Calm Opposition to the Storm of Climate Change

This past week Dr. Richard Lindzen spoke before the House of Commons on the issue of global warming.  Lindzen is a professor at MIT in the Departement of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.  He’s long had a history of arguing against the purported catastrophic effects of global warming.  As such, whether people support or deride him sadly comes down to their political beliefs.  That is not how it should be with science but that is a topic for another post.

The beginning of his speech is getting the most press (H/T: Ann Althouse):

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

What is more interesting to me as a scientist is the link to the pdf with the full content of the speech.  I can’t link to individual pages of the pdf, so let me highlight a few areas I found worthy of note.  Lindzen notes comments in an open letter from climate scientists who appeared to be banding together to say that the science of climate change is settled.  He focuses two statements:

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle.

His analysis:

Now, one of the signers was Carl Wunsch. Here is what he says in a recent paper in Journal of Climate (Wunsch et al, 2007) (and repeated a couple of weeks ago in a departmental lecture):

“It remains possible that the data base is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming–as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”

In brief, when we actually go to the scientific literature we see that the ‘authoritative’ assertions are no more credible than the pathetic picture of the polar bear that accompanied the letter.

Lindzen also challenges the assertion that the “science is settled” in other ways.  He does it both by stating the obvious–by definition science is never settled, there is always room for more thought and investigations–and by challenging commonly held truisms about global warming.  I particularly liked this example:

I don’t blame people, in general, for having been duped by the global warming hysteria.  It’s based on some accurate facts.  It involves math and scientific models that take a lifetime to understand.  It invokes passionate imagery such as slowly dying polar bears.  And a lot of scientists–from a profession where truth is suppose to be held in high regard–violated public trust and deceived many in the name of money or political agendas.  This goes for politicians, too, who have previously made statements showing a “belief” of global warming.  Politicians can’t possibly be experts in all subjects.  They rely heavily on advisers and experts to summarize issues.  When many of these so-called-experts are actively being dishonest the results are inevitable.

Thankfully it would seem the tide is finally turning on climate change hysteria.  That really is the key point, the hysteria.  Climate change itself is an interesting branch of atmospheric science.  Improving models and data gathering techniques are valid scientific pursuits.  But extrapolation to the certain doom of all life on earth in the next ten years was hyperbole never based in science.  At least the public consciousness is beginning to realize that.

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 25, 2012.
Filed under Categories.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • ackwired

    Calm is good on this subject.  It has been hard to find on either side of the argument.

  • jim_m

    The warmists should be embarrassed at being so easily duped.  Nt only were they duped into the absurd notion that science is settled, but that the entirety of global climate could be reduced to CO2 content in the air.

    To get a glimpse at teh complex issue I suggest taking a peek at this page :  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/19/crowdsourced-climate-complexity-compiling-the-wuwt-potential-climatic-variables-reference-page/#more-56943

  • Tano

    Lindzen begins by trying to assert what the debate “really is all about”. Thats kinda funny, actually Kudos to him if he accepts that CO2 is increasing, that CO2 has a warming effect. Right away he has left behind a large percentage of the skeptics/deniers who often claim that there is no warming, and no warming effect of CO2. He actually acknowledges this, and regrets that so many deniers (he actually does use the term “denial”) are making it too easy for climate scientists to persuade the public of the dangers.

    Funny that you don’t point out this fact, or join in the denunciation of all the irresponsible deniers on your side of the question.

    Lindzen claims that the evidence is that increased CO2 will lead to very little warming. Sorry, but that is just plain dishonest. He could make the claim that the evidence is being misinterpreted by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists – but I look in vain for such an argument. All we get is a blind assertion. Same with the issue of consequences.

    He presents one example of a scientist doing what one imagines that Lindzen, and you, would respect – acknowledging that the database is not able to make very precise predictions of one factor – sea rise. Yet this same scientist nonetheless, does believe that the evidence for catastrophic effects is there. How is this resolved? Does Lindzen explore what led this respected scientist to his conclusions? Does he show some minimal level of respect in terms of wondering why the scientist can accept that there is some level of uncertainty but also accept the basic thrust of the warming argument? In other words, does he deal with this in a rational manner?  No – he does the usual dance of the propagandist – when someone claims that the science is settled, they are attacked for being rigid and unscientific. When they acknowledge that there is always some uncertainty, the claim is made that they are admitting that there is no truth to the assertion.

    The chart comparison is yet another deeply dishonest presentation, and shows once again that Lindzen is deeply into his propagandist role (should I be nice and just say “advocacy role”). The earlier time period 1895 through WWII is hardly “nature”. It is actuall the dirtiest part of the Industrial Revolution.

    Sorry, but this guy is not very convincing in terms of the science. He is very clearly an advocate, with a well honed identity in the field, and seems to see his role as presenting “the other” side of the argument, not in coming to some “objective” resolution.

    Nonetheless, I repeat, the man does have some credibility in that he states, quite clearly: “The claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a greenhouse effect, and that man’s activities have contributed to warming, are trivially true ….”

    As I said before, this is contrary to what many, if not most, of the full-time deniers out there are saying. Maybe you could raise the level of debate if you cleaned up the enormous mess on your side of the argument. If scientist did not have to deal with the morons which your side cultivates and uses, then maybe a intelligent argument on specific legitimate areas of dispute could be had.

    • GarandFan

      ” Maybe you could raise the level of debate if you cleaned up the enormous mess on your side of the argument.”

      Oh, like the guys from East Anglia demonizing anyone who questions their veracity?  By issuing threats if counter proposals are printed in certain scientific journals?  That kind of “clean up”?

    • fustian24

      There’s also that little inconvenient fact that it has not warmed in about 10 years in the face of increasing carbon dioxide loads. One or two years is weather, but a decade is climate. 

      Natural climate change is constant. The idea that there is some sort of normal climate is simply wrong. What no one ever asks is what would the climate be doing if we weren’t here? Because none of the warmists can tell us what the temperature is supposed to be, their claim that temperature changes are all carbon dioxide are ridiculous.

      “Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism.” – Dr . Malcolm Ross

      • Tano

         It is quite the strawman to claim that anyone thinks there is such a thing as “normal” climate. No one understands the scope of climate variation as well as the people who spend their lives studying the historical records and trying to model that variability.

        It is also absurd to claim that no one is asking what the climate would be doing if we weren’t here. The whole point of building those very complex climate models is to isolate and account for all the variables that go into climate dynamics – our influence being just one of them. In other words, the truth is exactly opposite of your claim – one of the ways to get a handle on the scope our effect on climate is to determine exactly what all the other factors are and what their impact is. That is what the models try to do.

        The point is not what the temperature is “supposed to be”. The question is what it is, and to what extent has the increased CO2 affected what it is.

        • jim_m

           It isn’t a strawman.  The whole premise of actions such as Kyoto and other warmist boondoggles is that we can control climate and prevent change in the climate.  Such fantasies are grossly naive, but that is the whole point of warmism.

          I’m old enough to remember how air pollution was going to cause the next great Ice Age.  The enviro left has always held as it’s default position that if we just manage everything correctly that we can keep the earth exactly as it is.  No species will ever go extinct, no forests will burn away, the temperature will always remain in the same range.  But this idiocy is exactly counter to the history of the earth.  Species have always gone extinct.  The earth goes between ice age and warm period.  The earth has been far warmer than today with far higher CO2 levels.  All these things are ignored by the enviro left.  It’s just insulting to be told that nobody believes that way when for decades we have been listening to them rant on about exactly that idea.

          • Tano

             No Jim, The point is to control _our impact_ on the climate, not the climate as a whole. And controlling our impact is pretty straightforward – reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses that we are pumping into the atmosphere. There is nothing naive about that.

            Your claims about the goals of the “enviro-left” most certainly are a strawman, and are also rather besides the point in this discussion. There is, at the heart of this issue, a totally non-political core issue – what will be the consequences to the climate and environment of the ever-increasing greenhouse gasses that we are releasing, and do we need to change some of that behavior.

            It is a real shame that this issue is so drowned in red team-blue team BS. Because all we end up hearing is total propagandistic crap, (yes, from both sides) of the type you offer here.

            No one is trying to bring the natural rhythms and evolution of the earth to a screeching halt. The issue is quite simply the RATE OF CHANGE in global temperature. If temperature were to continue to vary up and down the way it has for the past billion years, there would be NO PROBLEM. No one is trying to halt natural climate variability or change. The issue is very rapid rate of change that may have consequences that cannot easily be dealt with by species (who adapt on slower time scales) or our own human societies and its infrastructure

            I don’t know who you are talking about when you claim that historical climate variability has been ignored by the left. IF you are referring to some ranting blog-commenters on the left (your mirror image), then maybe you have a point. But who cares about them? Climate scientists, the ones who I imagine your real dispute is with, have not ignored any of the issues that you raise.In fact, you only know about the history of climate change, to the extent that you do, because you have been told about it by climate scientists. The very people you trash are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the information that you claim they ignore.

            That is why your argument is one big strawman argument.

          • fustian24

            Climate “scientists” predict the temperature effect of CO2, then they compare it to the climate change they claim to have measured. Lots of fudging occurs, but the claim is that if the numbers roughly match, it is a proof that CO2 is changing the climate and creating warming. 

            Just one problem. How do we know the climate isn’t changing all on its own? It can do that. In fact it always does. Which means there is an unspoken assumption in the warmist argument that the climate is not changing. And it’s unproven.

            This is not a straw man. It’s just a fact.

            And I don’t know if you’re aware, but a climate scientist is just a regular earth scientist that took the global warming money. Finding a climatologist that is on board with global warming is like finding a Pope that’s Catholic. It’s kind of a tautology. But there are lots of geologists, geophysicists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers that have crucial parts to play in the study and understanding of climatology. And many of them are more open minded.

          • Tano

             ” How do we know the climate isn’t changing all on its own?”

            Of course climates change “on their own”. But that does not mean that they change for no reason, or in a totally random and unpredictable manner. That is why climate scientists have spent decades trying to model the system. They are not merely trying to model the effects of CO2 on the climate, they are modelling the entire climate. In other words, they are trying to account for every factor which effects the climate. Thus they are fully taking into account all of the natural factors that drive climate change. That is why the models are so big and complicated.

            “Which means there is an unspoken assumption in the warmist argument that the climate is not changing”

            That is simply totally false. You don’t have the slightest clue what you are talking about. If you remove all human factors from the climate models, the models will generate estimates of how the climate is changing naturally – they will not yield a result of a static climate.

            You should do at least the minimum amount of research on this issue before you broadcast utter nonsense.

            “there are lots of geologists, geophysicists, physicists, meteorologists
            and astronomers that have crucial parts to play in the study and
            understanding of climatology. And many of them are more open minded.

            All scientists are open-minded. It is people like you who are utterly resistant to ever changing your mind, no matter how much data is made available to  you. Scientists in all the fields you mention accept the facts of global warming at the same rate as climate scientists. You should actually try to engage some scientists sometimes.

            Except that you have already decided that any scientist who disagrees with you must be thoroughly corrupt, right? So I guess you are pretty immune to any arguments whatsoever. Congratulations….

          • fustian24

            As it happens I AM an Earth Scientist. And we do not know how to predict climate. There are theories, and we have models, but we do not know. And our models tend to be extrapolations and do not predict the interesting dramatic changes. 

            For example, which Climatologists predicted ten years of stable global temperatures? The climatological models all showed hockey stick. The astrophysicists suggested cooling might be on the agenda because of solar changes. They were the only ones that called it.

            I’ll be listening to their predictions for a while.

          • Tano

             I do not believe, not for one moment, that you are an earth scientist.
            Thats not even a “nice try”…

          • fustian24

            Well you would be wrong. 

            Nice try. Thanks for playing.

            What I am not is a climatologist. But I very definitely am a professional earth scientist. For over 30 years as it happens.

          • Tano

             You mean like a farmer? Or a ditch digger?

          • fustian24

            Ah, a personal attack.

            You’ve given up then?

          • fustian24

            “All scientists are open-minded. It is people like you who are utterly resistant to ever changing your mind, no matter how much data is made available to  you. Scientists in all the fields you mention accept the facts of global warming at the same rate as climate scientists. You should actually try to engage some scientists sometimes.”

            Absolute nonsense. How could one guy be more wrong?

            You have apparently never been involved with actual science which is pretty much high school with much better vocabulary. “Settled” science goes from one idiotically wrong position to another. It is generally skeptics that are responsible for progress and they generally pay a horrible price for their heresy. The story of Prometheus is pretty much the story of science.

            I used to try to pay a little attention to the Global Warming kerfuffle until I realized it was all based on “massaged” data and incredibly simple models which meant that nothing in this field could actually be proven.  The spectacular failure of the climate science crowd to actually predict non-trivial change like last decades temperature plateau tells you all you need to know about climate “science”. That they were completely gobsmacked by the fact that in the prehistoric past CO2 rises were a following indicator of temperature change instead of a leading one is further indication that they just really don’t know what they’re talking about. 

            In my view climate “science” is pretty much like astrology, but with much less rigor behind it.

            The whole 95% belief comes when the Global Warming crowd polls themselves. Once you get out into the rest of the earth sciences, the breakdown seems to follow political beliefs. Which suggests that the evidence is not there and this is more a matter of politics than anything else.

            But you keep the faith! Don’t let anyone tell you different. If someone tries to tell you anything else you tell them that the science is settled. Even though guys like Lindzen, who is an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, are crying BS, don’t you let that challenge your conviction. The science is settled, the science is settled, the science is settled. 

            As long as you ask part of the priesthood.

          • Tano

             ” Even though guys like Lindzen, who is an atmospheric physicist and the
            Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute
            of Technology, are crying BS, don’t you let that challenge your
            conviction”

            Oh, now you are appealing to authority????

            So how do you account for the fact that for every Lindzen, there are 20 scientists, every bit as credentialled, every bit as prominent who disagree with him.

            How can you claim that because I do not accept his word, I am resistant to reason, but the fact that you do not accept the word of a far greater number of equally prominent people is not a sign of your resistance to reason???

          • fustian24

            I am pointing out simply that it cannot be settled science if heavy hitters like Lindzen is not on board. Think of him as a counter-example. If it’s so damed settled, why can’t a guy like that get on board. 

            Personally I am not at all surprised that there are guys on both sides. I think the whole thing is still up in the air. Guys on both sides are still making interesting points.

            It’s your side that insists that anyone that knows a lick of “science” is on the warmist side. 

            Well explain Lindzen.

            And there are tons more. With equally impressive credentials. I would include many of my own colleagues.

            Get out of your little echo chamber and embrace the uncertainty of real life and actual science.

          • fustian24

            “That is simply totally false. You don’t have the slightest clue what you are talking about. If you remove all human factors from the climate models, the models will generate estimates of how the climate is changing naturally – they will not yield a result of a static climate.”
            Nice circular reasoning!

            You’re assuming we can compute to a certainty the amount of temperature change people are responsible for. The best we can do are model-based estimates (from highly suspect and simplistic models). Those numbers are not facts. They must be verified. But they can’t be, because we don’t know what the natural temperature variation is.

            Do you see how silly you are?

          • Tano

             Huh? How on earth is it circular reasoning to state that if you take one factor out of a complex model, then you will get a result that depends on the factors that you left in???

            “You’re assuming we can compute to a certainty the amount of temperature change people are responsible for.”

            To a certainty? No, I didn’t say that.

            “The best we can do are model-based estimates…”

            Well duh. Yes, fusty, climate models yield model-based estimates. Imagine that….

            “(from highly suspect and simplistic models).”

            On one level, models are simplifications, by definition. You cannot create an artificial earth, an artificial sun, and manipulate all the variables. Models must be simplifications. But the climate models have been under constant revision and development for decades, so they are hardly simplistic.

            They are infinitely more complex and more informed than your understanding of climate is, or mine.

            “But they can’t be [verified], because we don’t know what the natural temperature variation is.”

            We have an enormous amount of proxy data, from many different sources, to inform us about historical (i,e, pre-Industrial Age) climate variation.

            But let us be clear here. You are disagreeing with people like Lindzen, and Lomborg who accept that global warming is happening and that we are, at least in part, responsible for it?

          • fustian24

            My original reply seems to have gotten lost and this is such low hanging fruit.

            We cannot verify our model-based estimate of man-made temperature change without knowing what the natural temperature variation is.

            And we cannot know what the natural temperature variation is without KNOWING what the man-made component is.

            Which means we cannot verify the CO2 models. 

            In the attempt to verify the CO2 models, the only answer in the back of the book we have to check against is the recent temperature change that we measure with our thermometers. 

            But we don’t know how much of the recent temperature change is man-made and how much of it is natural. So we don’t know what the answer is supposed to be.

            Instead, all we have is more models.

            It’s models all the way down.

            Get it?

            Circular reasoning!

          • fustian24

            Also, you said: “If temperature were to continue to vary up and down the way it has for the past billion years, there would be NO PROBLEM.”

            Are you insane?

            You think an increase in temperature of a few degrees is the end the world, but a full blown ice age is nothing to worry about? 

            And you are lecturing us about climate science?

            Why, again?

            Hey, huge meteor impacts and super volcanoes are also natural. You okay with those too?

          • Tano

            ” You think an increase in temperature of a few degrees is the end the world, but a full blown ice age is nothing to worry about?”

            Thats right. If they come on at the rate that they did in the past, then species and ecosystems have plenty of time to adjust, and we humans would also have time to gradually shift towards more hospitable climes.

            “Hey, huge meteor impacts and super volcanoes are also natural. You okay with those too? ”

            Not quite sure what you mean here. Have you lost track of your own arguments? I am not championing natural events because they are natural. I am merely opposing one set of human behaviors that are demonstrably causing what may well be a very huge problem. I don’t think you can infer from that that I am somehow a cheerleader for getting hit with a meteorite.

          • fustian24

            That would all be fine except many people are coming around to the belief that ice ages come abruptly. Estimates are as long as a decade or so (which would be spectacularly tough enough) but there is some evidence that they may come on in a time frame as short as a year.

            As for the rest, I was wondering if you were one of those Gaia worshippers that view humans as some kind of virus that should be dealt with by a vengeful Earth Goddess. There are some that believe they are serving Gaia by not breeding. Personally, I think they’re just proving Darwin.

            Apparently, you are not in that camp. You just don’t know enough about climate change to realize how rapid it can be.

            Can I respectively hope that you also do not get the chance to breed?

          • Tano

             The full blown ice ages seem to have taken many decades at the very least, although some rare one-off effects may have changed climate on a quicker scale.

            What is your point here though? If anything, the fact that climate can ever be shown to have changed very rapidly, with utterly catastrophic effects, merely serves to support the notion that rapid climate change that we might cause, with catastrophic effects, should be prevented, if at all possible.

            “I was wondering if you were one of those Gaia worshippers…”

            Absolutely not.

            “Can I respectively hope that you also do not get the chance to breed? ”

            I don’t know what you mean by “respectively”. If you mean “respectfully”, then no, there is no respectful way to have such vile sentiments. Maybe it is time to take a break and get your bearings…

          • fustian24

            I very much appreciate your pointing out my typo. I find intellectual discussions to be much improved by focus on typing, spelling, and punctuation. I would return the favor by pointing out that you favor run-on sentences.

            My point is that you said something foolish back up there at the top that exposed your lack of knowledge about the subject being discussed. Go back to the top and read it again. 

            I’m sure you’ll figure it out without my help. 

            Then come back and fix any spelling errors I mithgt have made (I left one in to make it easier).

          • Tano

             I was not trying to fix your typos. I  honestly did not know if it was a typo, or whether you meant something different than “respectful”. So can I assume that  if you are reduced to making offensive comments like that, that you are giving up?

            That might be a good thing, you seem to lose your composure when forced to actually think for a change.

            And btw, our  columns are now so small I cannot respond to you on the other thread. I meant no offense by asking if you were a farmer or a ditch digger.  I don’t know why you would find that to be an attack – those are honorable lines of work. I just wouldn’t necessarily trust such folks to know much about global climate change, nor you.

          • Tano

             I was not trying to fix your typos. I  honestly did not know if it was a typo, or whether you meant something different than “respectful”. So can I assume that  if you are reduced to making offensive comments like that, that you are giving up?

            That might be a good thing, you seem to lose your composure when forced to actually think for a change.

            And btw, our  columns are now so small I cannot respond to you on the other thread. I meant no offense by asking if you were a farmer or a ditch digger.  I don’t know why you would find that to be an attack – those are honorable lines of work. I just wouldn’t necessarily trust such folks to know much about global climate change, nor you.

          • fustian24

            My response is at the bottom in a new thread.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/H273XTNWZQKNQQ7ASHO7UUNH5Q Bruce

      Tano –

      I think you missed an important point – many (most?) of Lindzen’s “articles of faith” on climate change (” The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little
      warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even
      significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal.”) have been debunked by other climate scientists (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/).   His most recent WSJ editorial (No Need to Panic About Global Warming
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_News_BlogsModule) has been also been shown to be deceptive (http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/01/30/414277/wsj-publishes-op-ed-from-16-climate-deniers-refused-letter-from-255-top-scientists/ “The most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal with respect to manmade climate change
      is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of
      Sciences wrote a scientifically accurate essay on the realities of
      climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate
      around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down.
      The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent
      independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most
      respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate
      because 16 so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This
      may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for
      the nation”).  Why do we listen to this guy?

  • Vagabond661

    After living in South Florida for 18 years, it was clear that hurricane prediction was a best guess scenario. Models shifted every time a new reading of the eye location was given. On a bigger scale, the number of hurricanes predicted for a year were rarely accurate. It seemed every local weather forecaster from Miami to West Palm would indicate that at least storm force winds would hit the local viewing area and we needed to be prepared. The one sure thing, however, was money to made on the hysteria. Whether it was buying plywood for windows or generators or emptying grocery stores of canned food and bottled water, someone profited over the hysteria. There are similiarities with global warming. Don”t waste a good crisis, real or manufactured.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/B5TWMONJYPN2MUNFRSTAKQUDGA StuartY

    Tano the chart is not misleading. Lindzen is a major figure in climate science and in fact trained many of the current experts. Besides computer models what actual science supports your claim that there will be catastrophic warming? Are you aware that  20,000 years ago New York City was covered in an ice sheet deep enough to bury most of the Statue of Liberty? Do you know know anything about the Younger Dryas and that the earth’s temperature changed very rapidly in ten years during that time? What processes caused this or the Little Ice Age and the subsequent re-warming? It is this nearly complete lack of understanding that Lindzen is talking about. A meaningful climate theory must be able to accurately reconstruct known historical climate changes before rational people are going to spend trillion of dollars and make massive economic changes. All of the current computer models completely fail this simple test and that’s why Lindzen is rightly so skeptical. The other big issue is the conflict of funding. This can not be overstated. Getting adequate funding today in a time of deficits is a serious challenge and pending catastrophe gets more attention than a slight manageable rise in temperature over the 21st century.

    • Tano

       ” It is this nearly complete lack of understanding that Lindzen is talking about.”

      This is such a perfect example of the absurdity that we so often find in denialist arguments.
      You are basically arguing that the great majority of climate scientists, people every bit as learned as Lindzen, people who study this thing for a living, have all been led astray because they never heard of the fricken ice ages – what we all learned about in junior high. I cannot believe that you really expect anyone to take such arguments seriously.

      Your assertion about the models failing to retrodict ancient climate variation is wholly inaccurate. They do quite well at that, but I suspect that you have protected yourself from ever having to consider that by your later claim that all the scientists who tell you things you don’t want to hear are all corrupt, and are just making stuff up in order to get money.

      I wouldn’t begin to know how to lead you out of your intellectual morass….

      • Cecil Bordages

        Please provide a link to a scientific article that shows one single prediction made the the AGW computer models that has turned out to be true when tested by actual evidence.

        • jim_m

          They can’t.  Science results in a hypothesis that predicts what will happen in the real world.  AGW predicts nothing but is used to explain everything.  It isn’t science it is religion.

        • Tano

           You don’t know how to do research Cecil? The tone of your question seems to imply that you think there are no such articles. There are hundreds. Have you ever tried to educate yourself, apart from what is expected of you as a member of the red team?

          Here, I will give you a link to an article that attempts an overview of this question – they develop a metric to gauge the performance of climate models, and in the process of so doing, of course, they discuss their performance.

          http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~jkim/publications/papers/RK_2008_BAMS_Performance.pdf

          But really Cecil, go check out this cool site called “Google”. Heck, there even is a site called “Google Scholar”. By all means, go there and read all about what actual scientists are doing. You would be amazed at how different it is from the blather you hear on entertainment radio or other rightwing rant-sites.

      • http://twitter.com/annabellep annabellep

        I don’t know either of you and I don’t have a dog in this fight (my gender has been traditionally excluded from the privilege of science; note 95%+ of climate scientists are male, which will produce a bias), but you seem to be playing fast and loose with other people’s arguments and just trying to win points. Stuarts argument didn’t boil down to “ice age” information “we all learned in high school,” it was that for some ice ages, the temperature had risen and fallen rapidly before at a time when humans could not possibly be responsible for it, ergo, it could happen again. That calls into question the anthropomorphic argument using basic logic.

        Look, here’s the thing. If you (universal you, ftr) REALLY cared, if you REALLY thought it was urgent, you’d take the time to make persuasion a priority, and you’d make damn sure you didn’t muddy the data with your own ego. Scientists MUST practice ethics in their work and civility in their communication, or face the consequences: a loss of credibility. If you guys really cared, you’d drop the blame game (because whether it’s anthropomorphic shouldn’t matter) and start acting ethically and communicating clearly and honestly. That climate scientists don’t tells the public something about their work via inference.

        • Tano

           ”Stuarts argument didn’t boil down to “ice age” information “we all
          learned in high school,” it was that for some ice ages, the temperature
          had risen and fallen rapidly before at a time when humans could not
          possibly be responsible for it,”

          Stuart’s assertion was that he knew all about the ice ages and the Younger Dryas, but apparently, as he claims, the climate scientists who spend their lives trying to understand historical climate, and to model it, have never heard or dealt with these facts. That is ridiculous.

          “If you guys really cared, you’d drop the blame game (because whether it’s anthropomorphic shouldn’t matter)”

          That doesn’t make any sense. If the climate is changing at dramatically rapid rates, and is doing so because of our activities, and the consequences would be grave, then it seems to follow that perhaps we should try to act differently.

          If the climate is not changing dramatically, or if it is, but it is not our fault, then there really is nothing that we can or should do.

          So yes, it matters a very great deal if this change is real or not and if it is anthropogenic or not.

          Apparently you think that the scientists have great responsibility to be civil, but what about their critics? To whatever extent the scientists have acted in less than an ideal manner, it is only because they have now endured a few decades of horrendous, non-stop abuse by the raving ranters on the right. Scientists are human beings too, and sometimes they get tired of having their integrity and motives questioned by a bunch of know-nothings who are just playing political games.

          • fustian24

            The point my dear Tano is that climate scientists cannot predict ice ages. They have a number of theories as to why they occur, but the best tool they have is orbital variations and those predictions say that an ice age may start now or not for another 50,000 years. 

            I don’t call that much of a prediction. 

            Looking into the past they cannot tell you why ice ages happened when they did. Oh sure, there are all manner of conjecture involving current changes, continental drift, uplift, etc… But these are all theories and they predict squat all.

            Furthermore, while we’re modeling, it is easy to account for past glaciation with a combination of orbital variation, sun output, and cloud feedbacks. CO2 is not necessary.

            Now this is not a proof. 

            Because there are no proofs in climatology. Only theories.

            And my physicist friends tell me that while CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas, it isn’t much of one and the climate just isn’t that much into it. Once climatologists have a theory that encompasses water vapor, they might be a little more believable. Incredibly they don’t know the relationship between increased CO2, cloudiness, and temperature feedbacks. 

            This is not settled science. It’s politics.

  • SoBeRight

    Good to see that the discussion has ‘matured’ and that the consensus is moving forward and that the right is no longer able to make unfounded claims such as man-made greenhouse gases are not contributing to the problem. Now we just need to agree on the seriousness of the problem and the courses we can take to remedy the situation.

    All of the deniers who claimed “anthropogenic global warming is a hoax” have been driven by ideological issues (Ie a hatred of liberal Al Gore) while putting our planet and our way of life at serious risk – and their position wasn’t based in science.95+% of the climate scientists agree that anthropogenic warming is real. Let’s get serious abut how serious the problem is, and stop insisting that we drill more and burn more greenhouse gas-producing fuels just because the oil industry wants us to.

    “It is not about whether CO2 is increasing:it clearly is. It is not
    about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming:
    it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the
    innumerable claimed catastrophes.”

    This is progress. Just three years ago the right was claiming that there was no climate change issue at all. Now they recognize that’s it real, and that CO2 is “clearly” on the increase.

    We just have to discus what to do about it. The fact that it took many years for the right to see the light is simply incredible.

    • jim_m

       It is totally inaccurate to say that people who think that AGW is BS are driven by ideological issues. 

      A lot of people have looked at the issues and seen how individuals on the warmist side have demagogued the issues and how virtually all the remedies recommended by warmists do absolutely nothing to stop global warming (Kyoto) but do a lot to redistribute wealth from the west to underdeveloped nations.

      Skeptics have also looked at the so-called science and pointed out for years now how deeply flawed it has been. Warmists have fought tooth and nail against FOIA requests and they have destroyed or hidden records in attempts to keep others from being able to examine their data and see if it is valid.

      For all these substantive criticisms, skeptics have been crucified in public by the warmist left.  Skeptics have been compared to Nazis.  People have recommended that skeptics should not be allowed to hold academic posts, and do we reallly need to revisit the disgusting commercial where people who didn’t want to knuckle under to stupid warmist propaganda were murdered?

      Progress is not that skeptics are being civel, it is that idiot warmists are finally realizing that they don’t have any data to support their bullshit and are cluing in that in a few years they are going to look like epically stupid people who will be remembered by history as some of the most ignorant people to have walked the earth,

      • jim_m

        And you missed the point about CO2.  Nobody disputes that temperatures have increased.  They do dispute as to why.  THe point about CO2 is that it is only 0.03% of the atmosphere and human contribution is only a fraction of that.  You mistake his statement that increased CO2 contributes to warming as some kind of admission that it is having a meaningful effect.  The reality is that it does not and that there are a lot of factors in global climate that contribute to long term shifts in temperature. 

        • SoBeRight

          “You mistake his statement that increased CO2 contributes to warming as some kind of admission that it is having a meaningful effect.”

          And in speaking for him, you ignore the quote of his that I included above (as you let your demogogy get in the way AGAIN!) .

          “It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should.

          The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes.”

          He states that the debate is not “if” but simply how much.

          That’s an admission that we need to determine “how much” and stop arguing over “if”…. but your ideology is getting in the way of admitting that.

          The “if” is settled science, the question is “how much”!

          • jim_m

             The answer implied and which the science supports is not much at all.

      • SoBeRight

        It is totally inaccurate to say that people who think that AGW is BS are driven by ideological issues.

        It’s certainly not driven by science. 95% of the climate experts agree that AGW is real. So it’s not science that is causing people to argue that AGW is BS.

        and then in the very next paragraph you prove my point.

        A lot of people have looked at the issues and seen how individuals on the warmist side have demagogued the issues and how virtually all the remedies recommended by warmists do absolutely nothing to stop global warming (Kyoto) but do a lot to redistribute wealth from the west to underdeveloped nations.

        There you go again. No scientific basis or even a basis in facts, just an ideological viewpoint that its all about ‘redistributing the wealth’ or it’s about individual’s “demagogy” or some other nonsense du jour…

        Your ideological viewpoint is getting in the way of the science and the facts.

        AGW is real.

        And we’d better get past the BS and get serious about the consequences.

        Sure, maybe the costs of some of the remedies like Kyoto are too onerous and “al gore’s way” is not the answer — but lets quit the BS and get serious about discussing it. Pretending the problem doesn’t exist is bullshit.

        • jim_m

           AGW is not real in the sense that it is causing the polar ice caps to melt and the Himalayan glaciers to disappear.  It is not real in the sense that polar bears are all going extinct or that Vanuatu is sinking below the waves.

          95% of scientists believe in AGW? Is that all scientists including the vast majority that know as much about climate as you and I do?  Or is it the 95% of scientists who study climate and are beholden to a-holes like Gleick and Mann etc to get their PhD?

          95% of scientists at one time believed that the earth was the center of the universe.  I really don’t give a damn what 95% of scientists think about he world when the data suggests that they are full of it.

          • jim_m

             95% of the climate experts agree that AGW is real.

            Sorry, bandwagon marketing is no way to do science. We aren’t selling toothpaste here.  As I said before 95% of scientists have historically been wrong a lot of he time.

          • jim_m

             Get serious about the consequences?

            How about getting some real serious information that isn’t bullshit about how much man actually contributes to it? Because from where I’m standing the amount of change that the IPCC is now claiming will happen is virtually negligable and totally unavoidable so why should we bother doing squat? 

            And let’s just forget about he alarmist stuff being putout by Al Gore and friends because it’s based solely in the fantasy world of people who need a whole lot more medication.

        • Cecil Bordages

          The 95% figuire you and other warmist love to quote has been debunked numerous times.  Here’s one link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/09/08/global-warming-a-98-consensus-of-nothing/

        • jim_m

           Here’s some science butthead:  http://www.surfacestations.org/

          The surface station data in the US (called the most accurate and complete record of modern temperature) is fatally flawed and dramatically skewed toward finding evidence of warming.  That so called evidence is entirely explained by the flaws in the data collection sites.  It isn’t the fault of the scientists.  They just accept the data without ever thinking about where it comes from .  The people who collect the data and tend the sites are just freaking ignorant.

          But we are supposed to take bullshit data and change our whole lives because some idiot leftist thinks that the sky is falling.  Sorry.  Quit trying to run my life and then blaming me for calling you a fascist for doing so.

        • iwogisdead

          AGW is real.

          Prove it, sweetheart. Here’s a list of peer-reviewed articles saying that you are wrong:

          http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8

        • fustian24

          “95% of the climate experts agree that AGW is real.”

          This is such a con job. Don’t you know why this is such a silly thing to say?

          A Climatologist used to be the old guy in the back of the Earth Science department that was looking into the possibility that statistics might predict a few things that meteorology was unable to approach (because weather is non-linear and predictions are no good after about three days). That career path exploded when the global warming money showed up. 

          In fact a climatologist is just an earth scientist that took the global warming money. Of course they believe in global warming. Duh.

          And over 95% of climate skeptics disagree that AGW is the problem the warmists say it is.

          Big deal.

          Check out the rest of the Earth Science department. Geologists and geophysicists, for example, can see evidence for massive climate change in their data every day that occurred long before man ever showed up on the scene. Astronomers are interested in the correlation between sunspots and temperature change. And I’ve been told that over half of meteorologists disagree with the conclusions of the warmist mob.

          And they really are a mob. Conspiring to subvert Freedom of Information, ostracizing apostates, destroying emails, fabricating data and preventing journals from publishing anything that doesn’t toe the line, and lately stealing documents under false pretense and fabricating others.

      • Tano

        ” For all these substantive criticisms, skeptics have been crucified in public by the warmist left”

        You are such a victim Jim. I actually felt a little tear flow down my cheek while reading your cri de coeur..

        “idiot warmists are finally realizing that they don’t have any data to
        support their bullshit and are cluing in that in a few years they are
        going to look like epically stupid people who will be remembered by
        history as some of the most ignorant people to have walked the earth,

        If only the “warmist left” could be as civil, as rational, and as persuasive as you….

        • jim_m

           Sorry if I give as good as I get.

        • fustian24

          Well many of us are unimpressed with your little Marxist demands to redistribute billions on such flimsy evidence. 

          You guys almost pulled it off too.

          But with CO2 still climbing, but temperatures flat for a decade, it’s looking like the game is mostly over.

          Not to mention that ClimateGate showed us just how dishonest, sleazy and frankly unscientific you guys are.

          But useful idiots will carry the torch for a while. All the while decrying that the “science is settled”. 

          Don’t let us stop you.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE Retired Military

      “All of the deniers who claimed “anthropogenic global warming is a hoax” have been driven by ideological issues (Ie a hatred of liberal Al Gore) while putting our planet and our way of life at serious risk ”

      In a word  BULLSHIT.

      When the people touting man made global warming start acting like it is a problem than I will start thinking that maybe we should look at it more seriously. Until then I will simply wave at them as they go by in their SUVs and private planes and as I walk past their 10k squre foot summer house.

      • Tano

         I do not own a private plane, or an SUV and my summer home is somewhat less that 10K sqft (it is also the same building as my winter home).

        OK? Are you willing to get serious now?

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE Retired Military

          I think you know to whom I was referring. If not then let me be clear.  It wasnt you or anyone else who reads this blog.

    • fustian24

      Hey, just because we don’t like Al Gore doesn’t make us wrong. In fact, dislike of Al Gore strikes me as a sign of judgement. Here’s a guy trying to make a ton of moolah on the notion that energy usage is a bad thing. Yet this goombah has the energy footprint of a medium sized city. 

      Frankly I’ve looked at some of the raw station data, and, while I haven’t looked at all of it, a case can be made that the signature for warming is nothing more than heat island effects with some additional data massaging thrown in. 

      Certainly this would explain why the massaged land data showed increases while neither the marine nor the satellite data went along. It being a “greenhouse” phenomenon the lack of agreement with satellite data has always been especially suspicious.

      Now we know that a dog ate the original station data from the UKMET and the dumb bastards can’t recreate their own stupid dataset. They’ve built this huge edifice on doctored data that they can’t even duplicate.

      Lindzen is being too generous if you ask me.

      But his point, like Lombard’s, is that even if you grant them all of that, the notion that there is a problem that we must address is stuff and nonsense. The effect isn’t big enough unless magic cascading feedbacks occur. And these are unproven.

      And in the meantime, none of these geniuses predicted that the last decade would be flat.

  • jim_m

    Here is a good summary of why warmism is destined for the scrap heap of history:

    The Gleick episode exposes again a movement that disdains arguing with
    its critics, choosing demonization over persuasion and debate. A
    confident movement would face and crush its critics if its case were
    unassailable, as it claims. The climate change fight doesn’t even rise
    to the level of David and Goliath.  Heartland is more like a David
    fighting a hundred Goliaths. Yet the serial ineptitude of the climate
    campaign shows that a tiny David doesn’t need to throw a rock against a
    Goliath who swings his mighty club and only hits himself square in the
    forehead.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/why-the-climate-skeptics-are-winning.php
    Warmism has at every turn tried to stifle debate and silence critics.  Only now, when it is faced with an earth that is noticeably not getting warmer for the last decade is it being forced to confront the data and the science and it cannot do so without outrageous acts of dishonesty.

    [edited to add link]

  • ajzcu

    I am so tired of hearing these binary arguments whether AGW is real or not.  How about accepting the fact that much of science is probabilistic.  Take medicine for example.  The science of cholesterol is hardly settled (see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cholesterol-conundrum&page=1) yet how many of you would not take statins if prescribed by your cardiologist?  Similarly, should we ignore what 95+% of climate scientists say because the models aren’t 100% accurate?  Even if there were only a 50% chance of severe repercussions shouldn’t we at least try to do something to mitigate the possibility?  I think that any rational person who did a cost vs. benefit analysis would want to do so considering a worst-case scenario.  Most deniers act as if the science were settled on their side.

    • jim_m

        Similarly, should we ignore what 95+% of climate scientists say because the models aren’t 100% accurate?

      Ummm.  Can we even say that they are 1% accurate?  Nope.  So now what?  There has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years now and the models all failed o predict it. Are you going to say that we should ignore the data and go with the models of these idiots instead?

    • Joe Lagle

      Of course if the statins where going to cost 1 trillion dollars I’m pretty sure I would say no and take my chances.  The problem is this very little middle ground.  Warmist theories require a huge decrease of CO2 to even make a dent (worst case) in the current levels.  This will be unacceptable to most people.  Deniers want business as usual, there is no middle ground.  The one thing I will say is when AGW supporters come 100% clean with data/models and theories, instead of hiding, ducking and covering I will be more inclined to agree with them.

      Joe

      • jim_m

         Oh but if statins cost a trillion dollars obamacare would give them to you for free (as long as you vote democrat).

        • Joe Lagle

           Then you would be stuck with the bill…. Win Win!
          /sarcasm

    • fustian24

      Climate “science” is a club of like-minded people all funded from the same sources. The notion that the science is “settled” comes only when the warmist group polls itself. 

      The ridiculous thing is that Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). How can you say the science is settled with heavyweights like that not yet on board?

      You lefties look so silly when you try to claim the mantle of science. It’s almost cute, really.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    If CAGW science is so good, why do their scientists resort to intellectual thuggery?  Could it be that CAGW has little to do with science, but a lot to do with the redistribution of wealth?  
    That’s what Ottmar Edenhofer,  co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III and lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007, clearly stated: “Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War….But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy….One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
    policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%E2%80%9Cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%E2%80%9D/

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/B5TWMONJYPN2MUNFRSTAKQUDGA StuartY

    Tano you would do yourself a favor to refrain from attacking the lack of intellect of other posters. While not a climate scientist I have an post doc degree from an elite university. The issue isn’t whether the world has warmed since the end of the little ice age. Or whether CO2 has a slight warming effect on the atmosphere. The issue is the certainty with which the climate alarmists like yourself insist that this warming will lead to a catastrophe. There is simply no evidence for this belief. For over half of the Earth’s existence there were no polar ice caps and life on Earth did just fine. Moreover the whole argument is absurd because there is absolutely no realistic way to do much about it anyway unless you can force the entire world back into the stone age. Personally I agree with Bjorn Lomborg and I think everyone can benefit from reading his books on the subject. The climate alarmists have lost the argument because they have no solutions to offer since neither China nor India and their 2 billion people plan to remain in abject poverty because of the demands of already wealthy westerners.

    • Tano

       Maybe you should go reread those Lomborg books on your shelf, Stuart.

      ” “global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on
      humans and the environment toward the end of this century”

      That is from his latest book – “Cool It”.

      He is well beyond Lindzen when it comes to accepting the fact of global warming, the scope of the consequences, and human responsibility for it. His issue is solely focused on what we should do about it – where we should spend the money, be it in prevention or mitigation or attempts at rapid acclimation.

      I think those are very important questions and it would be wonderful if he (and maybe you can pitch in here) could bring along all the “deniers” to actually face reality and engage intelligently in the question of what would be best to do about it.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/H273XTNWZQKNQQ7ASHO7UUNH5Q Bruce

         Don’t trust Lomborg  – ‘ When experts in the fields covered by Lomborg check his texts, they most often
        find that the evidence has been distorted. Danish biologist Kåre Fog has
        systematically over many years checked Lomborg´s texts against his sources and
        references and against other scientific literature. His conclusion is that
        Lomborg´s texts are systematically manipulated to fit a certain agenda. “  http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

  • jim_m

    should we ignore what 95+% of climate scientists say

    This is the problem with the left and science.  We should not be kowtowing to science because some scientists makes a claim.  We should be following the data.  Science isn’t about obedience because someone with a name or a few initials after their name makes a claim.  Science is about understanding and information. 

    We should never just accept something because someone in authority makes a claim.  Liberalism used to be about not believing authority based solely on their position of authority.  WHat happened?  Now liberalism is about a fascist obediance to authority and if you dare raise a voice of dissent it’s off o the reeducation camps for you!

    • http://twitter.com/annabellep annabellep

       100% agree. Creeping authoritarianism got them too, they just don’t realize it yet.

  • Gmacr1

    The one thing missed is that AGW is based on a computer model that does not take into account all the effects on the atmosphere.

    Hence it is fatally flawed and the predicted results are much like hurricane forcasting which is no longer being done for obvious reasons. It was pure unadultereated BS.

    • Sky__Captain

       Apparently, none of the computer models developed over the years take into account the largest driver of Earth’s climate – the sun.

      Leaving out variations in solar radiation would be ignoring some quite important, one would think.

      • jim_m

         And the scientists are now admitting this fact but the warmists have yet to do so.  Saying that the models are wrong or incomplete is heresy. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/B5TWMONJYPN2MUNFRSTAKQUDGA StuartY

    Tano everyone agrees that the world has gotten warmer over the past 150 years. Your patronizing tone makes me suspect you are on the younger side of life when youth leaves one no doubts. The thrust of Lomborg’s writings on this subject are that global warming will not be a catastrophe and that the vast sums of money demanded by the alarmists would be far better spent on much more achievable goals(such as clean water). Moreover he has extensively written on the complete futility of attempting to impose draconian new regulations that I’m sure you favor. At any rate you just don’t seem to grasp the fact that the past 15 years without the predicted warming has largely ended the debate. People are now going to act rationally and wait another ten years and when nothing much happens then AGW will be added to the long list of other environmental scares such as global cooling, DDT, acid rain. alar, and mass extinctions.

  • mememine

    EXAGGERATION TRUMPS CONSENSUS.

    Here is 100% proof that CO2 climate CRISSIS was exaggerated
    and was just a consultant’s wet dream:

    If a climate CRISIS from Human CO2 were true, it would be
    the millions of people in the global scientific community doing the protesting
    in the streets to save their kid’s lives. Not the dozens of climate change
    protesters we see marching in the streets now after 26 years of needless panic.
    Deny that!

    Meanwhile, the entire WORLD of SCIENCE and the UN had
    allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue
    and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of INSANE attempts at climate
    CONTROL.

    REAL planet lovers are happy, not disappointed a crisis
    wasn’t real.

    If you still believe in a climate crisis that condemns
    billions of our children to the greenhouse gas ovens, at least start acting
    like it’s a crisis so we can believe that even you believe it.

  • mememine

    EXAGGERATION TRUMPS CONSENSUS.

    Here is 100% proof that CO2 climate CRISSIS was exaggerated
    and was just a consultant’s wet dream:

    If a climate CRISIS from Human CO2 were true, it would be
    the millions of people in the global scientific community doing the protesting
    in the streets to save their kid’s lives. Not the dozens of climate change
    protesters we see marching in the streets now after 26 years of needless panic.
    Deny that!

    Meanwhile, the entire WORLD of SCIENCE and the UN had
    allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue
    and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of INSANE attempts at climate
    CONTROL.

    REAL planet lovers are happy, not disappointed a crisis
    wasn’t real.

    If you still believe in a climate crisis that condemns
    billions of our children to the greenhouse gas ovens, at least start acting
    like it’s a crisis so we can believe that even you believe it.

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  • Pingback: Is the fight against global warming hopeless? – Washington Post | Raw Tab - The General News

  • fustian24

    From Tano: That might be a good thing, you seem to lose your composure when forced to actually think for a change. 

    Nice. Projection.

    I’ve been attempting to engage you with fact after fact, whilst you keep dodging every point I bring up. I haven’t lost any composure, I remain sweetness and light. From your lack of response, I can only assume you were unaware of the issues I have been pointing out. These include the insular nature of climate science within the greater Earth Science discipline, the fact that serious heavy hitting scientists like Lindzen are a powerful counterexample to the nonsense about the science being settled. I’ve pointed out the hidden assumption in global warming theory relating to the fact that no one knows what the temperature is supposed to be. I’ve pointed out all kinds of issues with the temperature data itself and I’ve pointed out that most global warming theory relies on belief that current simplistic models accurately explain climate, even in the face of the fact that they fail to actually do that. 

    Further, we’ve learned that you know very little about the potential abruptness of Ice Age onset and that you engage in circular reasoning, you constantly appeal to authority, you set up straw men at the same time you are projecting that material fallacy on others, and you apparently think it’s a good idea to dwell on an obvious typo.

    And then there’s this:

    From Tano: I meant no offense by asking if you were a farmer or a ditch digger.  I don’t know why you would find that to be an attack – those are honorable lines of work. I just wouldn’t necessarily trust such folks to know much about global climate change, nor you.

    Have you no shame, sir?

    • Tano

       Wow, you are quite the piece of work, fusty.

      Lets go backwards up the list.
      No shame? What on earth does that mean? What is shameful about what I wrote? Do you find farmers to be dishonorable? Do you think ditchdiggers are supposed to know much about AGW? What on earth are you talking about?

      I didn’t “dwell” on an obvious typo. First off, it is not a typographical error to type the wrong word. But I merely noted it in passing – since I wanted to respond to you, and if you meant the word that you typed, I would not have known what exactly you meant, and so my response would have not worked. So I mentioned it merely to let you know what I was responding to. You are the one who then had a little fit about it.

      I appeal to authority???? You are the one who claims that the existence of Lindzen proves that somehow it would be unfair to claim that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists support the idea of AGW. You constantly trot out his credentials, as if they trump the learned opinion of dozens of others so qualified.

      Your claim of my circular reasoning was ridiculous, There was nothing cricular about it, as I pointed out to you. The fact that you ignore my response, and repeat the charge is quite telling.

      I acknowledge that some Ice Ages came on rapidly – the ones that were caused by particular one-off events, like the cutting off of the Gulf Stream because of the catastrophic outflow from Lake Agassiz. But, as I asked you then, and you failed to respond – what is the conclusion that you draw from that? That climate can change quickly??? How does that support your position? And of course, as I asked you then, with no response – why does that fact that certain climate catastrophes have happened in the past, naturally, mean that we should not try to prevent a human-made catastrophe in the present??? I mean, that is, ultimately, what the core issue is here.

      Look , I am not going to waste any more time with you. Its late, I havent had dinner yet, and my darling is calling, and she wins out over you. Suffice it to say, that all the claims you make in your first paragraph were answered by me, and you have not refuted my answers. The models are not simplistic, there is no temperature that things are “supposed to be” etc.  Anyway, have a good night.

  • fustian24

    I didn’t “dwell” on an obvious typo. 

    Yes you did.

    You are the one who claims that the existence of Lindzen proves that somehow it would be unfair to claim that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists support the idea of AGW. 

    Another straw man.

    You claim that there is a unanimity of opinion, and so who am I to express a different opinion. Here it is in your own words: “the fact that you do not accept the word of a far greater number of equally prominent people is not a sign of your resistance to reason?”

    Classic appeal to authority.

    C’mon Tano. Man up and admit it. Embrace the fallacy!

    The claim from you and your fellow travelers is that any serious scientist is on board with AGW. That’s the whole point of the “95% of climate scientists” mantra. What I claim is that the existence of heavy hitters like Lindzen not on board with AGW refutes your appeal to authority. I’ve made this point repeatedly. You are either willfully ignoring this point or you don’t understand it still.

    My further point is that once you leave the climate mob and venture out into the broader Earth Sciences, you find much less unanimity. My own research colleagues are a case in point.

    Your claim of my circular reasoning was ridiculous, There was nothing cricular(sic) about it, as I pointed out to you.

    I’ll admit you tried, but your refutation exposed that you still did not understand. I tried to make it clearer one more time. You didn’t respond to that comment because quite frankly you can’t. You could change the subject again. But you’re quite simply mistaken here.

    I acknowledge that some Ice Ages came on rapidly

    My only point in this exchange was that you said something fatuous.

    You claimed “ ”If temperature were to continue to vary up and down the way it has for the past billion years, there would be NO PROBLEM.” 

    I was astonished. 

    I figure one of two things had to be at play: either you’re a Gaia worshipper that has no problem with large parts of humanity dying off as long as no capitalists profited from it, or you were spouting off about things you simply don’t know very much about. By your own admission, it’s the second.

    But, as I asked you then, and you failed to respond – what is the conclusion that you draw from that?

    My conclusion is that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. 

    I can also draw the conclusion that natural variation in temperature is quite large and that we do not yet know what causes the big swings nor how to predict them.

    why does that fact that certain climate catastrophes have happened in the past, naturally, mean that we should not try to prevent a human-made catastrophe in the present? 

    I don’t know. When I look at the panoply of possible natural horrors including meteors, super volcanoes, killer hurricanes, tsunamis, earth quakes, failure of antibiotics, global war…
    Heck, AGW looks relatively low on the scale of things to worry about.

    And I think you’d damn well better pray that AGW is the nonsense I suspect it is, because we’re not going to do anything about reducing carbon dioxide usage in any meaningful way, and all of your little green energy sources are uneconomic and don’t scale up. That’s my reaction

    .Al Gore alone is probably good for about a quarter of a degree all by his lonesome.And don’t you love it that none of the big climate conferences are virtual? These idiots have to fly huge entourages to places like Bali or Copenhagen.Aren’t these people worried about AGW?

    The models are not simplistic, there is no temperature that things are “supposed to be” etc

    Back when you were arguing circularly, you claimed that it was the temperature calculated when we removed man-made effects. Now there isn’t one? 

    Let’s try one more time. This is really simple. You should be able to follow it.

    Climate scientists have modeled the effect on climate from changing levels of CO2. To test that model, they need to see if it works in the real world. So they look at time periods in which CO2 levels increase and they predict what the temperature change should be from their models. 

    The question is, how do you tell if this prediction is correct?

    The obvious next step is to compare it to the actual temperature change over that interval. 

    If you could just assume that temperature didn’t change unless we screwed it up with AGW, you could just compare the model prediction with the actual temperature change to see if the model was correct. 

    But we know that if we humans were not here, the temperature might change anyway since it has in the past. Quite dramatically so. Temperatures changed long before humans ever came on the scene.

    Without going back in time and removing all human activity over the time period in question, we have no way to accurately know what the temperature would have done without us. Which means we cannot check our models against reality to be sure they are correct since we don’t know how much of the observed temperature change is natural and has nothing to do with us.

    This is one of the many issues that make it very difficult to know who is right about AGW. 

    As for the simplicity of the models: the last time I saw the NCAR models in person was at least a year or so ago, and in the global models a single pixel covered the entire Rocky Mountains. They’re working on them, but they are still simplistic models and they can’t scale up much more until substantially more powerful supercomputers get built. 

    I’ve not kept up with this, but last time I was paying attention my understanding is that climate scientists still do not know what the effect of a minor greenhouse gas like CO2 has on a major greenhouse gas like water vapor. 

    And none of the climate models predicted the flat temps of the last ten years. Which suggests that they’re simply not correct.

    • ajzcu

      From http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm:

      Around 2008 the deniers began to publicize a new claim: the world had supposedly gotten no warmer in the decade since 1998. Indeed that had been an extraordinarily warm year, for a “super El Niño” event, the strongest of the century, had pumped some extra heat from the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere. No year since had been noticeably hotter (although 2005, 2008 and 2010 roughly matched it). While the claim excited comment among internet bloggers and a few politicians, the actual scientific literature gave scant attention to such short-term fluctuations, in this case probably caused by a sharp decline in solar activity. Anyone who looked at the ten-year average of air temperatures near the surface — which was what the weather statistics measured — would see that the decade 1999-2008 was substantially hotter than the decade before, which was in turn hotter than the preceding decade, and so forth back to the 1970s. Indeed all of the ten warmest years on record had come since 1997.

      • fustian24

        Not surprising since we’re still coming out of an ice age.

        The fact is that the temperature prediction was a hockey stick, not a plateau. CO2 is increasing like mad, but the warming has stopped.

        The prediction has been wrong. And it’s rattling the sensible climate scientists. Many of whom are afraid to say what they really think:

        From http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html:
        Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position.

        Why can’t you people just admit that climate is not settled science and let’s work together to figure out what’s really happening? What are you guys so afraid of?

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          “What are you guys so afraid of?”

          Reality. Loss of funding.  Or loss of ‘control’ - you pick.

          In some ways, I see the AGW controversy as providing for ‘climate scientists’ the same sort of long-term job security that fusion research has provided for some physicists.  Fusion power was 50 years away in the ’60s – and after a heck of a lot of trial and error it’s still 50 years off.  And along the way, it’s funded a whole lot of people through their entire careers.

          If AGW ISN’T a problem, then a whole lot of research money is going to dry up.  And a whole lot of people who’ve staked out territory for their career paths are going to have to abandon that path and start something new.

          That’s not even taking into consideration all the junkets they’ll miss out on to exotic locations to meet with other like-minded scientists and control freak politicianss about how to tell the ‘little people’ they need to cut back to a rural agrarian lifestyle circa 1885 and spend trillions on energy schemes that would make a con man blush with envy.  Seriously, those things are IMPORTANT and can’t be managed by teleconferencing – but only by flying there in individual jets! 

          /snark… but just barely on that.

  • RockSloth

    The argument I read above is that the models predict a greater effect of climate change because of human existance than without…. the reality is that no model regardless of how large and complex  could possibly predict such changes. Our most advanced weather models cannot even predict with any accuracy significant weather events more than a few days out.

    The fact is the effect human society has on the climate is miniscule compared to other factors such as the solar cycle, astrology (earths movement through the solar system) and natural climate changes over time.

    As with everything, time causes changes, we age and die, as do animal, as will the earth (at a much much slower rate). With these changes you will see plenty of ups and downs, there have been in the past and will be in the future floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcanoes, cyclones, tornado’s, tsunamis etc. All will have a some effect on the climate. The argument that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses will cause a greater effect to our climate than all of the other factors that has determined our climate and will continue to determine our climate is hard to believe.

    Another point about CO2 causing global warming. The 1st scientist to hypothesise this (Al Gore’s high school professor) did research, modelling, and other observative tests and before his death wrote that the evidence did not support his theory…. so why are we still persuing this? Because governments all over the world have way too much invested in the theory and if it were comprehensively proven to be incorrect economies all over the world would fall, causing a catastrophic domino effect which would lead to who knows what.

    Some of this is based on my educated opinion, some on scientific papers read, others on documentaries. To me it all makes sense…. but Im not a rocket scientist.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/HL3635XCHO7RVRN2JMXPUJQXUY Steven

    Having had the pleasure of attending a lecture given by Professor Lindzen on this subject at MIT, the take-away quote was thus “our primitive climate change models are so complex right now, we would need thirty-five years of computer development according to Moores’-Law, before we could even model what we speculate today.” Another: “…despite all claims to the contrary, the archeological record of our constantly changing climate clearly demonstrates the earth has a tremendous capacity to self-regulate CO2 levels far above the levels we see today…” I would stack Professor Lindzen against any of these religious zealots in a debate, except for the fact I would fear for his safety as the Loony Left unhinge.

    • fustian24

      How was his talk received at MIT? Walking around there my impression is that it’s not the most conservative place in the world.