Thursday, December 11, 2008

Is the gig up for the global warming alarmists?

Sen. James Inhofe just released a new minority report from his committee that has a list of the growing number of scientists - all of them in climate related fields - who consider themselves skeptics of the AGW hypothesis.

The number is now 650. Many have given statements, some of which call the global warming scare a complete scam. There are Nobel Prize winners and IPCC members among them. \

Bottom line, the sham of the so-called "consensus" is being revealed. But will the alarmists retreat? Don't bet on it.

100 comments:

Anonymous said...

Worse yet for the global warming alarmists, the majority of the public does not think global warming is a problem, and would not pay any significant amount of new taxes to combat it. This does not preclude "solutions" being shoved down America's throat (see: Portland light rail), so groups that are actively working to beat back the Alarmists should be supported.

Anonymous said...

Hey Rob, your link to 'minority report' didn't work for me. Just my problem possibly...

Rob Kremer said...

Thanks, anon, it is fixed now.

Anonymous said...

JK: Well, its NOW or NEVER for action on global warming - time is running out fast.

The public is realizing that man caused warming is BS

As soon as the politicians realize it, the jig is up. Action will never occur.

Maybe some day, even the WW and NYT will wise up. (Where are you Nigel, a 2nd Pulitzer prize awaits for the reporter who blows the lid off the AGW scam!)

Thanks
JK

David Appell said...

I follow the scientific literature pretty closely, and I have not seen any publications by Morano's list of scientists skeptics.

They seem to be mostly elderly or retired scientists, from a hodge podge of fields, who believe they now more than today's best researchers on climate science.

Too easy. They are free to make their case in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They never do. Never.

An opinion is hardly the same as a peer-reviewed conclusion.

I'm sure none of these elderly scientists gave a twat what the 80-yr olds of their generation thought when they were doing their best work. Elderly scientists always have something to say. They are nearly always wrong, tread over by the upcoming young scientists intimately familiar with the field's latest experiments, data, hypotheses, and theories. This has been going on in science for a few hundred years now.

David Appell said...

PS: I challenge Rob to have a legitimate IPCC scientist on his show. Ask *him/her* about the science. Not some patsies who don't even publish in the field. Real scientists -- there are several at OSU or UO.

Conservative talk show hosts are *petrified* of doing this. I doubt Rob has the balls. I know Lars Larson doesn't.

Rob Kremer said...

David Appell:
Thanks for reading and posting a comment here.

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the 650 scientists who are in this report are not legitimate? That they are all washed up and haven't published any research on their area of expertise?

I have seen your posts on other blogs. Are you a journalist?

Anonymous said...

Are you a journalist?
JK: He pretends to be one.

Thanks
JK

Anonymous said...

David Appell: They seem to be mostly elderly or retired scientists, from a hodge podge of fields, who believe they now more than today's best researchers on climate science.
JK: Right they are better than the best the palaeoclimatology field has to offer such as these:

1. Michael Mann who created Al Gore’s hockey stick. Thoroughly discredited & probably a fraud.

2. Jim Hansen who testified to congress 20 years ago that we had better get CO2 under control fast. He presented three predictions, all showing warming. The least was a moderate warming if WE DRAMATICALLY CUT CO2. On the twentieth anniversary of that testimony it is cooler without CO2 cuts.

2b. Jim Hansen who keeps the USHCN and didn’t happen to notice a Y2K error for several years until Steve McIntyre pointed it out to him.

2c. Jim Hansen who’s careful quality control failed to notice that the warmest October on record was due to duplicating September data.

3. A handful of Hansen’s buddies who peer review each other’s papers and use the same faulty data (tree rings) to reach the same alarmist conclusions. (see the Wegman report)

3. Or maybe you mean Steven Schneider, editor of a peer-reviewed journal climate, who said we have to paint scarey scenarios to scare people into believing our crap.

4. Maybe you mean that famous Nobel prize winning scientist, AL Gore who will do anything to save the earth except learn science. But he is getting rich off of this scam.

David, you are following fools, liars and idiots.

*BTW, David, we are still waiting for your proof that man can cause dangerous warming.*
And *We are still waiting for proof of your claim that co2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”*

Thanks
JK

Anonymous said...

David Appell said... I follow the scientific literature pretty closely, and I have not seen any publications by Morano's list of scientists skeptics
JK:
1. I suppose this guy did nothing of note: Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever

2. This one looks like a real loser too: Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more
than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

BTW, google scholar gave about 31,500" hits when I entered “Dr. Joanne Simpson”
Including:
The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Sensor Package which lists Joanne Simpson NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland in the list of authors.

A Proposed Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Satellite authors include: “Joanne Simpson - Severe Storms Branch, Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA, Greenbelt, MD 20771"

That’s just off the top of the first page of about 3150 pages.

3. Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi
University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace
member.

Comment on “Variations in northern vegetation activity inferred from satellite data of vegetation index during 1981–1999” by L. Zhou et al. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, Abo Akademi University, Abo, Finland

4. Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in
Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and
solar interaction with the Earth.

Observations of Transition Region Plasma Solar Physics 190: 379-408, 1999

I’ve wasted enough time on you again, David.

Let me be kind and just say that it was just a little careless of you to accuse that list of scientists of being unpublished. I’m sure there was no intent, on your part, to deceive us. Yeah, right. Just like Mann.

BTW, David, we are still waiting for your proof that man can cause dangerous warming.
And *We are still waiting for proof of your claim that co2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”

Thanks
JK

Anonymous said...

David Appell: I follow the scientific literature pretty closely, and I have not seen any publications by Morano's list of scientists skeptics.
JK: The fact that there are papers from the first few on the list and you made the above statement is further evidence that you have not even bothered to look at the facts before opening your mouth.

You have done this several times and is further evidence that you are unfit to be a “science writer”. You have repeatedly refused to even look at the evidence on the other side, instead you choose to just dismiss it out of hand time after time. Usually with an attack on the personalities instead of the evidence.

Instead of facing the fact that there is no evidence that CO2 can cause warming, you make up Clintonesque excuses based on interpretation of words.

You claim that CO2 can cause much more than ½ degree of warming, then are unable to show us a peer reviewed paper. Where did you get that factoid? Out of thin air?

BTW, David, we are still waiting for your proof that man can cause dangerous warming.
And *We are still waiting for proof of your claim that co2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”

It is time for you to put up or shut up and leave the adults alone. We are tired of wasting time correcting fools and idiots.

Thanks
JK

David Appell said...

Rob Kremer wrote:
> Let me make sure I understand
> what you are saying. Are you
> saying that the 650 scientists
> who are in this report are not
> legitimate? That they are all
> washed up and haven't published
> any research on their area of
> expertise?

OF course, they've published in their area of expertise. That doesn't make them experts in any and all fields of science. Elderly physicists are notorious for thinking they can legitimately comment on any topic at all, just because they are good scientists who accomplished something in their field. And many of the "scientists" on the list appear to be broadcast meteorologists (viz. TV weatherman) who rarely have much science background, let alone in climate science.

But they're not (as far as I can see) climate experts. They aren't doing active research in the field. They aren't publishing in the field. And publication -- peer-reviewed publication in legitimate scientific journals -- is where science is debated. There data and claims are closely scrutinized, at first by peer-reviewers and later by the journal's readers. That's not true for op-eds in the Wall Street Journal or the NY Times or any other place, or almost all of what you see on the Web.

Others have been picking this list apart: http://tinyurl.com/5q2yuf . I don't agree with anything Romm writes, and I think he has extreme views, but he does have good links to where some of these scientists views have been shown to be wrong.

And Andrew Dressler has some sage thoughts here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/112933/48

Most of all, he notes that on the one hand Inhofe et al spend a lot of time denying that the AGW "consensus" means anything in science, and one the other hand here he is trying to establish a "consensus" against AGW. You can't have it both ways.

David Appell said...

PS: Yes, I am a science journalist:
http://www.nasw.org/users/appell/

Rob Kremer said...

D. Appell:
I asked if you were a journalist because what I have seen from you looks a heck of a lot more like you are an advocate. You seem to spend a lot of time on blogs around here defending the AGW hypothesis.

Maybe it's just me, but I always thought people who describe themselves as journalists didn't take sides on issues.

But then, I always thought science was about proving hypotheses with something more than cooked up computer models and phony consensus. So I admittedly am behind the times.

Oh - nice try on Inhofe. He isn't trying to have it both ways by creating a consensus of skeptics. Rather, he is destroying the ridiculous notion of the AGW consensus by identifying hundreds of scientists who disagree with it.

Is that the level of analysis and insight we can expect from your "journalism?"

David Appell said...

Rob, I am a journalist, and I report the best science news that is out there. You clearly misunderstand what objectivity means. I don't take sides on issues -- my concern is what science is correct. And, the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature. The arguments of AGW skeptics just don't have the scientific truth behind them, the science community agrees -- therefore, why should a science journalist give them equal weight?
He shouldn't. The journalist's job is to report on the science. It would be as incorrect to give weight to the skeptics largely unproven and unpublished claims and it would to be write that Lysenkoism has as much truth as Mendelism because a few people advocated it. I get email all the time from people telling me that special relativity is wrong. Should I report on them? Hardly. They just aren't legitimate science. My job is to report legitimate science.

Whether it suits your ideology or not, there are scientific truths in this world. AGW has been firmly established as one of them.

So, why no legitimate IPCC scientists on your radio show? As far as I know no conservative talk radio host has presented any real scientists -- not you, not Larson, or Limbaugh or Beck. Why not?

Rob Kremer said...

A legitimate IPCC scientist? Like this guy?

"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

Or is he not legitimate, since he doesn't believe in the AGW religion?

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that the buzz phrase "global warming" has now been replaced with "climate change".

The temp is going to drop into the teens here in PDX next week. Must be because of CO2.

Anonymous said...

David And, the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.
JK: Then you can easily show us the papers.

You constantly refuse to do this. Do these papers really exist?

You are fooling yourself and others.

Thanks
JK

Anonymous said...

David - I don't agree with anything you write, and I think you have extreme views, but Rob's blog does have good links to where some of these political-prostitute scientists' views have been shown to be wrong.

David Appell said...

Itoh is a physical chemist -- he himself admits he is not a climate expert (R Pielke Sr blog, 6/17/08).

He was a reviewer for the IPCC 4AR -- he did not contribute any of the science.

In any case, there are always spectrums of opinion among scientists -- even climate scientists. Citing one scientists does not mean they are correct and everyone else is wrong. You certainly don't buy that when a scientists warns of AGW -- why should I buy it from you?

Itoh also does not publish in the scientific literature, where his claims would be thoroughly scrutinized, but in a privately published book.

Would you take medical advice from doctors who shun the medical literature and instead publish op-eds in the WSJ or publish private books on it? Or would you look towards peer-reviewed, properly constructed science that shows the efficacy or not of a certain treatment/drug?

Sure, Rob, have him on your show. It's only another example of you cherry-picking people who agree with you. I suspect you're afraid to have on scientists who do not agree with you and who accept the theory of AGU. There are lots of them out there. Why aren't you calling them?

David Appell said...

Anonymous wrote:
> It's interesting that the buzz
> phrase "global warming" has now
> been replaced with "climate
> change".

It's very clear you haven't studied the science beyond what you read in the Wash Times, or you would understand the rationale for this change in terminology.

> The temp is going to drop into
> the teens here in PDX next week. > Must be because of CO2.

Another person who doesn't understand the difference between "weather" and "climate."

Does that fact that, say, March 25 is cooler than March 19th mean summer will not arrive? Of course not.

Anonymous said...

David: Anonymous wrote:
> It's interesting that the buzz phrase "global warming" has now been replaced with "climate change".

It's very clear you haven't studied the science beyond what you read in the Wash Times, or you would understand the rationale for this change in terminology.
JK: Wasn’t the real reason so that when the climate entered a cooling cycle, Al Gore and his Wall Street cronies could claim that it is still man caused, so we have to keep feeding them money?

Hey David! We are still waiting for you to show us the proof of the claims that YOU made:
1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”

2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”

Dave, prove it or shut up.

Thanks
JK

Anonymous said...

First:
Isn't David Appell the name of one of Portland's former weather guys?

Second:
David Appell said: "Sure, Rob, have him on your show. It's only another example of you cherry-picking people who agree with you. I suspect you're afraid to have on scientists who do not agree with you and who accept the theory of AGU. There are lots of them out there. Why aren't you calling them?"

The paragraph by Appell describes talk radio in a nutshell: entertainers preaching to the choir. It can be Kremer, Lars, Air America....it doesn't matter. Kremer's blog, like his show, is just opinion....none of you are prooving anything. You're just picking at each other. Rob, if you're right about global warming studies, you should have absolutely no fear in taking up David Appell's challenge. Get one of the scientists Appell alludes to. Since you're right (according to you), you'll clobber him.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:34

First:

Not if you bother to consider that their names are spelled differently.

Second:

What would that "proove" - even if it were accurate?

PS, speaking of accurate, what's AGU?

Anonymous said...

David,

Are you a simpleton or what?

You have falsely touted "peer review" as only happening with consensus makers.
Then you disregard a reviewer who disagreed with the IPCC report you keep telling informing everyone about.
(as if we didn't get that the first 100 times it was brought up)

And why is it significant that Itoh is a physical chemist -- he himself admits he is not a climate expert?
The IPCC is full of various fields of study and expertise. Do you only discount those who are not on board?

Is it your suggestion that only Climate experts should review any of the IPCC reports?
That's asinine of course.
As you know there are many components to the IPCC work which require expertise not in "climate" but in related fields.

Yet here you are pretending Itoh has no credibility?

That is one of your regular signs of zero integrity.
And why you are rejected as the lying fool you are.

"he did not contribute any of the science"?

And neither did many of the participants who are among the waning consensus. But they line up, without any need for your scrutiny and judgement?

Another whopper you offer is this

"Citing one scientists does not mean they are correct and everyone else is wrong"

One?

David,
There are only two choices here. You are either deliberately distorting or you are so ignorant and biased that you can't even recognize the growing crowd of of highly educated skeptics in various fields of expertise including "climate".


Your delirious belief that all genuine "climate" experts are in agreement with the IPCC reports makes you very much a fool.
Your further belief that the 100s of scientist across the board, from around the globe who reject the IPCC have nothing supportive is additional proof of a mental state in need of treatment.

If you have any hope of salvaging anything in the way of crediblity or mental stability you best stop your repeated posting of the IPCC report, (as if you are informing anyone),
stop lying about the skeptic's numbers and expertise,
and start responding to the specific work and statements form skeptics.

Rob Kremer said...

I've got a better idea, David Appell. How about I arrange an on-air debate between you and Chuck Weise, a local meteorologist?

Surely you are well enough versed in the overwhelming body of scientific evidence to debate him?

I will be subbing for Lars over the next few weeks. I am sure Chuck Weise would like to do it.

How about you?

Anonymous said...

http://climatesci.org/2007/06/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-i/


The abundant debunking is realidy available in multiple locations.

This is ONLY one which disects David's IPCC in countless ways.

From specific biased and conflicts of interest, to pure data the IPCC excluded or distorted.

---------------------------
_____________________________

"If the papers were neglected because they were redundant, this would be no problem. However, they are ignored specifically because they conflict with the assessment that is presented in the IPCC WG1 Report, and the Lead Authors do not agree with that perspective!

That is hardly honoring the IPCC commitment to provide

“A comprehensive and rigourous picture of the global present state of knowledge of climate change”.

Moreover, the conflict of interest that was identified in the CCSP Report “”Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences” is perpetuated in the IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 Report [where the Editor of this CCSP Report, Tom Karl, is also Review Editor for the Chapter 3 of the 2007 IPCC WG1 Report].
--------------------------
__________________________
Roger,

Here is my recent post:

Here are the results of analysis of the temperature records from the lighthouse at Quatsino, BC, which is located on the West Coast of Vancouver Island

Sample Interval : March 16-26
Sample Temperature : Daily Minimum
Sample El Nino Years: 1900 and 1998
Sample La Nina Years: 1899 and 1999

Results:

Mean Minimum +/- SD Deg K, EN/LN Index

El Nino Year: 1900: 276.4 +/- 2.5 EN Index=+1.8
El Nino Year: 1998: 277.3 +/- 1.7 EN Index=+3.3

La Nina Year: 1899: 273.3 +/- 1.0 LN Index=-0.5
La Nina Year: 1999: 275.5 +/- 1.8 LN Index=-0.8

These data speak for themselves, as they always do, and they say: No change in the mean daily minimum temperature
at and around the Spring Equinox at the Quatsino Station for a century.

Absolute truth is in the treasure chests (filling cabinets with temp records) of the lighthouses.

----------------------

___________________________


"Roger: Fascinating! As a scientist, I would have been gobsmacked when I read this, if Steve McIntyre had not already desensitized me by showing how much of the IPCC type of climate science is simply pure garbage. Keep up the great work."

----------------------

_________________________

David, we all know about the IPCC reports. They have been completely reviewed by many experts weighing in on ever conceivable angle and feild of science.

On and on and on and on experts have studied and responded to the IPCC reports,,,, finding them to be garbage science.

If there is no amount of the detailed condemnation that David can recognize then he is the worst possbile contributor to any discussion.

MAX Redline said...

From the unbiased Appell:

You don't have the right to ruin the planet for the rest of us -- it doesn't belong to you.

Your civil and constitutional rights have been restricted and taken away more by the Bush administration in the last 7 years than anything any climate activist has ever proposed. But instead of focusing on wiretapping, corporate collusion with government, imprisonment without habeus corpus, or the president's "right" to torture you in secret, you're upset because you might have to pay $2 more a month for clean electricity. That's extremely short-sighted and foolish.

Your claim that there is no evidence of "torture" tells me pretty much all I need to know. It's akin to your earlier denial that modern CO2 in the atmosphere is of human origin.

You are locked in chains, and complaining only that someone is blocking the sunlight from the window of your cell.

(insert name), your questions have been thoroughly answered in the scientific literature years ago, some decades ago, and a few even centuries ago. Many writers have even done you the favor of popularizing these findings in their books.

Happy Reading.


I'll go through it one last time: (liar: there's never any "one last time" with him; it's the same stuff, over and over)

Blog comments are hardly the place to explain and establish complicated science, and frankly I have no interest in teaching you anything. Teach yourself.

Someday you'll know better.

You need to learn some science.

Otherwise, I think you should shut the f**k up and stop denigrating better men than you.

I think that essentially covers David's "contributions", although do let me know if I've missed another.

David, you see, is not a member of the Church of AGW. As he has clearly stated in the recent past:

You're full of shit. (And, I see, also afraid to sign your real name.) I never said anything like that whatsoever. You're lying. I don't even believe in religion, let alone want to defend it, let alone try to propose it as a basis of my thinking.

The fact that he feels compelled to rush to the defense of AGW whenever the religion is criticised by members of the great unwashed masses (increasing numbers of whom are respected and oft-published scientists) has no bearing on the situation whatsoever.

David, as he's stated, does not believe in religion. Nor does he bring any particular political agenda to bear, as his comments above clearly show. No, David is a Man Of Science; and of obviously superior intellectual prowess, as the last several comments I've cited above amply demonstrate.

Given that David posesses such profound intellectual capacity, it's interesting to see that he has thus far failed to respond to Rob's generous invitation to debate on-air.

Perhaps the dedicated "science journalist" has a scheduling conflict.

Anonymous said...

"it's interesting to see that he has thus far failed to respond to Rob's generous invitation to debate on-air."

I'll wager right now that David can't find a single loyal AGW scientist of any stripe to debate on the air.
It it they who hide and avoid being challenged.
That's why you hear or see Al Gore or Bill Bradbury debating any contrarian sceintists.

Anonymous said...

It is they who hide and avoid being challenged.
That's why you never hear or see Al Gore or Bill Bradbury debating any contrarian sceintists.

Anonymous said...

JK: David is also unable to come up with any evidence to support his belief:

Hey David! We are still waiting for you to show us the proof of the claims that YOU made:
1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”

2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”

Dave, show us the papers to prove it or shut up.

David Appell said...

> JK: Wasn’t the real reason so
> that when the climate entered
> a cooling cycle, Al Gore and
> his Wall Street cronies could
> claim that it is still man caused, > so we have to keep feeding them
> money?

No, it wasn't.

Climate scientists began using the phrase "climate change" around the turn of the decade, far before anyone began in with the (false) claim of global cooling. They did so because it's a more accurate term, as their research began to show.

David Appell said...

Rob, sure, I'll be on your radio show. Write me at appell@nasw.org.

David Appell said...

Rob, as I said, I'll be on your radio show. But why wouldn't you pick a climate scientist? There are plenty at OSU, UO, UW, and elsewhere. Climate is their job. How about Phil Mote?

But I'll do.

Anonymous said...

Well there you have it.

David the pretender wants himself to be the AGW expert while he dicounts people like Chuck Weiss who have abundant experience, knowledge and expertise far in excess of what David can only dream about having.

David, the expert in his own mind.

Hey David, don't forget to mention
IPCC 4AR.
Hardly anyone has hear of it.
Insert three stooges noises here.

Rob Kremer said...

Here's why, David. Talk radio has to be entertaining. The reason I don't have a scientist on the show to talk about GW is it would almost certainly be horrible radio.

Also, scientists don't often debate. Debate is a political endeavor. Scientists generally have a little corner of knowledge that they do their work in, and are masters of that corner, in which there is little debate.

Anonymous said...

Hey David! We are still waiting for you to show us the proof of the claims that YOU made:
1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”

2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”

Dave, show us the papers to prove it or shut up.

Anonymous said...

David,

Your IPCC consensus is a political machine not unlike our own Oregonian newspaper.

A paper that censors most if not all AGW contradicting work.

This is how your side operates.

Anonymous said...

Both the planets Mars and Venus have an atmosphere that is over 95%CO2. Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect that keeps its surface temperature close to 900 degrees fahrenheit. Mars has no greenhouse effect and its temperature dips to -200 fahrenheit at night. Astronmers believe that it is atmospheric density, not CO2 content, that explains the difference.

Yes, I know, you will say that Venus is closer to the sun. It is. But the temperature of Venus exceeds the temperature of Mercury even though it is twice as far from the sun.

Dave Lister

OregonGuy said...

The Afpel Test:

(Found on Kramer's blog site:

http://tinyurl.com/62ew2e

Keep the faith, Davey.

.

David Appell said...

Dave Lister wrote:
> Astronmers believe that it is
> atmospheric density, not CO2 content, > that explains the difference.

Not true -- density if a function of content. Both are important, but the first does not necessarily cause a greenhouse effect -- if, for example, the atmosphere were made entirely of oxygen. CO2 *does* cause a greenhouse effect. The more CO2, the more of a greenhouse effect there is. The less density, all else being equal, the less the greenhouse effect. The less CO2, all else being equal, the less the greenhouse effect.

R. L. said...

Rob Kremer said: "Here's why, David. Talk radio has to be entertaining."

At last some honesty. Not that it's a surprise to many of us. Talk radio is nothing more than entertainment. And the hosts are just entertainers. Now, maybe we can get the hosts to stop pretending that they are relevant to any significant degree or that they have anything important to say. As Rob admits, relevance will always take a back seat to entertainment. I know Rob didn't say that exactly, but that is the meaning of his words.

I do have a question for Rob and the other conservatives - why is it that science takes a back seat to ideology? Why is it primarily die-hard conservatives who are against the concept of AGW? Why feel compelled to discount science simply because it conflicts with your conservative beliefs?

Anonymous said...

Hey RL,
It is the left who blindly follows sloppy science because it aligns with their beliefs.
Conservsatives are not discounting science at all. They are looking at all of it and recognizing major fatal flaws in AGW.

David keeps pretending the IPCC modeling as been validated.
Nonsense. He's a liar

The IPCC can't account for their discrepencies pointed out by the 100s of scientists.


http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html
Independent Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

In this review of the IPCC 4AR
there is extensive critiqing of the IPCC data and methods that reveals inconsistencies and other problems.

Such as:

2.1h There are differences in linear trends of tropospheric temperatures between the high

latitudes of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres that are not consistent with computer model projections.

 Geographical patterns of the linear trend in tropical temperature show coherent warming
over the Northern Hemisphere but areas of cooling over the Southern Hemisphere.
[3.4.1.2.2, Figure 3.4.4]

 The North Pole exhibits a sudden upward trend in mean temperature after 1990, but not the South Pole. (see Figure ISPM-8)

[However]
 [IPCC]Model projections suggest greenhouse gas-induced warming patterns at the north and south poles will be nearly symmetrical. [Figure 10.3.5]

"The concluding statement was based on their review of the current evidence.
The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years.
Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets,such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends.
The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of
known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented
changes are underway."

The [AGW] hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical
arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed.

Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations
cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated
with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.

There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty
as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether
or not such change is a good or bad thing."

Anonymous said...

RL,

Do you listen to entertainers Thom Hartman, Ed Schultz, Michael Malloy, Randi Rhodes, RFK Jr.?

David Appell said...

Anonymous wrote:
> David keeps pretending the IPCC
> modeling as been validated.
> Nonsense. He's a liar

How cowardly to hide behind the anonymity of your mama's skirt and yet throw around accusations.

What kind of man are you?

I have repeatedly presented evidence on these blogs about how the modeling has been validated, both backwards and forwards. You have simply chosen to ignore it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

Do you honestly think thousands of scientists are all in cahoots, going around whispering to each other, "hey, you know, if we just keep this global warming thing going, we're bound to be buried in federal grants."

And, if so, are biologists doing the same thing? Geneticists? Is DNA a massive conspiracy a massive conspiracy to gain funding? Are physicists all laughing behind their backs as their governments spend millions of dollars on equipment to detect the Higgs Boson?

If so, I'd wonder if you ever even knew just one scientist in you life -- or did any science at all. Or even read a single scientific paper. Ever been exposed to their culture? Ever read the history of science? Ever attend a scientific conference? A colloquia? A seminar?

I suspect you know nothing of what you speak, and yet you feel free to throw around the most serious accusations of fraud and dishonesty.

All the while remaining anonymous. What a man.

Anonymous said...

I learned some interesting stuff yesterday.

Both Mars and Venus have atmospheres that are 95% + carbon dioxide.

Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect that keeps it's surface temperature at nearly 900F. Mars has no greenhouse effect and cools to -200F nightly.

It seems greenhouse effect is a function of atmospheric density rather than CO2 concentration.

Dave Lister

Anonymous said...

David,

Stop your clowning around.

You kow who does know many scientists, who does science, who reads and writes scientific papers, who are exposed to their culture, and know the history of science and attend scientific conferences, colloquias and seminars?

The scientists who reviewed the IPCC 4AR.

No David your IPCC modeling has not been validated.

As demonstrated by the tremendous inconsitencies pointed out by many scientists.

I even posted one glaring example from the review.
"There are differences in linear trends of tropospheric temperatures between the high
latitudes of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres that are not consistent with computer model projections."

Far from being validated, that signals the model projections to be invalid.

And enough already with your tantrum on anonimity. It's completely irrelevant.

You are a perpetual misleader, misrepresenter and extraordinarily biased.
That makes YOU disqualified.

Real name or not.

And as usual you didn't even read the review by scientists
or respond specificlly to any of it's content.

Instead you throw it into your pathetic default pit.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html
Independent Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Anonymous said...

AND David stop the stupid pretense that this is about YOU or my science expertise.
It is not.

You are not a scientist and I am not pretending to be one.

My entire pitch comes from those who ARE. The hundreds who are.
So quit trying to make some stupid point by attacking MY lack of science gigs.

And from what most people here can tell you are no more perceptive than I or anyone else here.

Especailly since you have been unable to recognize the flaws or sceintific oppostion tothe positions you support and advocate.

R. L. said...

Anon 5:37:00

Nope. I'm not a big fan of talk radio. Conservative OR Liberal. When I do listen, I listen to Conservative Talk Radio. I keep hoping to hear something of substance that challenges my view of the world. However, I am always disappointed. As Rob has pointed out, it is entertainment. When it ventures into intelligent debate, it's a bonus, but, unfortunately, not by intelligent design.

David Appell said...

Anonymous wrote:
> Far from being validated, that
> signals the model projections to
> be invalid.

No IPCC model can ever be really accurate -- they are projections, not predictions. That it, they assume a certain emission scenario, or economic scenario, with other assumptions about land use, etc., and project a climate given those assumptions. Since the input assumptions never match the actual emissions scenarios, they are model projections only.

Hansen's "B scenario," projected from 1988, has done pretty well to withstand the test of time.

Nevertheless, how much accuracy do you want in the predictions/projections? Every little squiggle up and down. It will never happen. Scientific calculations, esp of something as complex as the climate, don't work that way.

Anonymous said...

RL,

I don't buy your notion that talk radio of talk radio rarely provided intelligent debate.
I do listen to left and right talk radio.
It simply is not accurate that intelligent debate or discussions are not common place.
Sure there's abundant occasions when the topic and comments are of less interest and one would choose to change the channel.
But there is without question many current events and topics discussed in depth with a fair amount of subtance.
Expert guests are a regular occurance, heated debate and a pretty full spectrum of the populous chimes in. And anyone can.
Regarding Kremer and Abrams there's plenty of subtsance from both sides.

You're not finding your world view adjusted by listening?? OK but
does the newspaper or TV news result in any adjusctments?

Because very often those stories are the topics of discussions.

Rob Kremer said...

As Rob has pointed out, it is entertainment. When it ventures into intelligent debate, it's a bonus, but, unfortunately, not by intelligent design.

RL: Quit mischaracterizing what I said. That is the second time. Yes, talk radio must be entertaining. But that is not all it is.

Successful shows also inform, and provide analysis and debate, and an outlet for people to express their views.

The left generally disdains it because in talk radio the right has found a medium that reaches a mass audience.

So they often try to denigrate it, claim it's absent of substance. I've seen it a million times.

Anonymous said...

Rob says: "Successful shows also inform, and provide analysis and debate, and an outlet for people to express their views. The left generally disdains it because in talk radio the right has found a medium that reaches a mass audience. So they often try to denigrate it, claim it's absent of substance. I've seen it a million times."

I mostly disagree. In an earlier post, I wrote that all the talk shows were nothing but entertainment. Not quite - I do think your show has some substance....to your credit. But I believe that the most popular talk shows, be they Clear Channel's right wingers or Air America's left wingers, and some local shows, are based on shitck...."fans" are listening far more to the shitck of the air personality then to anything of substance. Lars? Get 'em on and off as fast as possible and speak with an offended voice; Rush? Call everybody names; Savitch? Randi Rhoades (sp?)? They're all the same. I still can't get over the fact that any of these people remain popular, but then they are preaching to the choir. I'll tune in every month or two and nothing has changed. Keep the format that works, which is gripe and let callers gripe even more.

R. L. said...

Anon...

I think you need to take up much of your argument with Rob. It's pretty obvious from his statement, and he should know, that entertainment will trump substance. It's there in his own statement.

Actually, I agree. Kremer and Abrams is probably the best show I've listened too. Which surprised me when he said what he did. However, I also think Kremer and Abrams is an exception. Perhaps the larger the show, the more entertaining it becomes.

Anonymous said...

David,
As for Hansen's Scenario B? There are a number of aspects that make it less than what you perceive it to be.
All of which have been fully discussed by many informed people.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2621
Hansen Scenarios A and B - Original
by Steve McIntyre on January 17th, 2008

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2630
Hansen Scenarios A and B - Revised
by Steve McIntyre on January 18th, 2008

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001330temperature_trends_1.html

Anonymous said...

David Appell,
How old are you?
Dave Lister

David Appell said...

Dave Lister:

I'm old enough.

Beyond that, it's none of your business, nor could it possibly make a difference. Simply respond to my logic and arguments.

David Appell

Anonymous said...

I figured it out on my own.

I see by your blog you are a fan of Che Guevera.

'Nuff said.

RL said...

Wow... shades of the recent election. So, assuming that David IS a fan of Che Guevera, that would discount, on the face of it, all of his arguments? Why not address the content of the argument, and not who he may or may not admire? Classic misdirection.

Anonymous said...

"Do you honestly think thousands of scientists are all in cahoots, going around whispering to each other, "hey, you know, if we just keep this global warming thing going, we're bound to be buried in federal grants."

And, if so, are biologists doing the same thing? Geneticists? Is DNA a massive conspiracy a massive conspiracy to gain funding? Are physicists all laughing behind their backs as their governments spend millions of dollars on equipment to detect the Higgs Boson?"

OF COURSE THEY ARE !
This kind of BS deflection is what gives the illusion of importance or relevance to this parasitic drain on the common economy.
IS SOCIETY ANY BETTER FOR IT ? HELL NO !
IT'S NOTHING MORE THAN MENTAL MASTURBATION,
EMPLOYING OVER-EDUCATED DO-NOTHINGS AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.
STUF and start feeding and providing health care to society.

RL said...

Rob wrote: "...that has a list of the growing number of scientists - all of them in climate related fields..."

Where did you see that they are all in climate related fields? I can't find that stated anywhere in the report. In fact, taking a quick glance, I see quite a few economists and a professor of molecular genetics.

RL said...

Anon 11:46:00

Dude, and with all due respect, I honestly think you would most definitely benefit from more mental masturbation.

Anonymous said...

RL,

What a dope.

That Che Guevera bit by the other anon was merely a sidebar.
One that adds just ANOTHER piece of taint to David's credibility.

It is just like the lib mind to suggest it was intended to mean something that could easily be discounted.
Your plugging in the part of
"that would discount, on the face of it, all of his arguments"
is a stupid stunt.

Every piece of David's content has been addressed over and over again.

Someone raising his age or Che
doesn't dicount any of it.

Your dumb act was a lesson in Classic misdirection by claiming misdirection.

As for Global warming?

In the O today

"2008 the coolest year since 1994"

Science section
page A13

Earthweek Week ending December 12, 2008
___________________________________

Warming respite
Initial estimates of the 2008 average global temperature point to year being the coolest in a decade that has seen the warmest weather on record.
Based on observations through early December, the average global temperature should be close to 57.74 degrees Farenheit.
That would make 2008 the coolest year since 1994, but a far warmer year than prior to the undustrial evolution.
__________________________________

Now of course David or RL will distort by saying I'm suggesting this one year discounts, on the face of it, all of the IPCC consensus data.

That way they can argue how little sense I make. Sense I never pitched.

That's how they operate.

But what is most informative about David and these stories is that HE finds it entirely meaningless and discounts it on it's face.

RL said...

Bringing up Che, or David's age, isn't a sidebar, it's a sideshow meant to detract from the debate. It is utterly, and totally, meaningless.

Now, '08 being one of the coldest on record since '94 is interesting. I'm not an expert in AGW, so I don't know what that means. I suspect that experts would say that they are looking at long term trends and not just variations year by year. Or, perhaps there modeling needs to be tweaked, or there are factors that need to be added, subtracted, or weighted differently. As scientists take in new data, they will continue to debate and try to come to an understanding of what that data means. That is how, hopefully, the science will work - and how it will certainly work in the long run.

Most scientists, however, will come to conclusions based upon science - and not upon a particular political ideology. I'll ask again, what is it in Conservative orthodoxy that seemingly compels them to dismiss scientific findings? What is it about the idea of AGW that makes you folks so rabid?

Anonymous said...

RL

wouldn't propositions like yours be more appropriate in a men's restroom ?

R. L. said...

(I'm guessing you're talking about my response to Anon 11:46:00). Actually, probably more appropriate in the privacy of his home.

Anonymous said...

RL

You're not getting anything right.
There's no need to for the right to detract from this debate.
Someone tossing out a side comment is utterly, and totally, meaningless.

Yeah, '08 being one of the coldest on record since '94 is interesting.

To scientists and lay persons both.
OBVIOUSLY climate analysis involves looking at long term trends and not just variations year by year.

Yet every time a weather observation is pointed out we get that bromide as if we forgot or hadn't ever heard it before.

The central point in this debate is that there is a growing mass of science, by experts, that demands modeling to be tweaked, factors that need to be added, subtracted, or weighted differently, yet the David's and IPCC Gore hoaxes simply deny and dodge it all.
They refuse to "take in new data" and instead continue to trumpet their case without alteration.

So as you "hope" science will work, in the long run, it's not happening with one side.

Those letting political ideology effect their science are among the AGW crowd,

There's no sense in you asking why "Conservatives are dismissing scientific findings" We are doing NO such thing?
Quite the contrary we, speaking for everyone I know at least, have not dismissed anything.
You apparently have not read any of the in depth discussions by experts on the IPCC reports. All you've observed is baseless opposition?
Quite attentive and perceptive RL. Missing half of an entire global debate.

If you did pay attention you would know how the IPCC continues to misrepresent and why the idea of AGW makes so many folks so,, as you call "rabid".

"Rabid" , as in rabid supporters, fits you and David far better but the anger from our side results from the sloppy and dishonest science being perpetrated and the many destructive and unjustified policies being launched to address what amount to fraud.

RL said...

Let me back-track a little and offer an apology for my sometimes intemperate tone and use of loaded words like "rabid", and attempt to turn this debate towards a civil tone.

How are "your" scientists more believable than "my" scientists? To the point where proponents of AGW aren't just "alarmist" but are even perpetuating a "hoax" or are "misrepresenting" the facts? Even IF they are wrong, isn't it possible that they have come to their conclusions honestly based upon their interpretation of the scientific evidence?

I think the number of scientists and scientific organizations that have come to the conclusion that climate change has a strong probability of being human caused is sufficient enough to be called a consensus. Inhofe's list of 650 skeptics includes quite a few scientists that are not in "climate-related fields" unless that definition is expanded to point of being meaningless.

What is it about the issue of anthropogenic climate change that has caused such a strong reaction from Conservatives? The only other scientific issue I can think of that has had such a tenacious political resistance is Evolution.

Anonymous said...

RL,
Get a grip. Move forward. Grasp some substance.

This is FAR from a dispute about who is more beliveable.
I spelled it out pretty clear above.


Then you redefined it.
Stop doing that and you'll probably move forward.

There is abundant examples of fatal flaws and misrepresentation in the AGW/Hansen/IPCC camp.

Yes "misrepresenting" the facts.

You either haven't taken a look at much of the scientific discussions or you too are misrepresenting.

There is no "Even IF" they are wrong on much of their projections, predictions, modeling, extended presumptions and the run amok attributing of all things to AGW.
Writing them a blank excuse card with a suggestion they MAY have "come to their conclusions honestly based upon their interpretation of the scientific evidence" is hogwash.

The number of scientists that have concluded that climate change has a strong probability of being human caused has also been embellished.
There has been a great deal of revelation and discussion about that consensus.
Including former IPCC participants themselves who object to the IPCC conclusions and use of their names.

Inhofe's list of 650 skeptics includes MANY scientists who ARE in "climate-related fields" which together represents a compilation of science and climate expertise that is equal to, or even greater than, the supporters of the IPCC.

Your suggestion that Inhofe's 650 skeptics don't amount to much is a foolish and/or dishonest ploy.

What is it about the issue of anthropogenic climate change that has caused such a strong uniform adherence by Progressives and 100% of Democrat politicians? Could it be that every enviro agenda and expand government agenda item has hopped on board the AGW train?
Of course and the demands broaden every day with advocates clamoring for everything they ever dreamed about so as to save us from ourselves.
Nearly every aspect of our lives in under consideration for control and limitation for our own good.

Looking at Oregon and the Governor's plans show us what insane policies are coming of such this fraud agenda.


Now stop with your ridiculous wondering about conservatives. You're only wondering about what you have contrived about them.

Anonymous said...

The reason I brought up David Appell's age is because I believe that at a certain point in time the teachers in the public school system began indoctrinating our children in this anti-automobile, anti-business, anti-human mindset.

To paraphrase George Orwell, they began teaching "two wheels good, four wheels bad".

I believe that David Appell is of the age to have been indoctrinated with that mindset.

As far as Che Guevera is concerned, let me share something.

When I was running for Portland City Council two years ago, I, along with Ginny Burdick, was invited to speak at the social studies class at Madison High conducted by Matt Sten, Erik Sten's brother.

When I entered his room I was shocked to find posters of Che Guevera, Malcolm X, and Mao Tse Tung. No Lincoln. No Washington. Certainly no Reagan.

If you are interested in the actual history, Che Guevera was a murderous thug who got his rocks off by killing people. He didn't care about "the revolution". All he cared about was the rush he got when he put a revolver to someone's head and pulled the trigger.

Somehow the indoctrinated generation has come to regard Guevera as a symbol of something honorable.

By citing Che Guevera in his blog I believe that David Appell is of that generation.

I truthfully don't know what I believe about global warming. But I do know that an indoctrinated mind like David Appell's is not going to influence me one way or the other.

Dave Lister

Rob Kremer said...

R.L.:
You ask:
"What is it about the issue of anthropogenic climate change that has caused such a strong reaction from Conservatives?"

For me, it isn't the issue of AGW itself that has me agitated - it is the remedy that the believers are pushing to "solve" it. Tremendously harmful to the economy, drive up the price of all forms of energy, do great harm to the poor, all for a benefit that is not only completely speculative, but that is actually non-existent, by their own admission.

Anonymous said...

Partially in response to Anon 7:01;
The thing about David's generation having these ideas introduced in their education is real. I'm a nineteen year old girl. (You men argue like teenage girls at times.) I jumped back and forth between public school, home school, and community college. I was fairly sheltered from liberal ideas. In public school my assignments were things like "Make a recycling poster to be displayed in the hallway" and at Clackamas Community College we would spend the first half of class listening to our professor's political views and the second half reviewing our homework (which was in no way politically related.) We learned nothing in the classroom.
If I didn't home school half the time, I would have been as callus as David to this irrelevant stuff.

And Rob is correct; Somewhere along the lines we jumped to conclusions and introduced tree hugging into our schools and laws. Time will tell whether or not "climate change" exists or is human caused (doubtful,) but until that time arrives, we shouldn't have it preached and forced on us through every available outlet.

Anonymous said...

"Is the gig up for the global warming alarmists?"

Yes it is.
The only thing left for them is
tyranny.

We should see eco/AGW terrorists soon.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again: Make a judgement about something based on one brief look at it.

Anon (at 7:01 PM) said "When I entered his room I was shocked to find posters of Che Guevera, Malcolm X, and Mao Tse Tung. No Lincoln. No Washington. Certainly no Reagan." Anon, on the surface, that doesn't look good. But what response did you get when you asked the teacher why this was the case? Exactly what kind of social studies class was it? And what unit were they studying? I'd like my son to learn about Lincoln, Wilson, GHW Bush, ML King, Malcom X, and Alolph Hitler. Maybe they were studying Modern Revoluntionaries. Are you implying that Mr. Sten class spends from Sept. to mid-June studying and praising bad guys? What if all you saw was Lincoln, Washington, and Reagan? What, no Karl Marx....ever?

To Anon (the nineteen year old girl): Good for you for mixing it up with what probably is a mostly male group over 30, at least, and I'd bet over 40. (Me? Just now 59.) However, you gave us but one, very small look into your high school class: you made recycling posters. (How leftist and socialist!!) You gave us a better picture of your CCC prof, spending 50% of his time sharing his political beliefs. (Did he NEVER spend an entire period on his subject?) Still and all, the "picture" you paint of your education is but one view. Yes, you're entitled to it and you're entitled to express it. But on a blog like this - a conservative blog (remember, Rob Kremer is the moderator), it's offered as proof that the libs are "bad" and, considering that this particular thread concerns climate change/global warming, your entry is a sly way to say, "Hey guys, you're right about climate change/global warming. It's the libs. I mean, look at what my high school teacher had me do: make a recycling poster, for God's sake! Aayyyeeeeeiiiiiiooooooo!!!

Now, I wonder if, in small towns across America, if just the opposite is happening: Rural, conservative teachers singing the praises of John McCain, supporting the war in Iraq, and blasting Hilary Clinton. Maybe, in these schools, the science teachers are presenting only information that denies man-caused global warming?

Here's my one small look: In 1967, my high school history teacher was the head football coach and an ex-Marine. I'd say that on 75% of our days with him, we'd listen to stories about his days in the Marines. On about 10% of our days, we'd learn about football strategy. On about another 10%, he'd make fun of hippies, make fun of the counter culture, praise Richard Nixon till the cows came home, and he'd govern the length of our hair. The other 5% we'd spend on US history, mostly telling us to read certain pictures. He was as conservative as can be. As juniors, our PE teacher was the head baseball coach. In the gym, we'd play dodge ball about 95% of the time. He also had us in health class once a week. I don't recall EVER discussing health. All I can recall is watching films about baseball (one was Ted Williams on hitting) and watching films about WW2. (Please let me add that, as a lazy high school student who developed the persona of being "cool" - or so he thought - I at that time didn't mind. Plus, I was fortunate enough to have parents to wanted me to see all sides of the issues we discussed, the biggest at that time being the war in Viet Nam.)

Anonymous said...

Ooops....I left out one paragraph from my post above (about Eric Sten's brother's classroom and the 19 yr. old college student):

Though my history and PE classes were taught by staunch conservatives, I did not then and don't know consider myself to have been brainwashed. Nor was I brainwashed by my college advisor, a "peace-nik" in those times. Let's all be willing to spend more time in the gray and try less to make everything black and white.

Huck said...

Most Recent Anon 12/19 @ 10:06:

Gray would be less "entertaining" from a talk show perspective.

Gray would be less "fair and balanced" from a FOX news perspective.

Gray would be too tolerant of the "enemy" for the zealots (on both the right and the left - I was raised by a left-leaning social group where many of the members were as intolerant of conservatives as conservatives are of gays, muslims, and people with dark skin - yes, modern conservatives count among their members the vast majority of racists, bigots, and phobes of the world, don't try to argue they don't).

Well said. We can't paint with such large brushes.

AGW seems to be a theory. The way I read it, it suggests that human-activity-related greenhouse gas increases have not caused warming, but have exacerbated a natural warming cycle. If the natural cycle is indeed shifting to a cooling period, it seems that the same human activities would mitigate that cooling. But who knows, maybe it would only mitigate for a while, then exacerbate the cooling too. We don't know exactly how it will work, but it does seem that human activity has effects that should be accounted for in out capitalist economy.

Rob - I don't accept your unsubstantiated position that the proposals for addressing GHG emissions would destroy the economy. I get the theory, but transitional disturbances do not imply long-run collapse. What are you getting at? I'd be very interested in hearing your view how it would play out over 5-50 years.

Anonymous said...

Huck said... Rob - I don't accept your unsubstantiated position that the proposals for addressing GHG emissions would destroy the economy.
JK: It is very simple - we have no viable replacement for fossil fuels. Wind & solar are simply too unreliable, intermittent and costly. Forcing us to use these will dramatically increase energy prices. Further the twits in Salem are proposing increasing gasolene prices so we will be forced to walk, bike or transit more. They care little for our time that they will waste and the people that will die using these more dangerous forms of transport.

They are also proposing increasing the cost to heat our homes.

Anyone who thinks that these measure will not hurt people are simply deluded. BTW, the plan is for a 44% reduction in just 12 years.

Nuclear would be a big help, but the illiterate paranoids that control our state government have outlawed it.

Huck said... I get the theory, but transitional disturbances do not imply long-run collapse.
JK: So how many people will spend ten or twenty years in poverty to get to the long run? Does that matter to you? (It clearly does not matter to the average progressive that posts on this subject.)

Huck said... What are you getting at? I'd be very interested in hearing your view how it would play out over 5-50 years.
JK: No one knows. We have no alternative energy now. We have no certainty that we will have an alternative. We have no ability to predict the future of technology. (Fusion has been ten years away for the last 40. We have had a 10-20 year supply of oil for the last 100 years.)

Unfortunately the technically illiterate politicians have bought the steady stream of deluded crap coming out of the enviros about how we just have to put a little money into their pockets and instantly solar will become cost-effective and tidal power will save us (as they complain about al the enviro damage that will occur.)

Thanks
JK

Anonymous said...

Rob said: "Nuclear would be a big help, but the illiterate paranoids that control our state government have outlawed it."

I agree that nuclear will have to be a part of our energy policy in the US.

But I'm calling you out on your name calling. "Illiterate" and "paranoid" contribute nothing to the debate. "Illiterate" is simply not true...paranoid may or may not be true, but you're not a psychiatrist. "Illiterate politicians" is, again, nothing but name calling. Politicians are not illiterate. Obama an illiterate?

Our country would be a better place to live if you reactionaary, paranoid, close-minded, bigoted and hateful conservatives would keep your mouths shut. See? Nothing is gained with this kind of name calling. I thought you were above this. You're sounding like Rush and Lars now.

Anonymous said...

In rereading my post above, I assumed JK was Rob Kremer (J perhaps being a first initial). I now doubt it is Rob. JK, please take my post as applying to you rather than to Rob.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... But I'm calling you out on your name calling. "Illiterate" and "paranoid" contribute nothing to the debate.
Anonymous said... "Illiterate" is simply not true...paranoid may or may not be true, but you're not a psychiatrist.
JK: Sorry, I left out the qualifier: technically or scientifically

Anonymous said... "Illiterate politicians" is, again, nothing but name calling. Politicians are not illiterate. Obama an illiterate?
JK: Pleases get my quotes correct. I said “technically illiterate politicians.” I stand by that. Obama believes in AGW. Case made.

Anonymous said... Our country would be a better place to live if you reactionaary, paranoid, close-minded, bigoted and hateful conservatives would keep your mouths shut.
JK: Don’t call me a conservative. I am a Libertarian because I am pro choice on most things.

Thanks
JK

Anonymous said...

JK - You're right. I was thinking of illiterate as meaning unable to read or write, forgetting that it can also mean a lack of knowledge in a certain field...sorry.

Anonymous said...

It reminds me when I used to argue with my cell phone carrier about
charges on my bill.

They would tell me it's not a land line so there's always some glitches.

So I asked them, if they are just glitches why do they always make my bill higher and there's never any glitches that make it lower?

jk said...

The real reason for the CO2/global warming hysteria:
(these are all excerpts out of the Financial Post article linked below)

According to the World Bank, the value of carbon trading reached US$64 billion last year, up from US$30 billion in 2006 and US$10 billion in 2005. In fact, CO2 has emerged as an entirely new asset class, with an entirely new trading infrastructure... Some estimate the trade will reach the trillion_dollar threshold within a decade.
...
London, the epicentre of the rising global carbon market, is already littered with specialty hedge funds and private equity funds trading carbon_emission credits. Similar funds are popping up in other countries, including Canada, where trading is poised to gain momentum with the recent opening of the Montreal Exchange's new platform for trading greenhouse gas emissions, MceX
...
In North America, the development of carbon markets has been bogged down by the refusal of the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Accord and foot_dragging on the part of successive Canadian governments in coming up with a national strategy to combat greenhouse gases.
...
Another alternative to the MCeX is the carbon funds being set up by the likes of Toronto's Front Street Capital, which is investing heavily in acquiring a portfolio of carbon offsets, either by signing agreements with green technology companies, or by becoming equity investors in projects that throw off credits,
....
"The entire carbon market is driven by policy. If we get that right, there's no reason it can't reach a trillion dollars," Rogers says. "The challenge will be to integrate those regional and national policies into a true global market. How we do this remains to be seen." Adds Deloitte's Chort: "It depends on how the emission caps are set going forward, and whether everyone can be held accountable. In practice, it's supposed to work."

Finiancial Post, Tuesday, June 03, 2008, http://www.financialpost.com/magazine/fp500/story.html?id=532840

Anonymous said...

It's a sad day for Jack Roberts, when I read his stupid opinion piece in The Oregonian. Jack, basically said that, "I don't know the science, yes, there are plenty of deniers, but there are more proponents of "global warming", count noses and go with "global warming".

If you are going to write an opinion piece on the subject -- KNOW THE SCIENCE -- to a point that satisfies yourself. Jack admitted he doesn't know.

I used to respect Jack Roberts. I supported and voted for him in 2002 for govenor in the primary.

Now, I feel like I've been had.

Jack Roberts is the new organ grinder's monkey for The Oregonian. Chained with tin cup in hand, chatterering...well, er...like a monkey.

But this time, it's not cute...it's just sad.

Jack Roberts said...

Anon 5:37:

Either I didn't write very clearly or you didn't read very carefully but at no point did I suggest that we should simply count noses to determine scientific truth. What I was trying to say is that the downside to ignoring the risk is much greater than the downside to working to reduce CO2 emissions even if it turns out that this is not what is causing global warming.

The problem I have with your position is that you seem to assume we have only two choices: Either deny global warming or else accept Kyoto, cap-and-trade and the rest of the environmental agenda in toto.

My position is that continuing to increase CO2 emissions (and what's happening in China and India suggests a potentially huge increase) is irresponsible. But that doesn't mean we have to buy into the command-and-control approach to regulation that will make the world poorer and leave us in a worse position to deal with the challenges presented by climate change (whatever the actual cause might be) as well as all the other challenges we will face in the future.

You are arguing for your right to remain irrelevant. I'm not willing to accept that. I think if we want to have a positive impact on this debate we need to get past denial.

Anonymous said...

Jack,

I give you credit for responding to my comment. One, because the comment thread was old, less my comment, and, two, because I was very tough on your opinion piece.

That alone goes a long way to reviving my respect for you.

It's not easy reading or responding to a trashing of one's opinion (people say politics isn't personal, I disagree; political opinions are personal, often heart felt, it's not easy getting ripped for an opinion; but it's part of politics -- that's why politics isn't for the thin skinned).

That said, I still disagree with you.

Jack, you may not have said (in paraphase), "count noses to determine scientific truth," I'll give you that, but it was much clearer that you were "counting noses" to determine political policy for Republicans.

Jack, you state: "What I was trying to say is that the downside to ignoring the risk is much greater than the downside to working to reduce CO2 emissions even if it turns out that this is not what is causing global warming."

One, I repeat -- KNOW THE SCIENCE -- to your personal satisfaction before expressing an opinion.

I have looked at the science to the best of my ability (and I held back expressing an opinion for along time because I didn't know and didn't want to "burn the planet"), but after reviewing the science, I am very dubious of the claims for MAN-MADE global warming.

It's not about global warming per se, but man-made global warming.

There are simply too many assumptions that go into the computer modeling and there are too many contradictory pieces of solid scientific evidence opposed to man-made global warming.

(I say confront Democrats with the science, there is a substantial body -- I will not be cowed and turned into a "girlyman" as your friend Arnold might say.)

I suggest you dig into the science until you are satisfied either way.

Because I agree with Rob, Democrats need to OWN these policies, with absolutely NO COVER from Republicans.

If they wreck the economy -- Democrats OWN that, lock, stock, and barrel.

Regulating CO2 emissions is the greatest government intervention in my lifetime. The "downside" can't be underestimated in my opinion.

If Democrats go overboard -- they need to own that. Period.

Jack, you state: "The problem I have with your position is that you seem to assume we have only two choices: Either deny global warming or else accept Kyoto, cap-and-trade and the rest of the environmental agenda in toto."

No, I don't accept that characterization of my opinion at all. And your characterization is upsetting because that's a Democratic characterization of my position.

My opinion is that the science is flawed or an outright fraud that supports global warming (Jack, the scientists admit the Earth has had 10 years of steady temperatures with a slight decline in the last year or so. Al Gore said Earth was in the middle of the "hockey stick," it doesn't add up).

My position is that the disputing science (to man-made global warming) needs to be spread, if need be, one person at a time. Because once Democrats get their way, they will claim credit and this regulatory straight jacket will be permenant.

Stop the madness by presenting the best science available.

Jack, you state: "My position is that continuing to increase CO2 emissions is irresponsible."

How so?

You admit you DON'T KNOW the science, so how can you make that sweeping statement?

Jack, you state: "You are arguing for your right to remain irrelevant."

I don't accept that characterization of my position, again, that is a Democratic characterization of my postition, and, again, that is disappointing to hear from you.

Everybody who cares about this issue MUST dig into the science and MAKE a decision based on the scientific evidence based on and using the empirical scientific method.

Everybody should care because basic freedoms are at stake.

Jack, you want a say in the shape of the jail cell and whether it has T.V.; I don't accept the characterization that "it's a 'done deal'.

Your attitude says it's like the Texas weather, nothing to be done about it, so better make the best of it.

I don't trade away my freedom so lightly.

(If Democrats enact the policies, I want everybody to know who my jailer is and how Democrats made the jail cell and furnished it.)

In politics, you gotta know when to fight like a wild-cat and when to compromise. This issue is not the one to compromise on. It's a basic freedom, and in my opinion the science is against man-made global warming.

The real political fight will be when actual legislation hits the legislative floor -- that hasn't happened, yet.

But when it does, I'll fight (I'll fight before that as well).

David Appell said...

I never, ever said that I supported Che Guevara or his philosophies. Or that i didn't. I merely posted a quote of his that I thought was thought-provoking.

I do, though, think that CK demonstrated devotion and dedication to his cause, whether it was true or not. And who really knows what causes are true, or not? CK was a revolutionary with concrete beliefs, and unlike all of us here he had the balls to follow them and fight for them, instead of sitting behind his computer drinking beer, denigrating people anonymously whom your barely know before you collapse into bed. So were some Americans -- a few --- circa 1776, or some French circa 1815.

Anonymous said...

Appell, that says it all.

Anonymous said...

Appell
a "revolutionary with concrete beliefs"

jk said...

JK: David Appell belittled one of our premier scientists on the radio yesterday. Here is the truth behind what he said.

David, you said the following:
1. Dr Fred Singer is “a paid hack from the oil industry”;
2. Dr. Singer “received funding from the tobacco industry to oppose second hand smoke”
3. “He opposed findings on ozone depletion that came out in the late 80s” “there’s an ozone hole CFCs are causing it. It s a serious problem, ask any Australian.”
4. “No journalist I know takes him seriously”
5. “he doesn’t publish in the peer-reviewed literature”
All of these occurred within about one minute, about 20 minutes into a commercial free version of the program.

With regard to “received funding from the tobacco industry to oppose second hand smoke”,
here is what I found (published in the BMJ, one of the most well respected medical journals in the world):


Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.
Setting Adult population of California, United States.
Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.
....
Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
from: BMJ VOLUME 326 17 MAY 2003 (some bold added) bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

David, to accuse Singer of being a tobacco company shill, in view of the above, is simply the mark of a fool.

With regard to “He opposed findings on ozone depletion that came out in the late 80s”. Here is the paper you are ignoring:

26 September 2007 | Nature 449, 382-383 (2007) | doi:10.1038/449382a
Chemists poke holes in ozone theory, Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.

As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

How did you miss the paper? You said you keep up on the literature.

With regard to “he doesn’t publish in the peer-reviewed literature”. Here is what I found.

Editor Bias on Climate Change?, S. Fred Singer; and Donald Kennedy, Science 1 August 2003 301: 595-596 [DOI: 10.1126/science.301.5633.595b] (in Letters)

Ozone Depletion Theory, S. Fred Singer, Science 27 August 1993 261: 1101-1102 [DOI:10.1126/science.261.5125.1101] (in Articles)

Note the second paper is on the very topic you mentioned as discrediting Singer. If it was so discrediting, why was it published in a peer reviewed journal?

A few quotes:

Al Gore: . . . I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is,. . .
Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. . . we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might. have.
Jim Hansen: (He controls NASA’s historical climate records): Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate. . .

Isn’t it time for you to admit that you have no case except that built on lies, deceptions and incompetents?

Thanks
JK

R. L. said...

JK:

Using a study by one tobacco company hack to defend another is really funny: "The court's Final Opinion contains a detailed timeline (starting in Section 5, paragraph #3781, on Page 1380) describing communication between Philip Morris and Enstrom to produce the 2003 BMJ study." Sourcewatch. Enstrom himself evidently took money and direction from the tobacco industry. That's a whole lot of irony. Honestly, using one apologist to bolster the reputation of another? I think jumping to the conclusion he is a fool is a little premature.

jk said...

R. L. said...
JK:
Using a study by one tobacco company hack to defend another is really funny:
JK:
My point was that the cited study was published in a credible journal, so to attack another researcher in the field (Singer) merely because of publishing in the field makes David a fool. I should have said disingenuous.

Was there any evidence that the study’s conclusions were false, or is this just the usual radical left wing Clintonesque ad hominian innuendo?

Since you seem to care about money so much, what do you think of Hansen getting $250,000.00 from a left wing foundation?

What do you think of Al Gore getting millions from his scaremongering speeches and his profits from “green” investments?

What do you think of Nick Stern being vice chair of a carbon rating company?

What do you think of the father of the IPCC, Strong, being head of a carbon trading exchange?

Thanks
JK

Anonymous said...

J.K.

You blew Appell out of the water.

Appell has no credibility and hasn't for a long time.

Good work, J.K.

I mean, "come on," Appell sticks up for Che Guevara, enough said.

MAX Redline said...

JK,

As usual, spot on. Your return to Apple was excellent. Your reply to the librarian made me laugh.

I'm a 50 year old librarian living in what, to me, is one of the most beautiful places on earth. Now, if we can get the narrow minded and uptight to just relax a little, everything will be good.

It's nice to see that R.L. the librarian is so open-minded....

R. L. said...

JK -

Without checking into each claim, I would have to say on the face of it they are all potentially troubling, and, at the very least, should raise some questions. I think it is fair to ask if money for research comes with strings: does the foundation, trade group, or company have a vested interest in the results of the research? Or, say in the case of Gore, is he being cynical? Is he ginning up the case for global warming simply to a quick buck? Or is he investing his money in "green industries" because he believes in what he says and is making money and hoping to do something worthy at the same time? I'm sure that is fodder for a debate all in itself.


Max -

I'm probably more open minded than you imagine, but I also doubt you'll believe that. I can assure you that in my professional life, I'm very careful to purchase books for my collection that represent both sides of contentious issues. I'm very aware that a significant number of my patrons are conservative, and that they have a right to have their views represented since they are footing the bill through their taxes.

Having said that, I also think it is OK, in my personal life, to have strong opinions and to express them. I'm sorry if that conflicts with your stereotype of librarians. Let me destroy another one: I don't wear my hair in a bun. So, I'm not quite sure what my being a librarian has to do with anything. I truly appreciate, however, your ad hominem attack and the contribution it makes to this discussion.

jk said...

Hey David!

Whats up doc?

Thanks
JK

Anonymous said...

Always focus on the science because that's where the man-made "global warming" argument is weakest.

But scientific evidence is the only justification for such a all-encompassing government intervention and regulation.

It turns out that this crusade for man-made "global warming" originated as a political movement, and used science for a cover.

And, yes, global temperatures cooperated for a time, as part of the natural cycle, but now the cycle is on the cool side -- that's what these man-made "global warming advocates feared.

Their goal: Have the "green house" gas regulations in place before natural global cooling took effect, so they could claim their regulations were responsible.

But that didn't happen.

The natural cycles of solar increase and decline in activity are being revealed.

We are in a phase of solar activity decrease.

The idea that 370 parts per million of CO2 or .00037% would throw the planet into "runaway" heating was always ludicrous.

It's amazing the hard-core luddites (and that's the kernal or core-belief for the true-believers) got as far as they did.

There is a certain madness to all their gyrations because the best science available doesn't back their claims at all.

Regrettably it's testimony to the weakness of Man's science, today, that it could be used for such a naked political agenda.

Anonymous said...

Sorry,

The figure is 384 parts per million and rounding off the percentage is .04%

My error.

jk said...

jk: Where's David?
Do you suppose David finally realized that the warmers have no proof, only emotional hot air from liars like like Al Gore, Jim Hansen and Micheal Mann?

Thanks
JK

Mitchell Gore said...

Tell your boy to put THIS in his pipe and smoke it! It's an excerpt from today's Facebook. Posted it here because I know crotchety old men don't make it there often.

Thanks for the reminder. I hate to be vindictive, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Chuck Weise is a leading NW denier, using meteorologist and Northwest Airlines pilot credentials to mislead many locally. I will have the honor of interviewing Crown Prince Alexander, of the Netherlands next week. Point being, his family are the majority share owners in KLM and adamant about action on climate change. Given that KLM owns Northwest Airlines, perhaps something along the lines of, "Do you find it frustrating advocating for action on climate change, when employees of your own corporation are spreading disinformation, and using your corporation's name to bolster their credentials?"

I would think "local vacation" this year Chuck.

Have something much more creative in mind for Karshlock!