It's a lost irrational cause to argue with irrational people.

The average condition of Earth is a snowball. Glaciation lasts about 100,000 years, warm periods called interglacials, nice name huh, last about 12,000. To check what is what you should go back to the last Interglacial and see what was going on then. If you do, you would find temperatures much higher than today.

The good news is the next glaciation period will bury New York and we can rejoice, the south will rise again. The climate is going to do what the climate is going to do, and Al Gore can't stop it, only tax it.

And if Al Gore is wrong about all this...he and the Sierra Club will be held accountable for their disaster, right?

Did you see the news of the record southern sea ice?

"Bush's fault"

"Worst economy since the Depression"

"Global warming caused it."

Three mantras mindlessly repeated by those who wish to substitute faith for reason.

To deny either global warming OR cooling is foolish--but to insist that a single species can have a material effect on either NATURAL phenomonon is the height of arrogance.

You can reason a man out of an opinion he was not reasoned into.

AGW is the latest attempt to force us into a Socialist economic model, where the government controls what types of light bulbs can be sold in America.

Ask a AGW believer this:
Since people who live in the US have massive carbon footprints.
And people who live in third world countries have small ones.
Why don't they agitate for restrictions on illegal immigration and watch the fun.
Haven't had a Sierra Club member yet give me a reasoned answer as to why they think an illegal immigrant has the right to trash the environment while I recycle aluminum cans and take shorter showers.

tyree, I think you meant "you CAN'T reason a man out of an opinion he was not reasoned into."

Other than that, great points. You too, irongrampa. No one in their right mind questions that the earth's climate is constantly changing. What I question is 1) Man's affect on that; B) whether or not any of these "green measures" will help, hinder, or do nothing; and III) why don't those who make the most noise actually practice what they preach for the rest of us?

As Glenn Reynolds likes to say: "I'll believe it's a crisis when those who say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."

J.

Quick question - what type of science credentials do you have?

This is the one topic on this blog that I have to disagree with. The problem is with the way the message of global warming is being delivered, and I guess for the folks on this site, that it's being delivered by democrats.

While I agree that the Earth has a natural cycle, and that we don't have data going back far enough to judge conclusively what is going on, I also believe that man is having an effect on the climate. And this is the true message of global warming. No real scientist is saying that we're causing it, which really is absurd. That we are influencing it, however, is something that you would have to ignore all scientific data to refute.

A previous post said "to insist that a single species can have a material effect on either NATURAL phenomonon is the height of arrogance"

Apart from the spelling error, this is just an ignorant statement that turns a ablind eye on years of science. However, it's a great approach to take if you want to justify your continued use of giant SUV's that have never seen offroad conditions, dumping garbage in the ocean, etc.

I understand that we may be in a natural warming period, but that does not mean that human activity has not exacerbated this warming. Do you mean to tell me that the Earth's temperature would be exactly the same with or without human activity? 'Cause I'd like you to explain that to the giant ozone holes and pollution in the atmosphere affecting the way the sun heats the Earth. Oh, and to the chemicals in our water supply (such as pharmaceuticals, fertilizer, etc.), since I'm sure you're of the "the ocean's so big, we can dump anything in it, and it would never come back to haunt us" breed. Oh, and the increase in the rate of extinction of species - that has nothing to do with us, either, so you go on hunting bald eagles and fishing the manatees, what you're doing coiuldn't possibly have an effect.

Stop fooling yourselves - just because Al Gore has used questionable science to back his position, does not mean that position is incorrect.

Yes, the crazies are siezing upon anything to prove the global warming point, and much of it is not science as we know it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem with a root cause in humanity. (Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not following me...). I might add that this site is doing the same thing, pointing to blizzards in N.D. in May to say there is no global warming, while this actually fits with what is said about global warming causing more extreme weather (don't assume that means just warmer weather, please).

Humanity's hubris spawns the belief that the Earth was put here for us. The truth is, we evolved to fill a niche, which we have expanded. That doesn't mean that the earth will always be suitable for human life, and it is quite capable of self-correcting by becoming unhospitable for human life. The Earth will go on - will we?

Anon, the problem with dubious science is not limited to Al Gore. The entire AGW crowd engages in questionable practices. A lack of meaningful review, failures to observe required data archiving and disclosure standards, concealment of methodologies and ad hominem argument.

Their act needs to be cleaned up before anyone starts basing policy upon their suspicious pronouncements.

Quick question - what type of science credentials do you have?

Besides a couple of years of college study in Environmental Sciences and 40+ years of actually studying science at a level most college graduates never touch?

In short, about ten times the science credentials of, say, Al Gore.

You might take into consideration that you don't need a degree in a field to notice that the people making money at it are, well, making stuff up as they go along.

Oh, and please stop using the "they're doing it, why can't we?" argument. That's the refuge of 5-year olds. "Sally's eating cake for dinner, why can't I?" is the same as "Jimmy's service center dumps its waste oil down the drain, why can't I?". You damn well know why, you just can't stand that someone else isn't playing by the rules. Whether it's rich guys, foreigners, etc. breaking the rules, you can only control yourself, so do so.

That Hillary Clinton is driving around in 10 Suburbans while crying about the environment is not a sign that the environment doesn't really need protected; it's just a sign that she's a hypocrite who will jump on any bandwagon to gain a few more votes.

Anon | May 8, 2008 10:45 AM :

So, opposition to extreme measures that will cripple our economy needlessly to address a non-existent problem, implies that I also want to blow "holes" in the ozone layer (you really should read up on that, rather than swallowing what ever is fed to you), pollute the air, hunt bald eagles and "fish" for manatees (you forgot the polar bears, by the way)?

Non-sequiter, there Anon. No one with a lick of sense wants to harm the envoronment. But, also, no one with a lick of sense wants to destroy our economy and harm a lot of the rest of the world in the name of a nonexistent threat to the envoronment.

"Stop fooling yourselves - just because Al Gore has used questionable science to back his position, does not mean that position is incorrect."

False, but accurate? Right. Now, if the truth is undeniable, if the evidence is overwhelming, if the debate is truly over, then why the need to exaggerate, inflate, and outright fabricate information promoting "the cause?" If it is a tiny minority of people who are not convinced, they why is Al Gore spending 300 million dollars in an advertising campaign to convince them? Why not get that "tiny monority" in a room, but them dinner, and show them his powerpoint presentation?

Answer: The propaganda is wearing thin, the models have been shown to be inadequate, the hockeystick has been debunked, and the world has been cooling for 10 years. The urgency is growing to implement the "solution" before the whole thing collapses and too many people know it was all bunk.

Anon, Why don't you try answering Jay's two questions?

If a theory is not falsifiable, then it is not a scientific theory. It's more a matter of faith, like intelligent design or something.

SPQR - you are absolutely correct that they are using crappy "science" to back the global warming position. I agreed with that in my first post. Despite that, if you've read any good scientific papers, there is plenty of evidence of mankind having an effect on the environment.

Let's not wait for "good science" to come from the global warming folks to scale back our effects on the environment, whatever effect it may be having.

Reduce pollution? Do we really need global warming to push that, or can we rely on the data detailing the health effects of breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water?

Electric Cars and nuclear power? Is global warming necessary to get this done, or is pollution, current politics regarding oil, etc. enough to push them through?

Whether or not the ice caps are melting and the polar bears are drowning, there are plenty of good reasons to speed up our reactions to these issues without resorting to a global warming debate. To poo-poo such initiatives because global warming is not supported by good science is like going back to a sun-revolving-around-the-earth theory because Gallileo forgot to carry a one in one of his proofs.

Anon | May 8, 2008 11:19 AM :

Once again, you are mixing apples with motor oil. This discussion began with global warming. I agree wholeheartedly that we should not be polluting the environment. Clean water is paramount. Clean air is critical for our health and well being. I'm on board. But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a product of respiration, and combustion (as is water), and it is an essential trace gas in the atmosphere. Without it, life as we know it would cease to exist, in that plants could not grow. At all.

So, get after the guy dumping motor oil in the storm sewer, and other real tangible problems. Global warming is a seperate issue
.

Anon, confusing greenhouse gases and "pollution" is sloppy thinking on your part. There have been enormous strides made in reduction of actual pollution. ( And there are arguments that reductions in aerosols have a warming effect ). Reductions in the production of greenhouse gases specifically have enormous economic impact and must be supported by convincing science.

As an aside, here's a story about Canada that illustrates just how ineffective Kyoto protocol has been. The Canadians, self-righteous as they've been, have been failing dismally to meet their commitments. Frankly the US is closest to meeting goals on emissions than almost all the actual ratifiers of the Kyoto Protocol.

My dad once told me that politicians would tax the very air we breathe if they thought they could get away with it.

With the Gorebots' GW / 'carbon footprint' strategy, you have the next best thing with the various 'carbon taxes' that are in effect, or are being proposed.

You don't need a degree in anything but life to see the con of the global warming crowd, same as the con of the global cooling crowd. Just watch where the money goes. The fact is we have too many people with useless 'degrees' and no 'education'. They have to run a con to make a living and/or get rich since they have no real marketable trade. Media and (most) science degree's are now worth nothing since the average person has figured out they are degrees in lying to the public to make yourself feel important. I wouldn't recommend a degree in junk science unless you want to join Lawyers, Politicians and the Media as the most mistrusted people in the world.

Hey anon, if that's your real name --- The error in your argument is you confuse pollution with climate change. If man is changing the climate, prove it. There must be some way you can prove the hypothesis, isn't there? Let's see, temperature dropping CO2 rising, nope that won't work .... Let's look at the tropics, the unique signature of global warming should be ... nope it's not there either.

OK, now t address the current favorite hobby horse the Arctic ice is melting. In the last Interglacial period, the Boreal Forests in many areas grew right up to the Arctic shore. In Russia the tree line was 400 to 1,000 kilometers further north than today -- How do we know that, the carcasses of the trees that grew there are buried in the tundra, must have been warmer back then right? ... The Arctic has always warmed more than the Antarctic, so it's convenient for the alarmists to point there, instead of to the Antarctic ... another falsehood debunked.

And don't go to the Antarctic Peninsular, where all the under ice volcanoes are. Al Gore already tried that.

Forget Greenland will melt, the last interglacial which was much warmer than today, only melted about 20% of Greenland's ice.

....

No one wants pollution, no one wants to pollute, well maybe communists do, but have you ever heard of photosynthesis? CO2 is a part of the carbon cycle of life. A minor greenhouse gas not capable of forcing anything. If it weren't for the phony notion that there is positive feedback when CO2 is part of the equation, there would be no argument. Ever heard of the absorption spectra of CO2? It's logarithmic for starters. Gas is a poor store for heat, water is far better. Try and heat your coffee with a hair drier and see for yourself.

...

And where did the notion that the feedback come from, the alarmists made it up so they could draw the scary graphs. There is now enough evidence, you hear that evidence not arm waving, but data, that says the feedback is not positive but is negative -- oopsie, wrong sign.

And why don't the computer fantasy models have water vapor and cloud formation as part of their equations, simple, they don't know how. And leaving out the sun is just delicious. I wonder, what would the climate be if the sun decided to change it's output say up it 5%... or drop down say the same 5% .... hmmm

...

The link between solar cycle length and decadal global temperature changes is obvious throughout all the weather records. It's not strictly a sunspot issue, it just happens that the longer the solar cycle is the less intense is the sunspot activity and presumably the overall heat output, not necessarily the same as what we artificially term Total Solar Irradiance, during the solat cycle. Google up center of mass for the solar system and where that imaginary point now is, and how it moves over time. Does gravity stir the sun's output? Interesting hypothesis.

...

Telling people government policies can control the climate if they will only pay enough in taxes is well, it's what liberals do all the time, tell a fairy tale to ignorant people.

What we know about man causing global warming, you could write a book, what we don't know about the climate would fill a good sized library.

Physics, chemistry and mathematics are your friend. You need not be a climatologist, a species of scientist that didn't exist in the not to distant past, to know AGW is a hoax.

1) There is no "normal" temp. for the planet. There is, however, a temp. range suitable for human life. Obviously, it's in our best interests that the temp. stays within that range.

2) Global climate study is, by it's very nature, an observational science, like astronomy. There will never be conclusive proof one way or the other. Unless the earth self-corrects our asses outa here.

What sort of evidence would you accept as proof that their theories are correct?

Look guys, I don't know how to say this more clearly - I agree with JayTea's points, but I also see you attacking global warming rather than the science behind it. I don't see a whole lot of science refuting it, either - why are you not on that side? I believe it's because that would require us to do something, rather than being able to continue on our path of trashing the earth for profit and fun.

To address another point: to me, the assertion that we are affecting the environment is irrefutable. What that effect is, is up for grabs. I don't think it's a stretch to say that some effects are negative. I think that most scientists would agree (I am a chemist working in the pharmaceutical industry, btw, and read scientific papers on these topics regularly, including the ozone issue). Should we wait 10,000 years until we have more climate data to begin to curtail our effects on the environment? Wait and see, and maybe the earth will move on without humanity.

I also do not think that the general populace is capable of comprehending most scientific papers. They're more of a "batboy had sex with paris hilton" in the weekly world news group. Hell, look at scientology and the seemingly intelligent people that they rope in. Why would you expect those groups to respond logically to any science? I think this goes to the "No one with a lick of sense wants to harm the envoronment" comment. I was heartened to see that statement, but think that there's a lot of folks without that "lick of sense". They just don't want the government bothering them while they dump oil in the lake and hunt bald eagles.

And to address another point - at no time did I say that the ethanol initiative was a good idea. Nor did the original blog entry even address that (so I don't know why you're saying that's my take on the whole thing...). It's more bad science backing a bad, politically-motivated plan.

I do think that replacing fossil fuels with solar, wind, and water power are good things, both politically and environmentally. I think that pollution reduction, waste reduction, etc. are good ideas. Please recognize that some of the posts above, as well as the blog's entries, do not always give that impression.

Max, climate models that actually matched observed climate and historical reconstructions that did not involve brazen manipulation, hidden methodologies and real review.

We haven't had either yet.

Anon, I've spent years participating in the debate on the science of global warming. To see AGW advocates respond with ad hominem ( "You are a 'Denier'", "What degree do you have?", etc. ).

I watched people discuss the physics of the predictions, and the methodology of the recreations of historical temperature trends to be attacked via ad hominem ( "You are a tool of 'Big Oil' ) and watched as people like Mann went before Congress to make up bogus excuses why they did not share data and methodology in an open manner consistent with real science. I watched Hansen whine about being told to shut up by the administration even as he gave literally a thousand interviews.

So don't give me this nonsense about not discussing the science. It is the critics of AGW who are most interested in the science.

This is my last post, need to do some work today. Thanks max for saying something I agree with, whether it was meant to support me or not.

All I can say to recent posters is that yes, CO2 is a normal component of the atmosphere, and yes, life requires it. As I said before, I'm a chemist - I have done many analyses of gases and have seen absorption spectra, etc, so please come down off your high horses and talk reality here.

Do you deny that humanity alters the CO2 content of the atmosphere? That we convert other stuff into CO2, boosting the content of the atmosphere? Is this natural variation, or man-made? Yes, I've seen the science saying that they warm, cool, etc our atmosphere - obviously contradictory stuff.

I maintain that excess, man-made CO2 is a pollutant. Just because it's a natural component of the amosphere does not mean otherwise. Shit is natural too, but if somehow the human race's output increased by a factor of 100, I imagine we'd see it as a problem. And CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas that we contribute to.

We don't know the real impact of these things, true. By your reasoning, though, maybe we should pour more of this crap into our atmosphere and maybe that will cool the earth, if that science turns out to be correct. Hey, the clear-cutters of the Amazon saved us, hooray! Of course, if it was wrong, we're even more screwed.

I say, why not minimize our contributions until we do know more? And screw your economic impacts, I've worked for plenty of large corporations and know damn well they can afford that air scrubber for the smoke stack, they may just have to cut out the super-expensive ergonomic workstations, or buying a company-logo umbrella for everyone, or perhaps a few million of the CEO's absurd compensation. If your business can't survive without polluting the environment, perhaps it shouldn't, sorry.

The same guy who says science and math are our friends also seems to argue that, because science is incapable of calculating all the variables, that it should be disregarded. If you stick to that tenet, no science will ever be good enough for you. "Yes, I know it appears water boils at 100C at sea level, but have you taken into account the spin of the electrons?"

Nope anon, missed again, man has no way of knowing how the 30+ climate variables operate and interact. Our knowledge does not currently encompass that level of understanding. Real scientist know how to say, we don't know that and don't attemtp to try and make something that is imaginary real. They can also spot the imaginary using knowledge we have command of.

So where did the excess CO2 pollution come from during the last Interglacial? CO2 follows temperature by 400-800 years, doesn't drive anything, except making very big healthy plants. The geological record shows CO2 levels in the past many times what they are today with no ill effects.

Anybody see that new Chaiten volcano, who is going to pay the carbon offsets for that?

Anon, for a "chemist" you seem ignorant of what you speak of.

First of all, this:

By your reasoning, though, maybe we should pour more of this crap into our atmosphere and maybe that will cool the earth, if that science turns out to be correct.

Secondly, reducing CO2 is not a matter of just installing "scrubbers". Scrubbers are already installed in most plants that require them, but more importantly they only remove particulate matter, not CO2 itself. If anything particulates ( ie., aerosols ) reduce warming, according to papers by Hansen himself. There is no technology for removing CO2 from the output of fossil fuel powered generation plants. So this easily afforded "solution" of yours is a fantasy. Likewise, your identification of "solar, wind, and water power" above, ( the Sierra Club has an opinion on hydro generation by the way - as dams really are "pollution" ). Solar is far from being economical ( and would at present efficiencies require covering a large fraction of the US's surface area to replace any significant amount of generation ). Wind will always remain a stunt given its limitations and the opposition we are starting to see from environmental groups.

The only serious way to get the generation capacity we need is nuclear power - and until AGW advocates literally stand on street corner demanding the construction of hundreds of new nuclear power plants, I will view them as unserious.

One thing I agree with Anon on: This has become political, and by that happening, it has the kiss of death on it. Like aids and abortion. An area that will never be addressed reasonably.

Whatever Algores intent was, he singlehandedly brought it into the political realm for his own benefit. So, you extreme environmentalists out there, that him for the reluctance to believe any of this. ww

Max: "What sort of evidence would you accept as proof that their theories are correct?"

At a minimum, that when their mathematical models are run in reverse, that the results match known datapoints.

They don't.

Ever wonder why?

2 specific possibilities:
1) The models do not include all variables involved
2) The variables that are included are modeled incorrectly (ie, clouds and water vapor, which, in some models, are not included since their dynamic interaction is not currently understood.)

My favorite, (and latest!), indication that the climate modelers are out is the fact that the oceans have cooled somewhat over the last 7 years or so. Global Warming (and now "Climate Change" and soon to be "Any Weather At All is a Sign of the Apocalypse that must result in Marxists running our Governments") theory requires a significant warming of the oceans. This is not happening.

I read above some moron (anon?) who is still peddling the "oh my gosh, a large sheath of ice from the Antarctic has fallen off due to Global Warming" silliness.

Did this ice sheath fall off? Yes. Why? Because it's the one part of the Antarctic that juts up further north. Therefore, during Southern Hemisphere summer, it fell off. The real story, of course, is that the total ice mass of the Antarctic actually increased! This "inconvenient" fact was not, however, noted by our intrepid poster.

It must have been far too "inconvenient" a fact.

And so it goes.

anon: "I maintain that excess, man-made CO2 is a pollutant."

jp2 would like a much more complete rundown of your credentials (including published peer-reviewed articles) before considering any further of your posts.

while ago, I had two simple questions that I thought would help separate the scientists from the zealots, the honest seekers of truth from the evangelists, the sincere theorists from the fanatics:

Jay, I've never understood global warming deniers, my biggest problem with them is that virtually none of them have any expertise in the subject they are denying.

I won't say none, because difference do exist in the scientific community (although on this issue they seem few and far between.)

However, most experts are in agreement that the planet is warming up, that it is man made, and that their could be serious, even drastic consequences if this is not dealt with.

Yet because the petroleum industry disagrees(with Billions of dollars at stake who can blame them) Republicans feel they can tell the scientist they have no idea what they are talking about.

Now I don't know much about cars, can't change the oil, can't do a tune up, nothing. So when my mechanic says I have a problem, and the mechanic down the street says I have a problem and the mechanic down the street from him says I have a problem i go through this simple thought process. "Wow the guys that make a living knowing things about cars say I need to get something fixed"

Now I suppose if one mechanic four miles away disagreed with the other ten I might pay some attention, however I doubt I'd risk my car on it. Maybe you would I don't know.

Also I would point out that the article you link to does not say the storm specifically is proof of global warming but that there seems to be a trend of stronger hurricanes that possibly could be linked to global warming.