My bad if that point was lost…

    • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

      You do realize that this has very little to do with the main point.

  • Sky__Captain

    Hey, since Stephen is sooo smart and committed to the leftist cause of “anthropomorphic global warming” or “climate change”, the perhaps he can do a couple of things:

    1) cite the scientific study that links the “man-made” part to the “global warming” part with a 95% confidence level.

    2) state the ideal temperature of planet Earth.

  • ackwired

    I hope these “actual scientists” are right.  I wonder who they work for.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Probably not the Church of algore.

      • ackwired

        Clearly not.  I suspect that they have some skin in the game.  It would be nice if it was disclosed rather than identifying them as “actual scientists”.

        ________________________________
        From: Disqus
        To: ackwired@yahoo.com
        Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:45 PM
        Subject: [wizbang] Re: “Computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause”
        Disqus generic email template

        Rodney G. Graves wrote, in response to ackwired:
        Probably not the Church of algore.
        Link to comment

        • Commander_Chico

          Big Energy, coal mining and oil, see my thoughts above.

          It’s not about AGW – it’s about suppressing the local power production that wind, solar and small hydro represent.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Please – “suppressing the local power production that wind, solar and small hydro represent.”  How do you keep track of all the conspiracies in your mind?  Do you keep a scorecard?
            Solar and wind technologies are simply not ready for primetime.  They cannot produce energy reliably – you have to have a stand by plant running at all times.
            SOLAR:  “The costs of subsidizing solar electricity have exceeded the
            100-billion-euro mark in Germany, but poor results are
            jeopardizing the country’s transition to renewable energy. The government is struggling to come up with a new concept to promote the inefficient technology in the future.” http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,809439,00.html
            WIND:”Nuclear power and gas-fired CCGT are therefore the preferred
            technologies for generating reliable and affordable electricity. There
            is no economic case for wind-power.
             Wind-power is also an
            inefficient way of cutting CO2 emissions, once allowance is made for the
            CO2 emissions involved in the construction of the turbines and the
            deployment of conventional back-up generation. Nuclear power and
            gas-fired CCGT, replacing coal-fired plant, are the preferred
            technologies for reducing CO2 emissions. (Chapter 3)  Wind-power
            is therefore expensive (chapter 2) and ineffective in cutting CO2
            emissions (chapter 3). If it were not for the renewables targets set by
            the Renewables Directive, wind-power would not even be entertained as a
            cost-effective way of generating electricity and/or cutting emissions.
            The renewables targets should be renegotiated with the EU.”

            http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Sorry to reply to myself, but one sentence in the Speigel article epitomizes the current fixation on “renewable energy” by Germany’s, and our, governments. 
            “The government is struggling to come up with a new concept to promote the inefficient technology in the future.”

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Please – “suppressing the local power production that wind, solar and small hydro represent.”  How do you keep track of all the conspiracies in your mind?  Do you keep a scorecard?
            Solar and wind technologies are simply not ready for primetime.  They cannot produce energy reliably – you have to have a stand by plant running at all times.
            SOLAR:  “The costs of subsidizing solar electricity have exceeded the 100-billion-euro mark in Germany, but poor results are jeopardizing the country’s transition to renewable energy. The government is struggling to come up with a new concept to promote the inefficient technology in the future.” http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,809439,00.html
            WIND:”Nuclear power and gas-fired CCGT are therefore the preferred technologies for generating reliable and affordable electricity. There is no economic case for wind-power. Wind-power is also an inefficient way of cutting CO2 emissions, once allowance is made for the
            CO2 emissions involved in the construction of the turbines and the deployment of conventional back-up generation. Nuclear power and gas-fired CCGT, replacing coal-fired plant, are the preferred
            technologies for reducing CO2 emissions. (Chapter 3)  Wind-power is therefore expensive (chapter 2) and ineffective in cutting CO2 emissions (chapter 3). If it were not for the renewables targets set by
            the Renewables Directive, wind-power would not even be entertained as a cost-effective way of generating electricity and/or cutting emissions. The renewables targets should be renegotiated with the EU.”

            http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf

          • ackwired

            I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions.  But I can not accept what they say at face value when they are identified as “actual scientists”.

            ________________________________
            From: Disqus
            To: ackwired@yahoo.com
            Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:03 AM
            Subject: [wizbang] Re: “Computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause”
            Disqus generic email template

            Commander_Chico wrote, in response to ackwired:
            Big Energy, coal mining and oil, see my thoughts above.
            Link to comment

        • Jwb10001

          Do you not think people like Mann and co have a stake in their position?

          • ackwired

            I think many people have a stake in this issue.  That’s why it is important to understand who is making what statement.  Obviously, the companies producing greenhouse gasses have a stake in it.  If someone starts a business whose revenues depend on preventing climate change, they obviously have a stake in it.  To ask us to take the word of people identified as “actual scientists” is a bit of a stretch.

            ________________________________
            From: Disqus
            To: ackwired@yahoo.com
            Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:13 PM
            Subject: [wizbang] Re: “Computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause”
            Disqus generic email template

            Jwb10001 wrote, in response to ackwired:
            Do you not think people like Mann and co have a stake in their position?
            Link to comment

          • Walter_Cronanty

            A bit of a stretch?  As opposed to those scientists who get their money from government grants to do studies on how bad CAGW is going to be and how to stop CAGW? Right. And, to copy my post up above, scientists who have:
            - Refused to comply with FOIA requests and fight in court to keep from releasing documents that were paid for by US taxpayers;
            - Counseled others on how to avoid complying with FOIA requests by deleting their e-mails;
            - Refused to release their data or explain why their data was adjusted;
            - Refused to release the model that produced the results;
            - Have admitted that no one would likely be able to replicate their results (including themselves);
            - Tried to get scientists who questioned their results fired from their positions;
            - Attempted to fix the peer-review method so that those whose results raise questions or are contradictory cannot be published;
            - Deleted emails;
            - Deleted data; and,
            - When their data didn’t fit their theory, just fudged the hell out of their data.
            I don’t know how you can even call them “scientists” as they surely do not follow any scientific method I am aware of. Check out the names and credentials listed below.  Or, you can look at the scientists listed in the Daily Mail article linked below by Jim M discussing the fact that new data shows that there’s been no warming for 15 years, let alone the magnitude of warming projected by CAGW’s scientists’ models.  

          • ackwired

            No.  Not as opposed to anything.  I think the dialogue about this issue has become so emotional that it is important to know the source of any data or published opinion.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          And algore and his acolytes do no have a financial stake in the game?

          • 914

            Nevah’

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Well, let’s see. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.
    William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at
    Princeton University.
    Claude Allegre, is the former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris.  He is semi-retired, but continues to do work at the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris.  His main scientific area is geochemistry.
    James McGrath is the University Distinguished Professor, Ethyl Chaired Professor of Chemistry and Macromolecules and Interfaces Institute, at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
    J. Scott Armstrong is a professor of Marketing at Wharton University of Pennsylvania.  He is known for his work on forecasting methods, and is the author of the books “Long-Range Forecasting” and “Principles of Forecasting.”  He is the a co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, and the International Journal of Forecasting.”
    Jan Breslow is the Rockefeller University’s Frederick Henry Leonhardt Professor and a senior
    physician at The Rockefeller University Hospital, where he heads the Laboratory of Biochemical
    Genetics and Metabolism.
    But you’re really not interested in this are you?  You want to contradict the message of the article, but don’t know how.  So, you’re trying to distract.  Well, get back on point.  Here’ a cite for Burt Rutan’s latest on the article that is the subject of this post.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/burt-rutan-on-schooling-the-rogue/
    And one last point, A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George
    Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 83%
    believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes.
    Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society
    (AMS) and the National Weather Association. Another survey published by
    the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are
    primarily responsible for recent warming.

  • jim_m

    Climate truth in The Daily Mail:

    The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

    The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

    Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1ksdKymSI
    Sucks when even the scientists that the warmists have been relying upon for their BS are now being forced by their data becoming public to acknowledge the truth.

    • herddog505

      [T]he data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. [emphasis mine - dj505]

      Yeah, I’ll bet they were!

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Keep reading that article.  It’s CAGW “science” at its best: “However, it is also possible that the
    new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after
    astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of
    the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the
    canals of Holland froze solid. Yet, in its paper, the Met Office
    claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the
    impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.
    Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would
    only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott,
    one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest  a reduction of solar
    activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient
    to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.‘World
    temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’
    said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research
    at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to
    convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well
    be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the
    need for their help.’He
    pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be
    small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are
    being undermined by the current pause in global-warming. CO2
    levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the
    Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’.
    It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase
    of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to
    2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998. So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.”