« Hey Now! | Main | Hoveround Users of The World, Unite! »

We Are So Screwed

I find this article to be, well, pretty damned funny, in a scary way.. (Emphasis mine.)

WASHINGTON (AP) -

The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

The "Obama administration" and "radical" in the same sentence? Dare you say!

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

Isn't that kind of what we are supposedly doing already?

John P. Holdren is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Yes, the Teresa Heinz-Kerry, cosmopolitan spouse of the hairy empty suit, John Kerry, that there Senator of Massachusetts. Should tell you something about Harvard, too.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

What a coincidence! Both require the reflection of idiots.

National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.

Hmm. Scientists and bureaucrats involved in "climate tinkering". What could possibly go wrong with that?

The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."

Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.

But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air--making an artificial volcano (!) as one Nobel laureate has suggested--could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.

Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.

Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide--the chief human-caused greenhouse gas--out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.

Some great pre-emptive fearmongering. And logic! Oh, the logic!

Artificial volcanoes? Artificial trees? How about some artificial intelligence?

Perhaps they could "geoengineer" Obama's brains to his ass.

Oh. Wait.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35239.

Comments (96)

So "Man's pollution" is cau... (Below threshold)
retired military:

So "Man's pollution" is causing global warming and they are going to put pollution in the air to stop it?

Only liberals would think of this.

If there is g... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

If there is global warming going on (doubtful), and
if it is caused by man (it isn't), and
if we should do something "radical" about it, then
why doesn't that something have to do with developing more nuclear power?
Answer: that would make too much sense.

Politicians need Global war... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Politicians need Global warming so that they can control people

This is all good SCI-FI.
Tera forming.
Man changing a planets climate through science. Once you have that concept down then you have manmade global warming. So if it can be cause un-intentionally then you can do it.
Problem is that it is fantasy.
They climate change people keep ignoring the Sun and sun sports eefect on the climate.
.
They ignore volcanic eruptions, they ignore ocean current, they dismiss everything that does not fit into their concept and then call the rest of us ignorant. Hell they even ignore their own theory of evolution, large animals have been going extinct over time yet we must save the whale or other large mammals. The on , truism is that every -thing changes there is nothing that say that world will not adapt.

Obamalala's brains are alre... (Below threshold)
MPR:

Obamalala's brains are already in his ass. No engineering needed. He gave the world a shot of how big it is when bowed to the Saudi King. What a disgrace!

These asses had better thin... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

These asses had better think long and hard about screwing with mother nature. She can screw back just as well. Ask the dinosaurs.

These asses had better t... (Below threshold)
kan:

These asses had better think long and hard about screwing with mother nature. She can screw back just as well. Ask the dinosaurs.

But we already are screwing mother nature by releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Fortunately the public and the scientific community are thinking long and hard on it.

Fortunately the pu... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Fortunately the public and the scientific community are thinking long and hard on it.

Yes, and now the majority of scientists think CO2 is not the cause of climate change. The theory that's gaining scientific acceptance is that the magnetic activity of the Sun causes climate change and that theory predicts we are in a period of global cooling. Even the IPCC admits we are in a period of global cooling, but says it's due to a strong la-nino. Time will tell and the risk for Obama is that his "climate initiatives" could be found to be based on junk science while he's still in office.

Yes, and now the m... (Below threshold)
kan:
Yes, and now the majority of scientists think CO2 is not the cause of climate change.

What do you base this statement on?

So they want to suck carbon... (Below threshold)
Tim:

So they want to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Big deal. That technology's been around for at least 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTSWdHY9Ny4

Fortunately the public a... (Below threshold)
apb:

Fortunately the public and the scientific community are thinking long and hard on it

Ahhh, the public. The poor, stupid proles that are being told what to think by the collective mush known as the MSM. The same proles that spend more time discussing American Idol than doing the simple math to determine how big a cut of the next $3.5T they'll owe.

As for scientists, 115 just signed a letter to ol' jug-ears telling him that climate change is grossly overstated. Remember - the shrillest proponents are the cash-mad clowns from the UN. Like all other forces of evil, wealth, power and a chance to exert their will on others is their sole purpose.

They ignore volcan... (Below threshold)
kan:
They ignore volcanic eruptions, they ignore ocean current, they dismiss everything that does not fit into their concept and then call the rest of us ignorant.

Who is "they"? Volcano and ocean currents have been studied intensely in how they relate to global warming.


Hell they even ignore their own theory of evolution, large animals have been going extinct over time yet we must save the whale or other large mammals. The on , truism is that every -thing changes there is nothing that say that world will not adapt.

While extinction has been occuring throught out history, what has scientists concerned is the rate at which animals are becoming extinct.

hcddbz, I agree with your f... (Below threshold)
Sea:

hcddbz, I agree with your first two sentences.

Politicians need Global warming so that they can control people.

This is all good SCI-FI.


So I guess these esteemed s... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

So I guess these esteemed scientists haven't spoken to NOAA researchers yet.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/02/cooler-heads-at-noaa-coming-around-to-natural-variability/

So "Man's pollution" is ... (Below threshold)
Ed:

So "Man's pollution" is causing global warming and they are going to put pollution in the air to stop it?

Only liberals would think of this.

So if there are people fighting somewhere with guns then only liberals would think of sending more people with guns to stop them? Do you even think about what you write here or do you just type whatever nonsense comes to mind?

So they want to suck car... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

So they want to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Big deal. That technology's been around for at least 200,000,000 years....it's called plant life

There, fixed

So the "cure" for "global w... (Below threshold)
Boots:

So the "cure" for "global warming" is "global cooling"??? Assuming these pea-brains get their way and shoot enough pollution into the upper atmosphere to mimic a massive volcanic eruption, what happens when one year, summer never comes? You know, that thing called a "growing season" when most of the world's food is produced? It has happened in the not-too-distant past (1700 or 1800's) that growing seasons were severely impacted by volcanic ash in the atmosphere. Well, the resulting famine could certainly clear out a billion or so of the unneeded humans that the enviros think are ruining the planet.

I love the way they tell pe... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

I love the way they tell people what they've been "tinkering" with for the past 50 years like its news or something. Last week, Sean Hannity opened his show with "Welcome to the New World Order!" and switched gears in the same sentence with "that's what someone else said".

It would be nice to find out how much our money went into all this climate tinkering they're just now willing to discuss as part of their failing New World Order. What a bunch of boneheads!

LOL - Glad somebody is payi... (Below threshold)

LOL - Glad somebody is paying attention - I've been talking about this for years. www.politicaljive.com

Come visit me at my new conservative blog - updated daily

It was around thirty degree... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

It was around thirty degrees this morning here in NC. In April! I blame global warming.

Freeman Dyson anyone?... (Below threshold)

Freeman Dyson anyone?

The difference between fund... (Below threshold)

The difference between funding this and funding missile defense is that everybody agrees nuclear missiles exist.

1. Stop paving every availa... (Below threshold)
TGOBG:

1. Stop paving every available flat space to put up strip malls and parking lots
2. Plant trees
3. Plant more trees

Florida used to have daily thunderstorms, but they cut down and paved over huge areas of forest/scrub land for shopping malls and theme parks and other " attractions" Now we can go weeks with no rain, because the plants that processed the water to put moisture in the air have all been chopped down in the name of progress

"Now we can go weeks with n... (Below threshold)
CZ:

"Now we can go weeks with no rain, because the plants that processed the water to put moisture in the air have all been chopped down in the name of progress"

If what you say were true maybe they need to cut more trees to prevent the reoccurring flooding around Fargo ND.

YOU are a birdbrain.

So the answer, obviously, i... (Below threshold)
Bill Western:

So the answer, obviously, is a thermonuclear war, which will cause a nuclear winter and stop global warning. This doesn't even address the benefits to the environment of a reduced human infestation of the planet.

So "Man's pollutio... (Below threshold)
kan:
So "Man's pollution" is causing global warming and they are going to put pollution in the air to stop it?

Only liberals would think of this.

Think of the scientists as firefighters that use controlled burns to prevent and put out forest fires.

Back burning is a way of reducing the amount of flammable material during a bushfire by starting small fires along a man made or natural firebreak in front of a main fire front. It is called back burning because the small fires are designed to 'burn back towards the main fire front'. The basic reason for back burning is so that there is little material that can burn when the main fire reaches the burnt area. The firebreaks that may be used to start a line of fires along could be a river, road or a bulldozed clearing etc


Think of the scientists as... (Below threshold)
rich:

Think of the scientists as firefighters that use controlled burns to prevent and put out forest fires.

That is a really bad comparison. Silly. Maybe we should just detonate a ton of Nukes around the world to simulate a lot of volcanoes. A nice nuclear winter should cool us down so we can live more comfortably.

Ken, What... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Ken,

What do you base this statement on?

Over 700 international scientists have declared themselves skeptics in opposition to the 52 scientists who authored the IPCC's 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Here's some good reading: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen "Embarrassed NASA"

Now, just as science is getting close to the true cause of climate variability, Obama is rushing to tax CO2 emissions. The only thing giving them pause is the concern about the effects of this huge new tax on the economy. In just a few years it's likely the entire scientific basis for such a "carbon" tax will crumble, but it will be intractable because the government will become dependent on the tax revenue.

Anyone who equates CO2 with pollution is ignorant. Without sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere all life on Earth would soon die. The current level of CO2 is not particularly high as compared to levels in geologic time when the Earth supported an abundance and diversity of life far greater than today. That abundant life consumed so much of the vital nutrient CO2 from the atmosphere that plant life died back, and with it, animal life. Only with the advent of the industrial revolution has some of the long trapped carbon been returned to the environment. Plant life is responding and regaining long lost ground. With over 6 billion humans to feed, higher levels of CO2 are anything but pollution.

My coworker just suggested ... (Below threshold)
Mark_S:

My coworker just suggested that everyone in the world who has those window air-conditioning units can help.. just by turning them around :)

Hmmm ... Scientists and ... (Below threshold)

Hmmm ... Scientists and bureaucrats involved in "climate tinkering". What could possibly go wrong with that? That's a perfectly good question, and nothing to be glibly comfortable with. But there's an even better question: The human race involved in "climate tinkering" by putting millions of tons of IR-absorbing CO2 into the air. "What could possibly go wrong with that?" Well plenty could, that's the whole point of wondering about doing something else to head it off ...

BTW even if you don't accept that global warming from CO2 is inevitable, the gas is definitely a warming stimulus and that known since the 19th century. The only debatable point is, how much. Risk assessment doesn't need certitude to justify counter action.

#6 OMG STFU... (Below threshold)
914:

#6 OMG STFU

Neil: yes it does, if it me... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Neil: yes it does, if it means not driving the air conditioned SUV to the corner store to pick up a Big Gulp slurpee. [/wingwad]

Yes, and now the ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Yes, and now the majority of scientists think CO2 is not the cause of climate change.Yes, and now the majority of scientists think CO2 is not the cause of climate change. The theory that's gaining scientific acceptance is that the magnetic activity of the Sun causes climate change and that theory predicts we are in a period of global cooling. Even the IPCC admits we are in a period of global cooling, but says it's due to a strong la-nino. Time will tell and the risk for Obama is that his "climate initiatives" could be found to be based on junk science while he's still in office.

Do you have any documenttion at all to back up this ridiculous claim? Specifically I am looking for something that says the majority of the scietist actually beleive this new theory.

Submission Accomplished... (Below threshold)
914:

Submission Accomplished

BTW even if you do... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
BTW even if you don't accept that global warming from CO2 is inevitable, the gas is definitely a warming stimulus and that known since the 19th century. The only debatable point is, how much. Risk assessment doesn't need certitude to justify counter action.

That's a scientific fallacy. Given a model closer to the Earth where there's a thick atmosphere mostly composed of infrared transparent gas (oxygen and nitrogen), the introduction of CO2 cause cooling as it allows heat trapped in the atmosphere during the day to radiate away at night. Now add far more water vapor, which is also a far more effective infrared absorbing gas, but one that can be in all three states in the atmosphere, and the effect of CO2 becomes all but negligible.

Slight changes in cloud formation are far more effective in changing the climate than CO2 increases. The theory that's gaining scientific acceptance is that the Sun's magnetic activity causes more or less cloud formation through interaction with Cosmic Rays. The key asspect of that theory is being studied at CERN under the project name CLOUD.

This is not about climate. ... (Below threshold)
914:

This is not about climate. Its about a power hungry dictator trying to seize all of our libertys and freedoms for His own sick causes.

We Are So Screwed... (Below threshold)
jmc:
We Are So Screwed

Amen to that. We have so many morons that think Global warming is a hoax that nothing will be done to solve the problem.

This is not about... (Below threshold)
jmc:
This is not about climate. Its about a power hungry dictator trying to seize all of our libertys and freedoms for His own sick causes.

George Bush is out of office. You won't get locked up in Cuba without a chance to ever stand trial, nor will anyone you know... Relax.

Do you have any do... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Do you have any documenttion at all to back up this ridiculous claim? Specifically I am looking for something that says the majority of the scietist actually beleive this new theory.

I've already provided links showing the majority of scientists now reject the IPCC's assertions about CO2.

I didn't say the majority of the scientists believe this new theory, only that it's gaining ground. However, if the majority of scientists now reject the IPCC's assertions about CO2, and if there's only one other viable theory, then logic dictates what you think I said is true. However, there may be many other theories under consideration, so I'm not making that statement.

Unlike political believes, science is not static and it's far from settled when it comes to Earth's climate.

The current level... (Below threshold)
jmc:
The current level of CO2 is not particularly high as compared to levels in geologic time when the Earth supported an abundance and diversity of life far greater than today.

That's just great, given this is prior to when Human beings actualy evolved. The last time CO2 levels were this high during earlier geological epochs, was 20 million years ago. Not to mention, it's not like people are going to sweat to death, the problem will the major distructions to food supply and infastructure the sudden changes are going to bring about.

Amen to that. We h... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Amen to that. We have so many morons that think Global warming is a hoax that nothing will be done to solve the problem.

If the IPCC is wrong, then you're the moron. I posted a list to 700 scientists who think you're a moron. And here's a list of 31,000 scientists who think you're a moron. I think we have a scientific consensus that you're a moron.

Ok Obama administration, le... (Below threshold)

Ok Obama administration, let's give your "planned polution" idea some serious consideration. What if you try it and it works? And then there's an unplanned volcano...you know, the kind that just happens, with or without leftist environmentalist approval. Suppose for a moment the world become colder than anticipated. What would you do then??

I've already prov... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I've already provided links showing the majority of scientists now reject the IPCC's assertions about CO2.

You showed a link that 700 scientist around the world reject it. 700 Is not a majority.

In fact, there are 2.5 million scientist in the U.S. alone. 700 represents .0025% of of the scinetist in the U.S., much less the world. That is some majority you got there.

If the IPCC is wr... (Below threshold)
jmc:
If the IPCC is wrong, then you're the moron. I posted a list to 700 scientists who think you're a moron. And here's a list of 31,000 scientists who think you're a moron. I think we have a scientific consensus that you're a moron.

31,000. That represents 1.2% of the scientist in the U.S. alone. If you figure in the amount of scientist in the world you are again at less than 1%.

We'll have to ask, but I'm guessing that if you ask 31,000 scientist, what they think of of a person who thinks less than 1 percent is a majority, they would say, "That person is moron!"

You showed a link ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
You showed a link that 700 scientist around the world reject it. 700 Is not a majority.

Only 52 scientists authored the IPPC's 2007 summary.

In fact, there are 2.5 million scientist in the U.S. alone.

You're grabbing at straws now. Only a moron would think all 2.5 scientist are involved in climate research. The topic is climate and I shouldn't need to specify that the scientists I'm listing are involved in climate research, even if it's just to express their opinion.

jmc,You're making ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

jmc,

You're making the argument that scientists who have not expressed their opinion to the contrary automatically believe the IPCC's assertions. Only a moron would make that argument.

You're grabbing at... (Below threshold)
jmc:
You're grabbing at straws now. Only a moron would think all 2.5 scientist are involved in climate research. The topic is climate and I shouldn't need to specify that the scientists I'm listing are involved in climate research, even if it's just to express their opinion.

No, you are the one grasping at straws, if you think 700 scientist represent anywhere near a majority of the scientist involved in climate change and only a moron would thinks so.

And I don't know where you have given evidence that says the 700 you mention actually are invovled in the science of global warming. In fact, the 31,000 number you list you mention contain many scientist who are in completely different fields. Why would I assume your other numbers are any different? Because you say so?

No, you are the o... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
No, you are the one grasping at straws, if you think 700 scientist represent anywhere near a majority of the scientist involved in climate change and only a moron would thinks so.

What I've shown is that there are far more scientists who oppose the IPCC's position than those who support it. Many of the scientist who provided data to the IPCC's are on record that their results were ignored if it didn't support the position that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Thus, you can't assume that someone who contributed to the IPCC's fourth assessment actually supports the summary that was authored by just 52 scientists.

And I don't know where you have given evidence that says the 700 you mention actually are invovled in the science of global warming.

And where have you given evidence that they are not involved in sciences related to climate?

In fact, the 31,000 number you list you mention contain many scientist who are in completely different fields.

You mean like computer modeling or physics? Did you know the IPCC's position is heavily dependent on computer modeling that is based on physics? The problem is that no one can model what they don't understand. In fact, the models have been scientifically proven to produce outputs no better than random chance. Only a moron would use such science to tax the production of energy that is so vital to our economy.

What I've shown i... (Below threshold)
jmc:
What I've shown is that there are far more scientists who oppose the IPCC's position than those who support it. Many of the scientist who provided data to the IPCC's are on record that their results were ignored if it didn't support the position that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Thus, you can't assume that someone who contributed to the IPCC's fourth assessment actually supports the summary that was authored by just 52 scientists.

What an idiotic claim. You are saying what 50,000 people should have authoried the report? let's see, if everyone contributes half a page that is only a 25,000 page document. What you have failed (completly) to do is demonstrate that the 700 is majority of anything.

And where have you given evidence that they are not involved in sciences related to climate?

the burden of proof is on you, that is the way it works. You have made the claim (700 climate change scientist, disagree with climate change) and it is up to you to back it up. Yet, you can provide no evidence that it is true. the best you can prove is that 700 scientist (who might be studying earthworms reproduction for all we know) disagree with the report. That is one compelling case you have made.


You mean like computer modeling or physics? Did you know the IPCC's position is heavily dependent on computer modeling that is based on physics?

Like Chemists and, physists and Astrophysics and Genetics researchers and earworm scientist. and so on? Are you saying all the branches of science should be included under thae category of people involved in global warming reasearch? only a moron would argue that, after having just argued his oppenent was wrong to include every branch of science when he demonstrated the ridiculousness of your numbers.

Oh btw, on most of your 31,000 number, The majority of the respondents are on a mailing list for a publication called "American Men and Women of Science" that is used to create one of those vanity press books in the "Who's Who" genre. You can add yourself to the list

http://www.galeedit.com/amws/nomination_form.pdf

You can then a copy of the petition from another self-acclaimed "scientist".

That's a real good survey there. Anyone can sign up for it an say they are a scientist.

Only a moron would believe such a survey.

Mr Lorry, not to quibble, b... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Mr Lorry, not to quibble, but the "list" of 31,000 scientists you referred to is not a list at all. It's an article from Newsmax --NEWSMAX, for God's sake! -- claiming that 31,000 scientists say this or that. In the article, it mentions 17,800 signatures on a petition. It doesn't publish the petition, or the names of any of the 31,000. What list?

"What list"... (Below threshold)
914:

"What list"

The list in the newsmax article silly.

Hey Mac,After you ... (Below threshold)
jmc:

Hey Mac,

After you sign up as a scientist with the link I provided above, go here to add your "scientifc opinion" That climate change isn't real.

http://www.petitionproject.org./instructions_for_signing_petition.php


Oh BTW, 85,000 so called scientist on the mailing list of the American men and women of science, didn't sign the petition that global warming is real... or 75%! Luckily if we use your math we can conclude that 75% is a minority.

The list in the n... (Below threshold)
jmc:
The list in the newsmax article silly.

Yes and it looks real hard to get on the list. I am feeling out the form now.

Honestly, I welcome anythin... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Honestly, I welcome anything they might do that could have catastrophic consequences. Part - though not all - of the problem with those now in power is that they're trying to cement their hold on power by enlarging the welfare state.

Welfare moochers don't do so hot when it comes to making it on their own in tough times - and I refer anyone who wants to say otherwise to New Orleans. Anything that thins them out reduces the statists' grip on power.

I live in Minnesota.. Clima... (Below threshold)
914:

I live in Minnesota.. Climate change is real..The climate has always changed from cold to warm to hot to freezing. that is the nature and definition of climate. Last summer we had three days above 85 degrees.. It has been colder than a bitch for the last three winters/springs/summers/falls.. Global warming is a hoax created by tax and spend communists like yourself.

Anthropogenic climate chang... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Anthropogenic climate change is much more a religion than a science. The devout like jmc, kan, Neil B and Bruce Henry are not going to let the facts get in the way of their beliefs.

Just accept that and move on.

Of course it is sad that Comrade Obama is a member of this church also, but considering the trillions he's already wasted on his Marxist experiments (in less than 2 months mind you-- just wait until their entire 24 months of total power are over if you want to see what a really staggering tens of trillions of national debt looks like), the few billions he blows on this junk won't amount to much anyway.

True, if they do actually try to implement anything they will do much more harm than good, but by then it won't be noticable. It would be like if you were being beaten to near death with a baseball bat you wouldn't notice an additional pin prick.

Let's check some of the 'sc... (Below threshold)
apb:

Let's check some of the 'scientists' for the veracity of their claims - Hansen and the douchebags at GISS claimed last October was the "hottest evah" by simply carrying over temperature readings from September INTO October. Try to make the excuse that they were just overworked, or maybe stupid. My bet's on 'malicious.'

Double 'malicious' for the Mann "hockey stick" that the moron contingent bought for years - until it was proven you could feed random data into it and produce the same result -

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

These clowns are at the forefront of AGW thought. Scared, yet?

What an idiotic c... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
What an idiotic claim. You are saying what 50,000 people should have authoried the report? let's see, if everyone contributes half a page that is only a 25,000 page document.

The idiotic claim is that there were 50,000 scientists who support the claims made by the 52.

the burden of proof is on you, that is the way it works. You have made the claim (700 climate change scientist, disagree with climate change)

And you're the one who made the claim that they are not "involved in the science of global warming". It's your claim so it's your burden to provide proof.

Like Chemists and, physists and Astrophysics and Genetics researchers and earworm scientist. and so on? Are you saying all the branches of science should be included under thae category of people involved in global warming reasearch?

Chemists, physicists, astrophysicists, biologists of many kinds, meteorologists, statisticians, computer scientists, and geologists all contributed research to the IPCC's fourth assessment. That debunks your whole line of argument that only scientists of some narrow discipline are involved in climate research. Note, it's not global warming research it's climate research.

only a moron would argue that, after having just argued his oppenent was wrong to include every branch of science when he demonstrated the ridiculousness of your numbers.

My argument is that there are many scientists who, as individuals, are not involved in climate research regardless of their discipline. Using the total number of scientists is bogus because you can't show that they support your position.

Oh btw, on most of your 31,000 number, The majority of the respondents are on a mailing list for a publication called "American Men and Women of Science"

Yes, it's a list where people who consider themselves scientists express their opinion that the IPCC has it wrong. That's 31,000 more than you have shown that support the IPCC.

Oh BTW, 85,000 so... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Oh BTW, 85,000 so called scientist on the mailing list of the American men and women of science, didn't sign the petition that global warming is real... or 75%! Luckily if we use your math we can conclude that 75% is a minority.

Once again you're making the moronic claim that those who don't express an opinion support your postion.

Global warming is not a hoa... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Global warming is not a hoax. It's a "generated" hoax we were never warned about.

The idiotic claim... (Below threshold)
jmc:
The idiotic claim is that there were 50,000 scientists who support the claims made by the 52.

You never demonstrated that only 52 were making the claim, you demonstrated only 52 wrote it (read your own doc). Which makes sense, to have more write it would be too many. By your logic only 3 people backed the declaration of Independence: Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and John Adams. Since they were the only ones who wrote it... idiotic as usual.

And you're the one who made the claim that they are not "involved in the science of global warming". It's your claim so it's your burden to provide proof.

Uh, no. I asked you if you had any proof to back up your silly claim that a majority of scientist, disagree with global warming. You could only show .0025% of scientist disagreed. Then in your desperation without any proof you claimed those 700 were 700 climate scientist. I asked you if you had proof about that claim and you of course didn't. instead you tried to get me to prove you weren't just lying out of your ass when you said they were climate scientist. I never made a claim so the burden is not on me.

Chemists, physicists, astrophysicists, biologists of many kinds, meteorologists, statisticians, computer scientists, and geologists all contributed research to the IPCC's fourth assessment. That debunks your whole line of argument that only scientists of some narrow discipline are involved in climate research. Note, it's not global warming research it's climate research.

All scientist working in a field of their expertise making claims about their expertise. On your 31,000 list there is a cancer researcher, (who won't know shit about global warming) a professional engineer specializing in historic renovation (Who knows renovation not climate change), a biologist studying blood-sucking mosquitoes (who probably knows little on climate change), a hydraulic engineer, a heart researcher, and a family doctor.

As usual you make one hell of a case.

My argument is that there are many scientists who, as individuals, are not involved in climate research regardless of their discipline. Using the total number of scientists is bogus because you can't show that they support your position.

You are the one making the claim that the majority of scientist agree with your position. Without proof I might add. If you are going to make that claim you have to prove it.

Oh btw, on most of your 31,000 number, The majority of the respondents are on a mailing list for a publication called "American Men and Women of Science"

Which is a list I am now on. It is my scientific opinion that you are a moron.

Anthropogenic cli... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Anthropogenic climate change is much more a religion than a science. The devout like jmc, kan, Neil B and Bruce Henry are not going to let the facts get in the way of their beliefs.

What facts? Anytime I ask Mac Lorry for facts, he says the burden is on me to prove he is not full of shit.

kan - "Think of the sci... (Below threshold)
marc:

kan - "Think of the scientists as firefighters that use controlled burns to prevent and put out forest fires"

Yeah, that's the ticket - Not!

If a few hundred firefighters can let a controlled burn go wildly out of control in 1988, and not for the first or last time, just how successful will these nutcakes be if something goes wacky after shooting crap into the stratosphere?

kan, critical thinking is not your strong suit.

jmc, maybe I missed it, bu... (Below threshold)
marc:

jmc, maybe I missed it, but how does his statement, "there are many scientists who, as individuals" get interpreted by you as "You are the one making the claim that the majority of scientist agree with your position?"

You never demonst... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
You never demonstrated that only 52 were making the claim, you demonstrated only 52 wrote.

I didn't make a claim as to how many support it. You said 50,000, so it's up to you to provide evidence.

Uh, no. I asked you if you had any proof to back up your silly claim that a majority of scientist, disagree with global warming. You could only show .0025% of scientist disagreed.

As I explained, only a moron would count all scientists in a discussion about climate. I have shown evidence that the majority of those who express an opinion oppose the IPCC's position. You have shown nothing.

Then in your desperation without any proof you claimed those 700 were 700 climate scientist.

I made not such claim. The 700 are scientists who have expressed their opposition to the IPCC's position are "International Scientists" according to the link. Go read the link and you'll see that many were former IPCC contributors.

Then in your desperation without any proof you claimed those 700 were 700 climate scientist.

Now you are just laying. Nowhere do I call them climate scientists. The 700 are scientist from many disciplines who are involved in climate research directly or indirectly. That also describes those who contributed to the IPCC's report. Go read the list and stop making shit up.

On your 31,000 list there is a cancer researcher, (who won't know shit about global warming) a professional engineer specializing in historic renovation (Who knows renovation not climate change), a biologist studying blood-sucking mosquitoes (who probably knows little on climate change), a hydraulic engineer, a heart researcher, and a family doctor.

I'm sure you're not qualified to assess anyone's qualifications. Besides, I only cited the 31,000 as scientists who oppose the IPCC's position. You have cited nothing.

You are the one making the claim that the majority of scientist agree with your position.

We're talking about climate and, had I known I would be arguing with a moron, I would have explicitly stated that only scientists who express an opinion about the subject can be counted. You keep making the moronic claim that those who don't express an opinion support your postion.

Which is a list I am now on. It is my scientific opinion that you are a moron.

You just responded to your own comment, moron, and the claim that you're a scientist is laughable.

What facts? Anyti... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
What facts? Anytime I ask Mac Lorry for facts, he says the burden is on me to prove he is not full of shit.

I provided links to lists of scientists who oppose the IPCC's position and you have provided nothing but made up numbers of scientists, who for all you know, also opposes the IPCC's position.

@34: That is not what any s... (Below threshold)

@34: That is not what any scientific analysis of net heat transfer shows. When you trap more IR, the temperature gets higher. Yeah, a lot radiates at night because it got hotter, but it doesn't reduce the net temperature. Radiation is at the fourth power of Kelvin temperature. If there's an additional effect from cosmic rays, solar wind etc., it adds to the total rather than negates the role of CO2. And BTW it is not a "religious" type belief to think that the simplest most straightforward outcome is the most likely: it is the standard scientific method. Since CO2 traps IR and is a warming stimulus, warming is the likeliest outcome through the principle of parsimony.

And do you think the scientists of the late 19th century wanted liberals to control the World when they described the same theory we hear today, of CO2 trapping IR and warming the Earth? Al Gore's dad wasn't even born yet.

Hey marc,here is t... (Below threshold)
jmc:

Hey marc,

here is the statement mac made

Yes, and now the majority of scientists think CO2 is not the cause of climate change
@34: That is not w... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
@34: That is not what any scientific analysis of net heat transfer shows. When you trap more IR, the temperature gets higher.

That's the simplistic model. A more complex model is that the Earth's atmosphere is made up mostly of infrared transparent gases. A gas that's transparent to infrared can neither be heated nor cooled by infrared. The Sun heated surface of the earth heats the atmosphere through conduction and convection. If not for water vapor, methane and CO2, the atmosphere would retain it's heat at night as it can't radiate in the infrared. The following morning the atmosphere would start out warm and get even hotter. When CO2 is introduced into such a system the warm infrared transparent gases come into contact with CO2 which is then able to radiate the heat away into space. Because the active area of this transfer is many times that of the surface area, the net effect is cooling.

However, we do have water vapor in the atmosphere and because it's found in three states of matter in the atmosphere it really confounds the physics. Clouds reflect light over a broad spectrum and reflection is far more effective than absorption and reemittance. When the Sun's magnetic activity is lower the influx of cosmic rays increases and there's evidence this increases low level clouds. Just a 2% increase in these cloulds offsets all the theoretical warming that the IPCC says is caused by the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

The sun is now in an unusually quite period and the increase in cosmic rays has been measured along with satellite data showing an increase in low marine clouds, which are the kind that cause cooling. The IPCC admits we are in a period of cooling, but says it's due to a strong la-nino event.

Interstingly, the CLOUD theory explains known historical cooling and warming periods during times when CO2 levels were steady.

And do you think the scientists of the late 19th century wanted liberals to control the World when they described the same theory we hear today, of CO2 trapping IR and warming the Earth?

And did you know that the real green house effect has noting to do with the glass trapping the infrared. A simple experiment with a "glass" made from infrared transparent salt showed that the gain in temperature was due to the confinement of the air, not infrared. In fact, the control (an identical box with an ordinary glass top) stayed cooler than the box with the "glass" made from infrared transparent salt. The glass, like CO2, caused cooling.

To this day no one has devised an experiment that can directly prove or disprove the so-called green house effect of gases in the atmosphere. The IPCC uses a simplistic model and assumes there's forcing, but a more complex model indicates otherwise. The more complex model better matches the earth.

Yes, and now the m... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Yes, and now the majority of scientists think CO2 is not the cause of climate change

I didn't elaborate to exclude scientists who have expressed no opinion because doing so would only be necessary if I was arguing with a moron. I admit I made the mistake of not realizing you were a moron right away.

Mac, you're arguing with jm... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Mac, you're arguing with jmc.

jmc!

I didn't make a c... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I didn't make a claim as to how many support it.


I have no idea how many support it. I just know you have not demonstrated a majority don't, as you claim. You have not even demonstrated that the 700, are scinetist who are in a field that has anyhting to do with Climate change.


As I explained, only a moron would count all scientists in a discussion about climate. I have shown evidence that the majority of those who express an opinion oppose the IPCC's position. You have shown nothing


Well, thanks for finally admitting you are a moron. Since the 31,000 scientist who signed the petition you brought up contain, family doctors, structual engineers, and mosquito researchers (You know all kinds of scientist) and you are bringing them up in a discussion on climate change, by using your own logic we must conclude you are a moron...Congratualtions.


Now you are just laying. Nowhere do I call them climate scientists. The 700 are scientist from many disciplines who are involved in climate research directly or indirectly. That also describes those who contributed to the IPCC's report. Go read the list and stop making shit up.


You haven't given one shred of proof that they are involved in anything, climate science related. Not one. You asked me to disprove they are. basically you are full of it.


We're talking about climate and, had I known I would be arguing with a moron, I would have explicitly stated that only scientists who express an opinion about the subject can be counted. You keep making the moronic claim that those who don't express an opinion support your postion.


Ahh, that makes sense. We shouldn't go by surveys or printed peer reviewed journals or the fact that every single academy of science in the world has endoresed the idea the climate change is real and man made. No we should look at a petition that any moron such as yourself can sign, or an unscientific survey. How did you get this dumb?


I'm sure you're not qualified to assess anyone's qualifications. Besides, I only cited the 31,000 as scientists who oppose the IPCC's position. You have cited nothing.


So you are saying a cancer researcher is qualified to comment on whether global warming is real? A while ago you said, "As I explained, only a moron would count all scientists in a discussion about climate."

Once again proving you are a moron. Hey when you get cancer, you should go to a gelogist to get that taken care of.

You just responded to your own comment, moron, and the claim that you're a scientist is laughable.

The only thing laughable here is you. My point was that the petition is bogus, because anyone can sign it.

I didn't elaborat... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I didn't elaborate to exclude scientists who have expressed no opinion because doing so would only be necessary if I was arguing with a moron. I admit I made the mistake of not realizing you were a moron right away.

You are either full of it, or so dumb you don't even understood your own points. When you argued that the majority of scientist think CO2 is not the cause of climate change,
you were implying that there is a majority consensus on this, in the scientific community. You concluded that there was a majority consensus because 700 scientist voiced there opinion on the matter.

That would be the equivelent of me going to berkely and getting 700 home owners to sign a petition saying George Bush should be in jail, and then concluding with: The majority of homeowners think George Bush should be in jail. Then asking you to show me a petition of more homeowners that don't think Bush should be in jail.


It is a moronic argument. Sadly, you never make another kind.

Mac, you're argui... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Mac, you're arguing with jmc.

jmc!

And as usual losing. Much like everytime you have argued with me.

If a few hundred firefig... (Below threshold)
kan:

If a few hundred firefighters can let a controlled burn go wildly out of control in 1988, and not for the first or last time, just how successful will these nutcakes be if something goes wacky after shooting crap into the stratosphere?

Thats eaxactly why more needs to be done to reduce the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere. Scientists recognize geoengineering the climate is an extreme option that could have serious side affects. However, there are only 2 ways to reduce global warming. Reduce to amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere or neutralize the CO2 after it enters the atmosphere.

Eventhough controlled burns have gone wildly out of control, far more damage has been reduced through controlled burns than caused by it.

I have no idea how... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I have no idea how many support it. I just know you have not demonstrated a majority don't, as you claim.

If you have no idea how many support the IPCC, then you have no basis to say that a list of 700 is not the majority.

You have not even demonstrated that the 700, are scinetist who are in a field that has anyhting to do with Climate change.

When you publish a list of the fields you think don't have anything to do with research into the cause of climate change (the IPCC's group 1), the impact of climate change (the IPCC's group 2), and the means of mitigating the change (the IPCC's group 3), then you might have a basis for claiming some in the list shouldn't be there. Until then the list stands.

Well, thanks for finally admitting you are a moron.

No such luck moron. You keep trying to count scientists who have expressed no opinion, and if they have expressed no opinion they can't be used to oppose those that have. The 31,000 have expressed opinions. The 50,000 and then 2.5 million phantom scientists you brought up don't count for anything in this argument unless you can show that they individually support the IPCC. You've shown nothing and only a moron would thinks they can counter something with nothing.

You haven't given one shred of proof that they are involved in anything, climate science related. Not one. You asked me to disprove they are. basically you are full of it.

If you read the link you'll see that some are former IPCC contributors. Because you haven't shown anything, even one former IPCC contributor on the list blows your arguments out of the water.

Ahh, that makes sense. We shouldn't go by surveys or printed peer reviewed journals or the fact that every single academy of science in the world has endoresed the idea the climate change is real and man made.

Yes lets go by peer reviewed journals. A survey of peer reviewed papers in 2007 showed that more scientists opposed the IPCC's position than supported it. And it's been shown that the membership of science academies and organizations that have endorsed the IPCC never voted to for such an endorsement. It most cases the endorsement was made by administrators, some of whom are not even scientists of any kind.

So you are saying a cancer researcher is qualified to comment on whether global warming is real?

A cancer researcher is a biologist and the IPCC uses many biologists in their research. We are not talking about "global warming", were are talking about the IPCC's position which is man made global warming (AGW for short). We've had warming in the past that was obviously not man made, and thus, you have to draw the distinction. If the warming is not man made due to CO2, then cutting CO2 output is useless. I know that's a lot for a moron to keep straight, but please try.

The only thing laughable here is you. My point was that the petition is bogus, because anyone can sign it.

Which proves my point, that they have express an opinion unlike your phantom scientists.

You are either full of it, or so dumb you don't even understood your own points. When you argued that the majority of scientist think CO2 is not the cause of climate change, you were implying that there is a majority consensus on this, in the scientific community. You concluded that there was a majority consensus because 700 scientist voiced there opinion on the matter.

The purpose of the list is to debunk Al Gore's scientific consensus. Only 52 scientists authored the IPCC's AR4 summary, so yes 700 is more than 52. As for the full AR4, it contradicts some of the key points in the summary. Not even the IPCC's own scientists agree with some of the the fantasies in the politically motivated summary.

And as usual losin... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
And as usual losing. Much like everytime you have argued with me.

Win, lose, or draw, I'm having fun.

@68, I want to see refs. to... (Below threshold)

@68, I want to see refs. to those experiments which contradict scientific consensus that IR absorption will raise temperature, even if it's debatable how much. And you said, IR-transparent crystal, which is the opposite of what causes heat in greenhouses and in the atmosphere. What ref. to that experiment? And finally, why would greenhouses use special glass (from whence the very name) if just holding in the air was the point?

BTW Mac Lorry, the complaint of most in those petitions against AGW orthodoxy is against being so sure how much is due to human CO2 net production and how much effect in the future, and very little doubt there is at least some effect. Even Lumo for example admits CO2 is a warming stimulus, he just claims it isn't enough to matter.

Kan, You could help.... (Below threshold)
maggie:

Kan,
You could help. Stop breathing. ;)

kan - "Even though cont... (Below threshold)
marc:

kan - "Even though controlled burns have gone wildly out of control, far more damage has been reduced through controlled burns than caused by it."

Remind me again who it was brought up the use of controlled burns as a way to justify these nutcakes shooting crapola into the stratosphere?

Nevermind, it was YOU. But now you admit they are a problem.

You can't have it both ways.

Thats eaxactly why... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Thats eaxactly why more needs to be done to reduce the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere.

So, the hell with the fact that nutcakes are shooting crap into the stratosphere, nothing at all to be concerned about. Barack, is that you?

Neil B,@6... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Neil B,

@68, I want to see refs. to those experiments which contradict scientific consensus that IR absorption will raise temperature, even if it's debatable how much.

Here's a link to the paper "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)" The paper is controversial, but cites over 200 scientific papers, many of which are obscure. It's good reading if you are in to that sort of thing.

And you said, IR-transparent crystal, which is the opposite of what causes heat in greenhouses and in the atmosphere. What ref. to that experiment?

"R. W. Wood, Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse", Philosophical magazine 17319-320 (1909). Much of the experiment is detailed in the Falsification paper I cited above.

And finally, why would greenhouses use special glass (from whence the very name) if just holding in the air was the point?

Greenhouses use tempered glass in order to withstand weather, particularly hail.

BTW Mac Lorry, the complaint of most in those petitions against AGW orthodoxy is against being so sure how much is due to human CO2 net production and how much effect in the future, and very little doubt there is at least some effect. Even Lumo for example admits CO2 is a warming stimulus, he just claims it isn't enough to matter.

The 700 scientists I linked to are described as skeptics to the IPCC's position. Certainly some could just disagree with the degree of warming or the degree to which human activity causes warming, but there are also many who subscribe to the CLOUD theory. See my link to CERN in post #34.

What's intriguing is that the CLOUD theory explains repeating patterns of warming and cooling such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age at a time when CO2 levels were nearly steady, and thus, could not be the cause. The CLOUD theory explains the current cooling which is confusing to scientists who believe CO2 causes warming.

If you have no id... (Below threshold)
jmc:
If you have no idea how many support the IPCC, then you have no basis to say that a list of 700 is not the majority.

Yes, I do. a majority is greater than 50% why is that so hard for you to grasp? I thought my George Bush example would clear up, the fundamental ilogic of your position. Secondly you are the one arguing that a majority of scientist no longer support man made climate change. You have not proved it. I do not have to prove the converse of your claim. Google logical fallcy, you need to learn this stuff.


No such luck moron. You keep trying to count scientists who have expressed no opinion, and if they have expressed no opinion they can't be used to oppose those that have. The 31,000 have expressed opinions. The 50,000 and then 2.5 million phantom scientists you brought up don't count for anything in this argument unless you can show that they individually support the IPCC. You've shown nothing and only a moron would thinks they can counter something with nothing.

Are you really this stupid? really? You are the one who brought up a list of 31,000 scientist who deny global warming. That was your evidence. That list contained things like cancer researchers and stuctual engineers for god's sake. Then you went on to say anyone who brings up a scientist who isn't involved in climate science in this debate is a moron, thus proving yourself a moron!

A cancer researcher is a biologist and the IPCC uses many biologists in their research. We are not talking about "global warming", were are talking about the IPCC's position which is man made global warming (AGW for short). We've had warming in the past that was obviously not man made, and thus, you have to draw the distinction. If the warming is not man made due to CO2, then cutting CO2 output is useless. I know that's a lot for a moron to keep straight, but please try.


Good lord, how did you graduate high school being this dumb? okay, dummy a cancer researcher isn't focused on the kind of biology that would have anyhting to do with climate change. They are studiying Cancer cells. The title tips you. Cancer research.


y peer reviewed journals. A survey of peer reviewed papers in 2007 showed that more scientists opposed the IPCC's position than supported it. And it's been shown that the membership of science academies and organizations that have endorsed the IPCC never voted to for such an endorsement. It most cases the endorsement was made by administrators, some of whom are not even scientists of any kind.

And now you are just lying.


my point, that they have express an opinion unlike your phantom scientists

Which proves how stupid you are. If anyone can sign up for it, there is no way to insure everyone involved is an actual scintist or a credible one. it is like an internet poll it is worthless. Just like your arguments

The purpose of the list is to debunk Al Gore's scientific consensus.


So you freely admit then that you have no evididence that the majority of actuall scientist disagree with man made climate change? All you basically have is a small number of scientist .0025% of the total in the U.S alone, whose existence show that Al Gore was wrong when he said there was a unmanimous consensus. in fact you can demonstrate for a certaintly that the closets Al Gore can mathmatically get to unanimous is 99.9975% Well done.


Only 52 scientists authored the IPCC's AR4 summary, so yes 700 is more than 52.

You are such a bufoon. Only 3 people authored the declaration of indepence. That fact has nothing to do with how many people supported it, you illogical twit. One more time for the terminally brain dead. In order to say a majority of scientist do anything you have to show an actuall majority exists.

Win, lose, or dra... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Win, lose, or draw, I'm having fun.

There you go! learn to enjoy losing!

We are not talking about cl... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

We are not talking about climate change, either, which inevitable. The IPCC is just another political stooge for the economic boom.

During the 20th Century, the earth's temperature has climbed a half degree Celsius. The vast majority of the climb was before 1940 and the start of the "Post War Economic Boom". During the 35 years of the economic boom, while the man-made output of CO2 surged, the planet's temperature went down. That's when "Global Cooling" was the scare. When the world wide recession began in 1975, and man-made CO2 began to decrease, the earth's temperature began to climb.
http://simplyobvious.com/global_warming.htm

Whatever is trendy with the times is where we get our policies and "acceptable" opinions. Al Gore is just another money grubbing hack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd6B2iOZLt0

jmc,Since you won'... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

jmc,

Since you won't, I looked it up the IPCC's group 1 makeup, which is the group responsible for determining the cause of climate chance. Here's what I found: "Working Group 1 started with 170 scientists from 25 countries attending 12 workshops around the world. Thirty four authors wrote up the conclusions from those workshops, which were then reviewed by another 200 scientists." That's a maximum of 404 people. Look it up yourself if you dispute the numbers.

The real test of the consensus claim is to look at the published studies.

A comprehensive survey of climate-change research reveals a lack of consensus in the scientific community on whether global warming is caused by human activity or will have any significant impact. Less than half of the recent papers in a major scientific journal agree even "implicitly" with those notions.

Researchers examined published [papers] between 2004 and 2007. They found that only 38 percent of scientists accepted claims about global warming without question. Forty-eight percent were neutral.

Ken Green, a climate change expert at the American Enterprise Institute, called it as a rebuttal to claims of "consensus" on the issue.

"The climate is warming," he said. "We're unclear on what the major causes are."

Notably, just one of the 528 papers examined makes any reference to global warming producing catastrophic results.

Only a single published paper explicitly supported the IPCC's position. As for numbers, 700 is more than 404 so my statement that the majority of scientists oppose the IPCC's position is factual and stands on the facts.

MacLorry, jmc doesn't care ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

MacLorry, jmc doesn't care about facts, only "logic". And he's not even very good at that, because he completely ignores what someone else says with: "I am so smart, I don't even have to look at any one else's input! Everyone else is brain dead because I say so!" Definitely a waste of bandwidth, but he sure likes to use them blockquotes. They look so "techy" and make up two thirds of most of his inane comments.

LaMedusa,I underst... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

LaMedusa,

I understand your point, but I was bored yesterday and it was fun arguing with jmc. I hope I didn't hurt their feelings calling them a moron so many times, but I figured it was ok because jmc used it in post #36 to address anyone who didn't believe in AGW. Sorry for taking over the thread yesterday, but it was much fun. I could see how nervous jmc was getting with lots more than the usual number of spelling mistakes, made up numbers and completely abandoning logic many times. Dang, but that's like blood in the water and I lost my restraint. I'll try not to pollute future threads with such recklessly fun comments.

Oh no, Mac. That was aweso... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Oh no, Mac. That was awesome watching jmc trip over himself and his "logic". The more reckless you get, the better. Have a great Easter! :)

So "Man's pollution" is ... (Below threshold)
John S:

So "Man's pollution" is causing global warming and they are going to put pollution in the air to stop it? Only liberals would think of this.

Yes. It's the same administration that will solve a financial crisis caused by too much debt by printing money and running $3 trillion budget deficits.

On a more positive note: since the miniscule warming trend that peaked 10 years ago in 1998 wasn't caused by human activities, "radical" actions by Bambi won't affect the climate either.

Sorry for late update, but:... (Below threshold)

Sorry for late update, but: that one paper written way back in 1909 about GH glass effect is not very much force against the major consensus - and here, I'm talking about greenhouses not the "greenhouse effect" of the atmosphere! OK, maybe GH glass doesn't need special IR absorbing pigments but only because glass already lets in less IR than visible: that is enough to heat up the stuff underneath (not the only reason, but "only" isn't the relevant issue.)

I read over the Gerhard Gerlich paper and found it a snow-jabbery piece no more convincing an overthrow of traditional thermodynamics than I would an anti-relativity screed. You can't credibly tell me, that if a piece of glass absorbs more IR it won't get warmer than if it didn't, and if it gets warmer it will transfer the heat to the air underneath.

Rebuttal (in German) to tha... (Below threshold)

Rebuttal (in German) to that paper:
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf

Neil B ♪S... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Neil B ♪

Sorry for late update, but: that one paper written way back in 1909 about GH glass effect is not very much force against the major consensus - and here, I'm talking about greenhouses not the "greenhouse effect" of the atmosphere!

I'm sure you understand that a consensus of even 99.9% of scientists is overturned by a single repeatable experiment shown different results. Wood's experiment is readily repeatable today just as it was in 1909 as the laws of nature are the same now as then.

I read over the Gerhard Gerlich paper and found it a snow-jabbery piece no more convincing an overthrow of traditional thermodynamics than I would an anti-relativity screed.

The Gerhard Gerlich paper doesn't overturn the laws of thermodynamics, but applies them. A paper that's in it's fourth revision and cites over 200 published papers is anything but a snow-jabbery piece. Many of the points made are correct, others are controversial, and others may be wrong. Obviously, had the paper been perfect there would be no need for four revisions. This is how science is supposed to work.

You can't credibly tell me, that if a piece of glass absorbs more IR it won't get warmer than if it didn't, and if it gets warmer it will transfer the heat to the air underneath.

Yes the IR absorbing glass will get hotter in the sun than IR transparent glass, but it's not the temperature of the glass that counts, it's the temperature inside the greenhouse that counts. Because the glass is at the top of the structure, a thin layer of air in contact with the underside of IR absorbing glass will get hotter than the equivalent layer of air in contact with the IR transparent glass. However, because the hot air is already at the top of the greenhouse, there's no convection, and thus, that heat is not transferred down into the greenhouse. Wind and convection currents on the outside surface of the glass remove most of the heat so there's very little temperature difference between the IR absorbing glass and the IR transparent glass anyway.

The greenhouse with the IR transparent glass gets a bit hotter inside because the IR reaches the bottom and heats it up. That heat is then effectively distributed within the greenhouse by convection currents.

Rebuttal (in German) to that paper:

That paper is from January 30, 2008 and Gerhard and Gerlich have addressed the issues that were raised in their January 6, 2009 revision that I linked to. The rebuttal has been rebutted.

Well I have to admit you're... (Below threshold)

Well I have to admit you're better prepared than I thought, but still:
However, because the hot air is already at the top of the greenhouse, there's no convection, and thus, that heat is not transferred down into the greenhouse.
No, you forgot conduction, which also affects air. Remember, "conduction, convection, radiation."? Believe me, if IR absorption made no difference then it wouldn't be an issue for what kind of glass to have in windows, greenhouses, etc. And in 1909 there may not have been good enough IR photometry to properly categorize the different kinds of glass, etc. I'd rather believe 99.9% of conventional science about greenhouse-s (and not even the atmosphere, let that go for now) than some creaky experiment for which I can't trust the technical aptitude after all these years.

Neil B ♪,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Neil B ♪,

No, you forgot conduction, which also affects air. Remember, "conduction, convection, radiation."?

Air is a very poor conductor of heat, it fact, it's the insulator in a double pane window. Air, being mostly oxygen and nitrogen, is an extremely poor radiator of heat. That only leaves convection, which takes hot air to the top of a container, but that's where it already is. On the other side of the glass, convection does work well because the heat source, the glass, is now below the air. Also, even a light wind is very effective at removing the heat in the glass. If the glass getting hot in the sun was the source of heat inside a greenhouse, then the effect wouldn't work on a windy day.

Believe me, if IR absorption made no difference then it wouldn't be an issue for what kind of glass to have in windows, greenhouses, etc.

The special glass is because of the need for strength, not IR characteristics. Think what would happen if you built a greenhouse with ordinary window glass and then it got hit by a hail storm. The glass greenhouses use is expensive tempered glass (safety glass) that can withstand hail impacts (within reason). UV filtering and R value are also considerations, but not IR.

And in 1909 there may not have been good enough IR photometry to properly categorize the different kinds of glass, etc. I'd rather believe 99.9% of conventional science about greenhouse-s (and not even the atmosphere, let that go for now) than some creaky experiment for which I can't trust the technical aptitude after all these years.

They had functional greenhouses back in 1909 and the formula for glass is thousands of years old. Wood used an IR transparent salt to form his IR transparent "glass" for the experiment. 1909 was not the last time the experiment was done, as it's within the ability of a high school student to repeat it as there are common plastics nowadays that are IR transparent. The scientific consensus of physicists who know about such things is the Wood's experiment is correct, and it proves that the real greenhouse effect is caused by confinement of the air by the glass, not by IR.

None of this has anything to do, however, with the IR absorption and reemittance of CO2 other than to establish that the term "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer. I'm not sure I even accept the main thesis of the Gerhard Gerlich paper, but it raises some good questions about the assumptions that are too easily accepted as true by those who support the idea that gases like CO2 cause heating of the earth. Even apart from the Gerhard Gerlich paper, only the simplistic model I mentioned in an earlier post produces positive "forcing". The more complex and earthlike model results in negative "forcing". Let science, unbiased by political pressure, follow it's course to the truth.

"And as usual losing. Mu... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"And as usual losing. Much like everytime you have argued with me. "

I just happened to stop back in on this post. I don't know why. And saw that.

Dude, you owe me a monitor.

Neil B ♪,Here's a ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Neil B ♪,

Here's a link to the Wikipedia page on the greenhouse effect. While the repeat the usual explanation of how the greenhouse effect works in the atmosphere, they do cite R.W. Wood in their explanation of how real greenhouses work.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy