Dev-a-stat-ing

The following documentary was produced by BBC4. It’s called The Great Global Warming Swindle. And it’s devastating.

It’s also an hour and thirteen minutes long, but well worth it.

HERE’S A SUMMARY FROMTHOMAS SOWELL.

Sowell’s summary is good, but no substitute for watching the whole thing.

And now for our feature presentation . . .

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

205 thoughts on “Dev-a-stat-ing”

  1. Jimmy,
    There is one correction for the post above. The documentary aired on the UK’s Channel 4, not on the BBC as Sowell states repeatedly. There are no doubt greater chances that Mr. Gore’s apocalyptic predictions will come true than such a documentary ever
    airing on the BBC.
    Frater tuus in Xpo,
    Ryan
    Linlithgow,
    Scotland

  2. Jimmy,
    I was going to point you towards this and ask you to post it, but once again you have proved to be one step ahead my friend. Thanks for the post. many people do not realize there is more the one side with science in this whole fracas. Thanks.

  3. This documentary represents a small minority view amongst the experts (of whom there are probably none on this blog qualified to pontificate, but who – like me – will).
    The overwhelming consensus view as expressed by over 2,000 climatologists on the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that human activity is the main cause of climate change.
    This documentary admits the earth is warming but suggests that non-human activity such as the sun and volcanoes are greater factors.
    I saw a good counter-argument to this documentary a few days later at the end of one of David Attenborough’s BBC series ‘Can we save the planet?”.
    Attenborough asks ‘is global warming due to human activity?’ A climatologist then superimposes three graphs covering the last 1000? years (1,000 if memory serves).
    The 3 graphs are:
    1. actual global temperature changes
    2. predicted global temperature changes due to non-human factors
    3. estimated human CO2 emissions.
    The correlation between graphs 1 & 2 is pretty good until about the 1970, when global temperature rises steeply. This suggests that the models used by the climatologists are reasonably accurate – at least until the 1970s. Graph 3 shows CO2 increases from the start of the industrial revolution and especially from about the 1950s.
    The conclusion is that up until the 1970s the main cause of temperature fluctuation are natural but since the 1970 the global temperature changes are primarily caused by humans.
    Whether we believe that global warming is happening or not should not be influenced by our political preference/hatred of Gore or Bush. (Abortion & homosexual rights/wrongs have nothing to do with this).
    The difficulty of proving/disproving climate change is similar to a smoker who is sceptical of a smoking-cancer link who cites Aunt Edith who smoked till she was hit by a bus age 95. It would be nice if climate change due to human activity was untrue. It would be nice to keep on smoking.
    If human CO2 emissions are changing the climate, we will only know with total certainty well after it happens. If cigarettes are causing me lung cancer I will only know with certainty when I am diagnosed. Unfortunately, we only have one earth to experiment on or do epidemeological studies upon.
    If there is ‘only’ a 10% probability I will get lung cancer from smoking or a 10% chance that the earth’s climate will change significantly due to our CO2 emissions then even Kantian ‘rational devils’ using Expected Value criteria would stop smoking and reduce CO2 emisions.

  6. All Hail UK’s channel 4!
    Every school kid in America ought to see this.
    My son, 15, is planning on meteorology as a career, and I’m showing this to him as soon as he gets home today.
    “Sadly, the programme that you cited (which I watched here in England), was a hatchet-job itself.”
    Yes, it’s a hatchet job, and a damned fine and successful one. Sad? Well, that might depend on how invested one is in the idea of man-made global warming. I found it extremely refreshing and entertaining. Don’t look for any Oscar for this one, though.

  7. Thanks Neo-Cavalier.
    The Independent reports that some of the graphs used in ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ video, linked to by Jimmy above, were deliberately distorted.
    David Attenborough was a climate sceptic until recently
    http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article570935.ece
    The UK Meteorological Office’s report ‘Climate Change and the Greenhouse Effect’ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/ has the following 2 graphs:
    ‘Natural factors cannot explain recent warming’
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide27.pdf
    ‘Recent warming can be simulated when man-made factors are included’
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide28.pdf

  8. I read the Independent article, Cavalier. Lot’s of spin, not much substance. Obviously biased, itself, even by a cursory reading.
    They seem to be upset that he uses certain graphs, rather than The Approved Graphs.
    These paragraphs are typical;
    “The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of “global cooling” between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming”
    “…scientists had now explained”? Which scientists? When? How? The article very dogmatically states that “It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants” and give absolutely no explanation or resource.
    “Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate.”
    Just one? Which one? What was the criticism?
    It’s panic time in the mainstream press.

  9. TimJ
    some of the answers you seek re the science/scientists of sulphate pollutants are cited at the bottom of my above cited link ‘Recent warming can be simulated when man-made factors are included’ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide28.pdf
    The mechanism of sulphate cooling is described in the same report at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide18.pdf
    ‘Sulphur aerosols cool climate directly and indirectly.’
    and ‘Estimated burden of sulphate aerosols’
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide19.pdf

  10. It’s too cold where I live. I pray for warming. I don’t really care which mechanism brings it about. 🙂

  11. What I don’t get is why has the religious right gotten involved in this issue? Why is it an agenda for Christians? If it’s warming or if it’s cooling, why is this a matter of religion?
    Secondly, what’s wrong with warming? I plan on buying a lot of land in Alaska because I’m hoping global warming is true and Alaska will become the new California.

  12. You know all this global warming stuff give me, I think, a LITTLE insight into how non-Christians might see inter-Christian dissension.
    As an intelligent outsider to the world of science, I can’t be completely sure which side is right here. Credentialed people on both sides are touted, and I know enough of the world to know that right can be in the minority. So I kind of give up on it and say, If they can’t decide, either can I.
    I can imagine non-Christians looking at us, seeing the same kind of things going on, and making the same sad surrender to ignorance about things of Faith.
    Made me think, anyway.

  13. Leo,
    The Hadley Centre? The same that in 2005 hosted the international scientific conference “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change”? No bias there, I’m sure. Their funding relies on shoring up perceptions of a continuing “climate crisis”.
    The vaguearies of computer climate models have been ably demonstrated. Climate models can be manipulated ad infinitum, and they are only as reliable as the scientists doing the reasearch. Garbage in, garbage out.
    The text accompanying the graph admits as much; “…Of course, this agreement may be fortuitous, for example, if the heating effect of man-made greenhouse gases and the cooling effect of man-made aerosols have been overestimated”.
    In other words, “If our assumptions about greenhouse gases and aerosols are wrong, the graph is meaningless”.

  14. Good point, Ed.
    Brent – you said;
    “What I don’t get is why has the religious right gotten involved in this issue? Why is it an agenda for Christians? If it’s warming or if it’s cooling, why is this a matter of religion?”
    Because it is a fairly meaningless and innocuous way for fundies to appear cool… like Christian Metal, or Christian tattoos. I fear they are climbing aboard for exactly the same reasons many politicians do… beacause doing so commits you to almost nothing, while not doing so might be perceived as backward.
    So why not? Why incur the wrath of the Spirit of the Age? Preach on the vital necessity of environmental stewardship, and then drive home in your SUV. Everybody’s happy.

  15. Here’s my $.02 take on the climate change debate. And I will say up front that I am one of these people who is very much a practicing Catholic and also very scientific minded, and I do not really find a problem reconciling the two. And also that I am nowhere near the level of Jimmy in debating and explaining myself. 🙂 But here goes.
    The documentary does admit the Earth is warming, and I think anyone who thinks that this, at least, is not happening has their head in the sand. The question is whether or not humans are a serious contributing factor.
    I work at a scientific institution where, granted, most of the scientists do believe humans are a factor. All things being equal I tend to believe the majority of the experts, meaning people who study these things for a living. (Of course majority does always mean right either, but usually I go with the people with the most facts and scientists are pretty good at keeping each other in line with the scientific method. They will publicly rip each other apart if their facts are not solid.)
    However I have learned there are scientists to be found on both sides of every issue/theory. The vast majority of paleontologists believe the world is billions of years old because of the evidence of carbon dating and plate tectonics and evolution. But these are all theories in themselves (except maybe carbon dating, which is a test that can be flawed) and there are some paleontologists who are also creationists. Did you know that even *gravity* itself is a theory? But you don’t hear this one debated like Evolution/Creationism because I don’t think anyone on Earth would argue that if you jump up in the air you are going to come back down, and practically you have to work with what laws you have established so far. But gravity does fall apart at the atomic level, and there is even something called the Pioneer Anomaly, in which the Pioneer spacecrafts launched in 1972 and ’73 are not located right now where they “should” be according to calculations, and they have *no idea* why. Could be computer error or human error…or another force/principle acting that we have not yet discovered.
    I think the bottom line is, climate change is too new and too complex a field with too many factors to ever really be certain what is going on. If a butterfly flapping its wings on one side of the planet can contribute to a hurricane on the other, then how can we ever possibly compute and accurately predict the future? Even the most sophisticated computers cannot account for every factor and variation. This is why with all the supercomputers in the world we still cannot accurately predict the weather more than a day in advance, and even then they are still often wrong! We cannot predict a single earthquake or volcanic eruption with certainty in a small area of the planet, so how to predict changes over the entire planet?
    Nature is the realm of God–no matter how well we think we understand it, we have not yet learned all there is to learn, and probably never can/will.
    So what to do? I think the only way to approach it is to ask what is the risk of harm in reducing human carbon emissions vs. not doing so? Well, the technology already exists for other cleaner, more efficient means of energy such as solar, water, wind, electric. True they are more expensive right now, and if it is going to have political/economic ramifications because the fossil fuel companies will experience upheaval, well that is another matter entirely – but the fact remains that fossil fuels are FINITE resources anyway, so why not at least start the transition toward renewable sources for the future?
    And the flip side of the coin is, is there any risk of harm if we *don’t* do anything? Yes, IF global warming due to human means does turn out to be true. (Frankly, I think the scarier scenario is if it’s happening due to natural causes *beyond* our control, and the catastrophic predictions such as ice cap melting and sea level rise etc. come true and there is nothing we can do about it except pray and be forced to adapt as people did during the last Ice Age.)
    If you take an umbrella in case of rain and it doesn’t rain, you are not really harmed. But if you don’t take it and it does rain, you’re drenched and may get a stiff neck or get sick. Why not just play it safe? Why not do everything in your power to do?
    That’s my opinion.

  16. Well, Kat, as the documentary notes, “playing it safe” by the definition of Global Warming alarmists, means imposing draconian restrictions on the behavior of individuals, businesses and states, through the force of law, and under the authority of tiny unelected groups of trans-national elites, who don’t have to worry about cooking their next meal or keeping their children from freezing to death. They already enjoy the fruits of civilization, but would deny it to others.
    “Playing it safe” in that sense is not safe, at all, for those who actually have to bear the burden.
    “Let them eat Solar”.

  17. So what if the Earth is getting hotter? What are you going to do?
    The only way to have zero impact on the environment is to live in a cave and eat the carcasses of dead animals.
    I don’t see the global warming alarmists giving up their computers , SUVs, and Organic Grocery Stores.

  18. So it looks like the earth might be a teensy bit warmer now on average than it was a little while ago.
    There’s still not a shred of evidence that it’s human activity that is causing the warming.
    Nor is there a shred of evidence that a slightly warmer earth will be an uninhabitable earth.
    By the way, how do the adherents of Global-Warmingism explain the fact that the Martian ice caps have been receding during the same period of time that the arctic and antarctic regions have been seeing receding ice caps and glaciers? Did the diabolical George Dubya find a way to export America’s greenhouse gasses to Mars?

  19. Brent asks why the religious right is getting involved with this issue.
    As a non-American traditional conservative I ask myself the same question. Here in Europe, where we’ve just had the warmest winter in living memory (the ski resorts in the Alps had to use artificial snow) nearly EVERYONE – Christian and non, left-wing and right – is worried. I suspect that because a lot of environmentalist-types are secular humanists, the gut reaction of conservatives is to say “Well, whatever they’re against, I’m for”. I’m like that with smoking bans. I don’t smoke and don’t really care about it either way, but because pushy, patronising leftists are usually in favour of bans on smoking, I find myself supporting the pro-smoking crowd.
    But surely saving the planet is more serious, and should take us beyond party-political pot-shots. As Gore says in his documentary, saving the planet is a moral issue, not a liberal or conservative issue.

  20. One reason we worry so much about the climate on earth is because we no longer worry about the climate in hell.

  21. Oh, and as I’ve mentioned before, while Europe has had its warmest winter in a long time, here in the American Midwest we’ve had one of our coldest and snowiest winters in more than 20 years. But I’m not going to panic about an Ice Age just around the corner. It’s just the effects of El Nino, an ocean current — and as we all know, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the ocean temperature. That’s the sun doing its job.

  22. TimJ, you did not include the next two sentences:
    “Nevertheless, the ability to simulate recent warming only when human activities are taken into account is a powerful argument for the influence of man on climate. Since this initial Hadley Centre experiment, other modelling centres have been able to reproduce the same broad conclusion.”
    The UK government’s Stern Review on the economics of climate change concluded that the economic cost/benefit of reducing CO2 emissions is in favour of making changes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6098362.stm
    On complex scientific issues: until one has done sufficient research oneself it seems rational to ‘err’ on the side of those who have spent a large part of their professional lives researching the matter eg I trust my life to medical consensus.
    The vast majority of those who have studied climate change are convinced that most of it is human-caused. I don’t see any global control conspiracy by scientists or politicians here.

  23. I think JAO should initiate the “Diamond in a Nutshell” award for the most insightful, succinct comment on a post. I hereby nominate Jordan Potter!

  24. Jimmy,
    I have enjoyed your BlogSpot for a long time now and never cease to be amazed at what is going on in this poor old world of ours. On a personal note, could you visit our Blog for the fight we are having to give one 12 year old Ethiopian Boy a new life? Unlike Madonna or Angelina Jolie we cannot walk in ans whisk this kid off his feet to his new life. He is not a cute little baby, innocent in this world, far from it. The challenges ahead for Alex are immense. But he is ready for the challenge and the change. Please help us bring the case of Alex to your blog readers so they might pray for him. Visit Alex today at http://alex-roadtofreedom.blogspot.com/ Thank you

  25. One reason we worry so much about the climate on earth is because we no longer worry about the climate in hell.
    You might as well say: One reason we worry about cooking our food, about our children not freezing, about the price of gasoline, etc., is because we no longer worry about getting to heaven.

  26. That’s true — those who worry about such things definitely have their priorities screwed up. If you’ve dressed your kids warmly, it’s irrational to worry about your kids freezing to death (especially if it’s not all that cold out). If you’ve cooked your food and eaten it before it spoils, there’s no reason to worry about getting food poisoning.
    Those who don’t have their eyes fixed on the important things will start having irrational fears about silly things like how warm it might be in another 100 years.

  27. “The vast majority of those who have studied climate change are convinced that most of it is human-caused.”
    The vast majority of scientists used to think the Church was right in her condemnation of Galileo.
    The vast majority of scientists used to believe in Phlogiston.
    The vast majority of scientists who believe in Global-Warmingism haven’t got any real evidence to support their beliefs.
    You still haven’t explained how George W. Bush was able to export our greenhouse gasses to Mars, Leo.

  28. Who cause earth warm time when dinosaurs, the ice age and warm up again?
    Is warmer happen anyway some time, even if man make happen sooner? Maybe dinosaurs come back. 🙂

  29. “Nevertheless, the ability to simulate recent warming only when human activities are taken into account is a powerful argument for the influence of man on climate. Since this initial Hadley Centre experiment, other modelling centres have been able to reproduce the same broad conclusion.”
    Who says it’s a strong argument? It’s meaningless if the model is wrong.
    “The vast majority of those who have studied climate change are convinced that most of it is human-caused.”
    I’m sorry, I just don’t believe that. The “vast majority” thing, I mean. Since when is a scientific debate over simply because one side declares it over in a press conference? I don’t trust these bureaucrats as far as I can throw them.
    Follow. The . Money.

  30. I watched the documentary, then read all the criticism, and am as confused as ever. My only conclusion at the moment is that Al Gore’s done the whole debate a terrific disservice, since a lot of the public discourse now revolves around what *Gore* got wrong. But that’s not a surprisingly conclusion. This *is* the founder of the internet, whistleblower on the Love Canal, model for Love Story, lifelong nemesis of tobacco companies etc. etc. etc.
    What doesn’t change with me, though, and has only grown stronger is a sense that the environmental activists may be well-intentioned, but there’s something wrong with what they’re asking for, that the demands they’re making of humanity would be worse than global warming. This isn’t a place to go into an essay/diatribe on the subject on how/why, but really, to say that some of us have thought about this, and our reactions aren’t determined by our selfishness or a need to look cool.

  32. I’m sure that’s true, Sara. I just think it would be educational to trace the money and influence – on both sides – back to the source and see where it comes from.
    The credibility of anyone who’s career depends on the existence of human-caused global warming would be a bit suspect, don’t you think? Obviously oil companies and big industry will have a vested interest in poo-poo-ing global warming, at present, though even some of them have their PR departments hopping on the Green bandwagon.
    All considered, my bet is that GW is completely baseless, ginned-up hysteria.

  33. Eileen R. hit the nail on the head. Even if the earth is warming, one gets the impression that the enviros have one nasty remedy up their sleeves for us. And I also get the feeling it won’t be a suggestion, either. The remedy will be imposed on us all, regardless of the cost. That’s not to say that everybody concerned about the environment is out to ban cars and bring industrial activity to a screeching halt, but a lot of those groups put out a serious anti-business vibe.
    I’m all for cleaner air, if for no other reason than car exhaust stinks, but if draconian taxes and policies are going to be imposed on people (as some will undoubtedly propose), you have to have rock-solid evidence, and I don’t believe they have it. There are just too many doubts, and too many “scientific” frauds (like the infamous hockey-stick graph). I have seen enough bias from scientists, leading to bad policies in a variety of areas, that I just don’t trust them anymore.
    Some have proposed a link between the extremism and a lack of religion. Perhaps even scientists sense a need for a messiah, but decided they would be that messiah, and are building up an artificial crisis so they can “save” the world from it. Whatever the motives, and there seem to be a lot of potential ones, something just doesn’t feel right about what they are saying and how they are going about it.

  35. Jordan,
    You cited two instances where the “vast majority of scientists” agreed on something that turned out to be wrong. One could easily fill a library with instances in which the vast majority of scientists agreed on something and turned out to be right. Just because X group of people was wrong about something in the past doesn’t by itself mean that you should be skeptical of agreeing with experts on a topic.
    Additionally, the Martian ice caps are probably melting because a gradual shift in planetary tilt that is occuring right now with Mars but not with the Earth.

  36. There’s money pushing on both sides of the issue, Tim.
    More so for the ‘end of the world’ side it seems or else stuff of a contrary nature would receive, at the very least, equal degree of publicity and exposure.
    I agree with the particular comment in the article:
    Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon are far more likely to get big research grants than those who express doubts — and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities.
    Like anything, it’s what’s considered ‘popular’ that gets the attention. The same applies to what’s considered ‘popular’ research. For example, most research that deals with ‘AIDS’ will undoubtedly get almost anything it needs — grant money, personnel, lab space, etc.
    However, when it comes to diseases and such that afflicts a smaller portion of the population — nada!
    This is the same market-driven principle utilized by the pharmaceutical companies in order to get more bang for their buck.
    Here, the ‘popular’ theme (even politically-motivated, it seems) is that of the ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ types!
    What’s worse is that unlike AIDS, which is a real threat, the data that supposes this ominous ‘climate catastrophy’ is tenuous at best when you consider the very principle basic to all carbon chemistry, that being of the penchant for ‘equilibrium’; especially when you consider that the medium in which such reactions are taking place is in the atmosphere!

  37. Tradcon is right, this is not a question of values but of facts.
    I expect none of us are qualified climate scientists or medical doctors. If I am seriously ill I trust my life to qualified doctors and medical consensus unless I have studied the science enought to stake my life on my own expertise. I imagine that Jordan Potter and TimJ do so as well, despite the fact that we can all think of historical examples when the majority of doctors were completely wrong.
    One way of testing models is to see how well they correspond with reality. If the model corresponds with reality that is the first condition of being reasonably accurate. The non-human model warming breaks down from the 1970s, the human-caused model still holds.
    Re Mars. None of the majority of ‘pro climate scientists’ denies that other factors are involved, as a reading of eg the UK Meteorological Office’s reports cited above shows. The early evidence for a link between CO2 and planetary warming was the amount of CO2 in the athmospheres of Venus and Mars. In the last 200 years we have released carbon absorbed over millions of years (as coal and oil) back into the athmospere, this is probably why CO2 levels are the highest they have been for 650,000 years.
    As to following the money: is TimJ suggesting a funding link between all the pro climate change scientists and some conspiracy?
    Shalom.

  38. Michael – you can find vastly more instances where scientists were wrong than where they were right, it’s part of the nature of science. Theories stand and then fall when we’ve found more information.
    As far as ‘the vast majority of scientists’ agreeing. First, isn’t one of the things this movie showing the scientists who have been put onto Global Warming docs who didn’t actually agree with the conclusions? Second, just becasue most people agree with one idea doesn’t make it right.

  39. … you can find vastly more instances where scientists were wrong than where they were right, it’s part of the nature of science.
    That’s because the ‘actual’ often contradicts the ‘theoretical’.
    For example, there were many who were surprised back in the days to find out that nucleic acids were actually the building blocks of life.
    Most were of the notion that it would be proteins that carried this sort of ‘data’ given their complexity whereas nucleic acids seemed too simple in nature.
    It often happens in Science that theories are often just that — theories!

  40. I know he’s not the first to say it, but the more and more this debate goes on, the more I realize Michael Crichton is right…
    Science has absolutley NOTHING to do with consensus. From a scientific standpoint, what matters is verifable, reproducable results. While someone made the point that there’s a list of things scientific consensus got right, it’s 100% irrelevant. The fact that a hypothesis was tested, confirmed, verified and reproduced is what matters, not that x percentage of scientists agree. And all it takes is 1 single test to cause “consensus” to come crashing down.
    The problem with the GW debate is that it’s based on predictive models that have no real way to test and reproduce the results. There is story after story about how the numbers put into models have been fudged (including the infamous “hockey-stick” graph) to make things work. There’s story after story about selective data usage designed to elimated warmer periods in the Earth’s history. And since the same people doing the research are responsible for getting and keeping their funding, as well as providing the analysis of their research, you don’t know which models to trust (because the models all say different things). Heck, the models can’t 100% accurately start 50 years ago and predict TODAY’S conditions, and we actually HAVE that data to verify against.
    That said, there are numerous, legitimate, non-fear based reasons to cut back on pollution and change our energy usage. I’ll gladly get behind anyone that wants to promote those kinds of positions in a reasonable manner (and my standard for reasonableness is easy – don’t crash the entire economy). Raise efficiency standards at a reasonable pace? Sure, why not, the tech is there for it. In exchange, how about dropping opposition to nuclear power? This is a real policy discussion that we can and should be having, regardless if we’re causing warming or if it’s just something that’s happening.
    As far as the actual GW positions, at this point there are only two things that can make me take them seriously. First, (and I credit Crichton where I heard this first) institute a double-blind study policy for climate research. Separate the funding from the people that run the study, and separate those that prepare the study, run the study, and analyze the study (similiar to new drug tests run by the FDA). It won’t solve things overnight, but hopefully in 20 years we will ahve created a climate that’s eliminated the majority of bias.
    Second, I have another easy standard – if you want me to believe that this is going to happen 100(+) years from now, fine…give me a minute by minute run down to temperature, pressure, humidity, etc etc for tomorrow that is 100% accurate. Once you’ve accomplished that, do the same for a week from now. Once you’ve got that, figure it out for a month from now. Then, give me 1 and 5 years out…once you accomplish that, then we can start talking about your 100+ year model.

  41. “Just because X group of people was wrong about something in the past doesn’t by itself mean that you should be skeptical of agreeing with experts on a topic.”
    Of course. But it does show that just because a majority of those who seem to be experts agree on something, that doesn’t mean those who seem to be experts know what they’re talking about. There’s no scientific proof that it is human activity that is causing the very slight increase in average global temperatures that seems to be occuring. All we have are speculations and jury-rigged computer models.
    And again I say that even if human activity is making the earth a little warmer, there’s no reason to panic and there’s no reason to think it will be a bad thing.
    “If I am seriously ill I trust my life to qualified doctors and medical consensus unless I have studied the science enought to stake my life on my own expertise.”
    I wouldn’t trust my life, or my wallet, to anyone who thinks they can predict what the weather will be in 100 years, or to anyone who thinks we can determine what the weather was like 650,000 years ago. Unlike the purveyors of Global-Warmingism who can’t prove that their hypothesis is true, medical doctors actually know something about healing the human body. When they find a malignant tumor, it’s not just speculation that it will prove fatal unless treated. But I’m not going to volunteer for surgery or chemo just because some quack tells me, without real evidence, that it’s possible there might be a cancerous tumor in my body somewhere. Even less will I agree to having my arm amputated just because he tells me that, since my uncle got cancer in his arm, someday I might get cancer in my arm too so drastic preventive measure are necessary.
    As for the receding of the Martian ice caps that is happening simultaneously to earth’s slight warming, yes, perhaps Mars is tilting a little.
    Or perhaps it’s solar cycles.

  43. “Additionally, the Martian ice caps are probably melting because a gradual shift in planetary tilt that is occuring right now with Mars but not with the Earth.”
    Ah, but who is causing that mysterious and catastrophic shift in planetary tilt? Why is it that I have a hunch that if Earth was undergoing a similar shift, we’d be having a similar debate?

  44. No conspiracy, Leo. Scientists lie. I’ve worked at NIST, Oak Ridge National Lab and Brookhaven National Lab as a guest scientist. I was in government sponsored research for 10 years. Scientists lie. They lie to keep their funding. They say that their research is relavent when it isn’t. They try to cut funding for theories or programs that compete for funding with them. They stretch the truth, saying that there will be the big breakthrough in the next funding cycle. They cherry pick results. They will present the raw data in manners that minimize what they want minimized and maximize what they want maximized. They ignore or don’t mention contrary results. They massage results. They just flat out lie. I’ve seen people study the same material (I was a materials scientist) for 30 years. Each time there was fad (like ceramic superconductivity) some scientist would present the same material that they have been researching as a candidate for whatever the funding sources were shoveling money into that year.
    You see the same thing in global warming. People who were researching penguins are now researching penguins to see the effect of global warming. People who were researching fungi on trees are now doing so to demonstrate the effect of global warming. It goes on and on. The funding, right now, is to ‘prove’ global warming. So if you want tenure, if you want to fund your graduate students, if you want the grant from DOE, or if you just want to pay your mortgage, you write your grant application to get money for global warming….and you damn well better find SOMETHING or you won’t get funded again next year.

  46. I’ll believe in the global warming scare when I see beachfront property values drop. Until then it’s nothing but speculation. Follow the money folks.

  49. Catholic Whiteboy said it well, first that the science needs to be actual, verifiable, Science, not the simply the opinions of scientists. Secondly, that almost nobody is opposed to a cleaner environment. But based on how GW is being presented as a looming catastrophe, it’s clear that some are getting ready to propose more radical remedies. But as far as simply having a cleaner environment, absolutely, I agree with that. Unfortunately, I doubt that’s enough for the GW crowd.

  50. Could the increase in temperatures on Earth, Mars, and other planets be caused by the increase in the energy output of the sun during the same period?

  51. “The Ozone hole/layer problem was real and was manmade.”
    Then how come we never hear about it any more? Even you say “was” real, not “is” real.
    Think about it, Bernard.

  52. Then how come we never hear about it any more? Even you say “was” real, not “is” real.
    Maybe because we actually, you know, dealt with the problem.

  53. The Ozone hole/layer problem was real and was manmade.
    Realist:
    I challenge you to examine the actual chemistry in this.
    They all involve reversible reactions which often seeks to achieve ‘equilibrium’ in that regard.

  54. T.Shaffer should avoid buying beachfront properties on the Maldives (pic 5) of National Geographic’s global warming in pictures
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/global_warming/index.html
    and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3930765.stm
    The ozone hole is improving (due to international treaties) but still a problem according to the British Antarctic Survey http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/The_Ozone_Hole/anniversary/index.html

  56. The ozone hole is improving because ozone is created by sunlight …
    and not being removed as fast by as much CFCs etc.

  57. and not being removed as fast by as much CFCs etc.
    Kindly provide a Thermodynamic as well as Kinetic argument for this?

  58. I thought that Mt. Pinitubo(I’m sure I didn’t spell that correctly) in The Phillippines put more CFCs into the atmosphere in one eruption than man has in all of history.

  59. It’s all in the interpretation of the data.
    Anybody can put their own ‘gloss’ on empirical data to fit their agenda.
    Principal scientists oftend do so in order to keep the money going.

  60. Keep this in mind: DuPont’s patent on CFC was about to expire before it was banned…
    There’s evidence in Antarctic ice that the ozone-layer hole existed at least a century ago, before CFCs came into being. That’s probably why it’s about the same size almost 2 decades after its production was banned.

  62. The Pinatubo eruption also released more CO2 than man in all his existence…
    No, congress does. 🙂 Time to go to confession.

  63. The regular release of methane by cows (i.e., cow ‘farts’) can equally be said to be the underlying factor in this whole global warming crisis, for goodness sake!
    Does that mean Sizzler and all our Steak Houses should be forced out of business anytime soon or all our cows massacred?

  66. For Esau, if you are more interested in chemistry rather than rhetorical flourishes, http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html Cambridge University.
    Ozone is straying a little from the subject.
    Augustine, I am curious about your source for the Pinatubo assertion. According to the US Geological Survey ‘Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities’ http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
    “Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes”
    Are you confusing gaseous CO2 with solid carbon emission as rock, soot, smoke etc.?

  67. I can’t imagine that we’re not causing at least SOME changes to the planet. There’s a difference between the one time injection into the atmosphere of CO2 from a volcano and the long term effects of industrialization. The time scales are two different things. We don’t know if they’re different or the same as far as impact on the environment goes. A volcano could be worse for the planet than anything we can do, or it could be surprisingly insignificant.
    It bothers me when people take black and white stances on things like human induced factors in global warming (or even the existence of global warming.)

  68. A computer model of the climate is as good as its predictions. Given that such models are trying to predict decades in the future, that’s how long it’ll take to validate them.
    Of course, one could try to predict the past and see if it fits the record. But one needs to be willing to see the truth, not one’s agenda.
    See this chart from a site that BBC set up arguing for human-caused warming: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/theresult/abouttheresults.shtml. Note how the prediction by the model overshoots the record. As an engineer with a minor degree in physics it tells me that the model is biased and at least its assumptions and should be checked. But, no, BBC, with the help of the scientists at Orford, push the model as valid, counting on the average person’s ignorance to interpret scientific data.

  69. The only true scientific method is trial and error. The problem is that it takes a long time and no one makes money from it.
    I second the post that says that scientists, doctors, and the government all lie.

  71. I second the post that says that scientists, doctors, and the government all lie.
    Especially those bearing the title “Dr.” in their handle!

  72. DJ, I agree entirely with you. Where The Channel 4 documentary definitely fell down was in presenting the scientists they interviewed as one unified “Down with global warming” mass. Each of them has very different views, and differing credentials. John Christy, for example, who came across very impressively in his segment, believes that global warming is a problem with a significant man-induced component but is skeptical of the extent that people claim in consequences. Particularly, the sea will rise and cover everything angle.
    Paul Driessen, the ex-radical environmentalist, seemed less concerned about the science of global warming and more about social justice and human rights. And that’s a legitimate approach to the issue, much ignored lately.
    Carl Wunsch, who’s upset now that the documentary made him seem like he was denouncing the entire science of global warming, is also very critical of the Catastrophe Mongerers, who predict with absolute certainty things like the Gulf Stream shutting down.
    All these views are a lot more nuanced that what we usually hear from either side.
    Maybe the documentary would have been more effective if it tried to calm the hype rather than up the hype itself. But it’s sure got people hopping. 🙂

  73. This is all *really* amusing to me, since my first science love was dinosaurs. I adored learning about them and still remember the stuff I was taught… including that the earth was warmer back then, and had more plant life. :^)

  74. Leo,
    Such yearly emissions do not count for major eruptions.
    Just to put things in perspective, human activity accounts only for 2% of the release of CO2 in the atmosphere (see http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=35979). Moreover, such statements forget to mention that there’s a carbon-cycle, i.e., carbon is absorbed back.
    If you do the math, you’ll find out that an average sedan (mine averages 23MPG in my commute) emits just 5 times more CO2 than a person (7g/h), or 35g/h.
    Yet, what do pundits propose to replace fossil-fuels? Hydrogen. They then argue that the by-product of Hydrogen powered fuel-cell is water vapor. Never mind that water-vapor is about twice as more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2! So much so that no weather prediction model considers CO2, only H2O. When was the last time that you saw a satellite image of atmospheric CO2 on TV? Not to mention that there’s only 1% of water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2. BTW, it too is increasing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BAMS_climate_assess_boulder_water_vapor_2002.gif).
    The only honest answer to global warming is that its cause is unknown. And it’s foolish to make any policy on hot air.

  75. The earth’s temperature naturally varies over time. 400 years ago, the world was much colder than it is today. 1000 years ago, the world much warmer than it is today, and there were farms in Greenland(and, of course, the Greenland ice cap was much smaller than it is today). These vast changes in the earth’s temperature took place without industrialization. Heck, most of the earth’s temperature changes occurred before the existence of man. To attribute a degree or two change in the earth’s temperature in the last century to man, when man could not possibly have been the cause of the much more drastic climate changes that have occurred for the last 4,000,000,000 years, with future increases in temperature over the coming decades predicted by weather models that often can’t predict what the weather will be tomorrow, seems, to me, to be hubris.

  76. BTW, as I have asked before, does anyone know what the ideal temperature of the earth is? And why?

  77. The earth’s ideal temperature is whatever will scare the most people into agreeing to higher taxes and more intrusive, unjust government.

  80. Thanks Augustine, interesting article. I note that GW Burrows specialism is chemistry not climatology. I don’t know his source for saying that 98% of CO2 is produced by non-human sources. No doubt there is a natural equilibrium involving plant and animal activity. The question is whether human activity has altered the CO2 balance.
    Atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at about 280 parts per million (ppm) for most of recorded human history until about 1800 when it rose steeply to 370 ppm today.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide14.pdf (UK Meteorological Office). The obvious explanation is that the industrial revolution and human activity have caused a great increase in CO2 CONCENTRATIONS.
    Bill912, in a sense it is meaningless to talk of an ‘ideal’ average global temperature – as long as it is within the range of 0C (liquid water) to 50C (when vital proteins start to denature). As far as humans are concerned it depends on where you are and what you can/want to do. Geological-age-scale major climate change affects whether an area is above or below the sea, is desert, jungle, tundra etc.. eg in the same area of the UK one can see geological strata of glaciers, deserts, coral seas, jungles and other evidence for an old earth.
    The problem for humans is what to do about their current habitation, livelihood, and food supply if major climate change occurs within a human lifetime or two.

  81. “…in a sense, it is meaningless to talk of an ‘ideal’ global temperature…”
    Why?

  83. “Atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at about 280 parts per million (ppm) for most of recorded human history”
    Except when it wasn’t.
    “…until about 1800 when it rose steeply to 370 ppm today… The obvious explanation is that the industrial revolution and human activity have caused a great increase in CO2 CONCENTRATIONS.”
    No, not obvious. It is simplistic and it is not science. The fact that two events occur at (roughly) the same time does not mean they are causally linked, at all. Not to mention that industrial CO2 emmissions before mid-twentieth century would have been miniscule AND even with the relatively massive industrial development since then, man-made CO2 barely makes a dent in the overall CO2 content of the atmosphere.

  84. I think Leo means that what’s ideal in one place at one time may not be ideal in another. For example, it’s *freezing* here in Canada right now, which is quite appropriate for the time of year.

  88. Leo,
    Actually, the CO2 concentration varies pretty much with the ice ages (see http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png).
    But to attribute the increase to the industrial revolution, right on 1800 is not reasonable, for I guess that in 1850 the CO2 emissions were a tiny fraction of what they are today. In that period, it was pretty much restricted to England and it was immensely smaller than nowadays. Heck, industrialization outside of N. America and Europe started only after WWII. Before that
    If I would attribute it to any human activity, I’d say that urbanization and deforestation are better candidates. But it’s still a stretch as much as attributing it to industrial activity.

  89. Did you watch the documentary, Leo?
    Increased solar activity causes the oceans to warm, which releases vast amounts of CO2.
    Decreased solar activity causes increased absorbtion of CO2 in the oceans.
    There is a CO2/temperature correlation, but it runs the opposite direction… warm temperatures cause increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

  91. Thanks Augustine. The chart you link to is subtitled ‘the Industrial Revolution has caused a dramatic rise in CO2’. The inset graphs on the right of your link show a correlation between fossil fuel burning and CO2 concentrations, especially at the times of greater industrialization you mention.
    It is true that there have been variations in atmospheric CO2 in the last 400,000 years according to the Vostok ice cores. There is also a striking correlation between these changes in CO2 concentrations and global temperature changes http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
    The post 1800 increase in CO2 concentration is much faster than any previous natural cyclic CO2 increase.
    Thanks TimJ, If increasing solar activity causes CO2 emissions we would expect to see a correlation between increased solar activity and CO2 concentrations but we do not see a clear correlation when we compare
    CO2 concentrations http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide14.pdf
    with solar input http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide09.pdf
    The explanatory note on the last link says “However, current climate models do include changes in solar output … do not find evidence for a large solar influence. Instead, these analyses show that recent global warming has been dominated by greenhouse gas-induced warming, even when such analyses take account of a possible underestimate of the climatic response to solar changes by models.”

  92. Leo,
    Don’t pay attention to the caption, just to the data.
    Notice that someone juxtaposed ice core data with atmospheric data. Says who the ice core record captures transient variations of the atmospheric CO2 concentration? You see, a lot of the problem is that people jump to conclusions before disparate data that happens to coincide. And they just coincide unless an identifiable cause-effect correlation is established.
    The fact of the matter is that the science behind an alleged anthropogenic global warming and dooming consequences is little to nil. Once the smoke, the mirrors and hand-waving are set aside, it’s just rhetoric.

  93. Finally, Leo, ever thought that it may not be a matter of emitting CO2 but of absorbing it? Why doesn’t anybody mention the massive deforestation in the last couple of centuries, although everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere? How about the destruction of marine habitats, where most of the photosynthesis in the world takes place by phytoplankton?
    So many questions, so many “experts” urging us to trust them blindly and crown the UN to lord over us…

  94. Augustine, I can’t see the connection between energy efficiency, using renewable fuel resources and reducing dependence on fossil fuels (especially from unstable regions) with the advance of any UN world government conspiracy to lord over us.

  95. Leo –
    There certainly appears to be a correlation between solar activity and temperature, based on those graphs. Increased solar activity and increased temperatures. The caption confirms as much.
    I noted that “Based on the Hadley Centre HadCM3
    climate model, we can estimate the global
    temperature increase which the changing solar
    radiation may have caused…”
    So, this graph is not a representation of actual measured data, even indirectly, but the results of a computer model’s ESTIMATE of solar-caused warming. Why not a straight comparison to measured data? Such data can be found in ice core samples, rocks, tree rings, soil strata… why filter all this through a highly maleable computer model?
    I thought it interesting that;
    The data for concentrations of CO2 goes back only to AD 1000. That is hardly “most of recorded human history”. Even if it were, why stop there? Is the data before AD 1000 somehow irrelevant? CO2 concentrations varied wildly before then. Limiting the data to the last millenium seems rather myopic when we are talking about earth science.
    Also, the CO2 data comes from two different sources, ice core samples for levels before before the 1950s, and direct atmospheric sampling since. Is this not apples and oranges to some extent?
    It is also pointed out that other possible mechanisms, like cloud cover and gamma radiation related to solar activity, are not factored into these climate models;
    “There are some theories that the solar influence on
    global climate could be amplified by an indirect
    route…”
    “…there is some empirical evidence for relationships between solar changes and climate, and several mechanisms, such as cosmic rays influencing cloudiness, have been proposed, which could explain such correlations. These mechanisms are not sufficiently well understood and developed to be included in climate models at present.”
    Yet they confidently maintain…
    “analyses show that recent global warming has been dominated by greenhouse gas-induced warming…”
    It is clear from reading the material acompanying these graphs that the Hadley Centre is in the business of Global Warming apologetics, rather than science. They are looking for data that corroborates The Theory.
    I do not take them seriously. I do not believe them.

  96. “””It is clear from reading the material acompanying these graphs that the Hadley Centre is in the business of Global Warming apologetics, rather than science. They are looking for data that corroborates The Theory.
    I do not take them seriously. I do not believe them.”””
    Tim: This does not refelct nicely on catholic apologetics. As Ed pointed out one could read into this that catholic apologetics is simply looking for data to corroborate “The Theory”.
    Whatta ya think Realist?

  97. Greetings TimJ, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at their highest for 650,000 years. Augustine’s graph confirms 450,000 years of this.
    http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_50k_yrs.html shows CO2 levels for the last 10,000 years (most of recorded history) at about 260 ppm, rising steeply from the time of the Industrial Revolution.
    Apples and oranges? Same molecule. Since about 1950 there have been direct measurements of CO2. Before then we have over 450,000 years of trapped air bubbles in Antarctic ice. (Laid down in annual strata for the benefit of ‘young earthers’).
    It’s difficult to have direct quantifiable historical records of solar inputs, that’s why models have to be used – which predict with reasonably accurate predictive power (see my earlier links). The danger with being ultra-sceptical/cynical of places like the MetOffice/Hadley on solar input is that it can undercut your own evidence.

  99. I work in science, as a physics graduate researcher. This means that I probably know a lot less about global warming than Jimmy, or than most of the rest of you. However, this means that I have friends who have a fairly good understanding of global warming. I have talked with a few of them, and the consensus is that Global Warming is happening (Science 14 July 2000: Vol. 289. no. 5477, pp. 270 – 277). There are literally hundreds of articles supporting this, and virtually no articles opposing. It is possible that the community is wrong, just as it is possible Big Bang is wrong. But it is extremely unlikely.
    I place this argument because (a) this is the only argument that I, a nonexpert, can really appreciate, and (b) this is the only argument that those who have not really studied global warming can fairly address. If you want to combat the scientific consensus on Global Warming, then you should study it first, in depth. I would suspect that, if one did this, one would come to accept Global Warming as a reality.
    That said, there is no consensus of the cause (see article above). Most scientists accept that there is a component that is human-caused (due to certain fluctuations, within error bars), but there is still a sizable minority that contends against this conclusion. Furthermore, even those scientists that accept that there is a human-caused component to global warming have as yet been ineffective at showing if that component is significant, and if removing that component would make a large difference. Articles (and scientists) argue both way.
    To argue that global warming does not have a significant human-caused component is reasonable. To argue that there is no such thing as global warming, from the perspective of a non-expert, is simply silly. And counter-productive.

  100. Yes, it does look like the earth is a very tiny bit warmer today than it was a little while ago.
    However, there’s no proof it is human activity that has caused the earth’s thermostat to go up a degree, and plenty of indications that it’s got nothing to do with us. Global-Warmingism is a fideistic, unfalsifiable religion — pseudoscience, not science.

  101. Jordan, we’re still snickering over your comment on the earth’s ideal temperature. That was great!

  102. Has anyone considered the fact that we know have 6,525,170,264 (July 2006 est.)”98.6 F hot breath/farting humans” on the Earth’s surface? Add to that ~1,500,000,000 cows at exhaling/farting at 101.5 F. Add to that ~1,000,000,000 sheep exhaling/farting at 102 F. And what are the major gases being exhaled/farted?

  103. Leo– it is generally done in science to use the same method of measurement throughout the entire comparison.
    SLowboy– what exactly do you disagree with in the statement you quote?

  104. Paul– have you looked into there being reasons that articles against GW would not be published? IE, wouldn’t be accepted by the magazine, the publisher would make no money from them, lack of desire to be ridiculed when there’s been a movie that says something different?

  105. Common sense is irrelevant. We are Gaia. We will assimilate you. Resistance is futile.

  108. While I’m not convinced that humans are creating a warmer atmosphere which will be irreparable, since it is well know that the earth does indeed have cycles of natural heating and cooling, I would add that Catholics need to be more conscious of the effects of our actions on earth. God has given the earth to us. It is ours to tend and till, to enjoy and love. It is a magnificent gift of our Creator, that we can look out at the majesty of Creation and see the imprint of our loving Creator. If we are making our skies above our cities — cities which are monuments to God’s creative power given to us — blackened with soot and hazy with smog, I think we need to reevaluate our actions. There are so many ways we can harness the earth’s resources for even more power than can be derived from coal, oil, etc. that we should investigate. Solar, wind, wave, hydrogen-fueled cars, etc.
    In sum, let us be responsible stewards of God’s gift to us.

  109. Mr. Wallace- I’ve got to qualify my support on that one because every time I’ve heard it before, it’s been applied to hit people like my folks with big problems. My folks are ranchers. We recyle more than any “green” I’ve ever seen– largely by washing stuff out, or using cloth diapers and similar things– and have to take good care of the land, because we lose our livelyhood if we don’t.
    When we look at cities, we need to figure in the lack of wildfires before we complain *too* much about the soot.

  110. Sailorette, I chuckled over your comments. Around here, most of the “greenies” tout having fewer children and going vegan to help the earth. Yet they live in houses over 2,500 square feet that were built in the middle of 14 acres of former farmland. They use Chem Lawn and other artificial means to kill the natural plants and grow lush lawns. They drive huge vehicles with 4-wheel drive – not for hauling equipment, but merely to haul themselves to and from work. Not to mention all their leisure boating and jetskiing (they don’t fish, obviously).
    As for global warming, I’m not sure that I care about it. I took several classes on geology, global warming, ice age, etc. A paleo-botanist (I THINK that’s his correct title) showed us evidence that greated CO2 levels were the norm for many flora until relatively recently (relatively being measured in centuries, not years). He was kind of excited about the possibility that global warming would stimulate faster plant growth.
    I am still waiting for the record temperature heat. I live in a delta that is warmer than the surrounding area, so I only had to shovel out my drive twice this winter. But every time I mentioned the warmest days we had this winter, my father would pull out his calendars and tell me it wasn’t even close to a record. (It seems that 1953 was especially warm.)

  111. It is St. Patrick’s Day 2007 and it has been snowing for at least an hour and a half here in Southern Missouri. Global Warming?

  112. And I just spent three hours removing 2″ of ice off my drive. (with hand powered shovels). The East coast was hit hard yesterday by an ice storm.

  113. I don’t dispute that the climate may be warming somewhat, nor do I necessarily dispute an increase in atmospheric CO2.
    But the link between the two, as I pointed out above, may very well run the opposite direction from what GW proponents claim… it is very possible that warmer temps cause increased CO2, rather than vice-versa.
    Man-made CO2 emmissions are a tiny fraction of total atmospheric CO2.
    CO2 represents a tiny fraction of atmospheric gases, and even a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases. By far the most abundant greenhouse gas is… water vapor!
    Man-made global warming is an ideology, not science.
    My remarks about the Hadley Centre being in the business of GW apologetics can stand, though I could have done better. I guess “propaganda” would be more accurate.
    Apologetics is defined as “the task of defending a particular idea or belief system and answering its critics.”. We do not arrive at the Catholic faith via apologetics. We defend it with apologetics.
    The Hadley Centre gives the appearance of doing detached, experimental science, when in reality they do apologetics. They long ago threw in with the idea of MAN-MADE global warming, and they seek to persuade others to do the same. They comb the data only to find support for their already solidly entrenched conclusions.

  117. Well, that’s my understanding. The Catholic faith is a matter of revelation and – er – faith. Reason plays a role, but we don’t start with reason (2+2=4) and end up with the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Sacraments.
    Apologetics demonstrates that the faith is in harmony with reason, but it’s not where the faith comes from.

  118. “Jordan, we’re still snickering over your comment on the earth’s ideal temperature. That was great!”
    Glad to be of service, milady!

  119. I live in Canada and my job involves interacting with a lot of Inuit people from the Arctic. They are seeing devastating changes. Yes its still going to snow but weather patterns are changing and coastlines are changing at an incredible rate when measured on a geological scale.

  120. This is rather late, but here goes…
    Early on, someone asked why the “religious right” has any particular take on global warming. As someone “religious” and “right” (conservative), my interest in this is rational — I think it matters that claims about human-caused global warming be true. Also, there is no question for me that a significant segment, devoted to “environmental causes,” do pursue their causes with a kind of religious zeal. Don’t believe me? Go to a party. In the course of conversation, let it drop that you don’t recycle, you think it’s pointless, even counterproductive. Wait and see how people respond. I predict, more than a rational response, such as, “oh, you’re mistaken, here’s why its worthwhile,” you will encounter shock, greater than if you said Jesus was the son of a prostitute.
    Now, about the science of this whole question. There are lots of data, but there seem to be a few salient assertions that, if true, seem to me to be devastating to the, humans-are-causing-global-warming” assertions:
    * Swings in warming and cooling have occurred prior to the Industrial Revolution, that were greater than anything we can point to since (i.e., the warm period in Roman times, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age).
    * There are many sources of CO2 being added to the atmosphere, and the human-caused sources are way, way down the list.
    Because, it seems to me that if more CO2 produces global warming (i.e., they aren’t related causally, or the causality isn’t the reverse), then why is it not clear that if the human element is a relative bit player, addressing the human element isn’t going to help much?
    A whole chain of assertions tend to get by all at once. But each must be considered in turn:
    1. Is there global warming? (apparently, yes)
    2. Is it significantly caused by human action? (The main question at issue here)
    3. How serious a problem is it? (It might be catastrophic, or it might be something we can live with, or–who knows–isn’t it just possible that, on balance, it might be an improvement–if not for all, then for some?)
    Finally, the other question that the “global-warming-is-a-human-caused-crisis” crowd seems to ignore consistently is the cost/benefit analysis. Because it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that “precautionary” measures are not costly — and I don’t mean merely dollars; it’s never merely dollars.
    The corrective measures, aimed at reducing CO2 emissions, will cost something–likely, quite a lot–both in terms of dollars, and in terms of changes to society, and very likely, changes (expansions) in governmental power — hence a reduction in personal freedom.
    Vastly remaking our society–as well as perpetuating a whole of lot human poverty and suffering, rather than alleviating it–is a very high price to pay as “a precaution.”

  121. http://www.catholic.org/views/views_news.php?id=23036&pid=0
    http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=23177
    Here are a couple of links to some catholic articles on Global Warming.
    Let’s face it, catholics need to unify, and though we will always have minor differences of opinion, can’t we all agree that God wants us to take care of His creation?
    Maybe there are some things about global warming that are exagerated, but lets sort through the science together with the unified goal of cleaning our earth and being stewards of God’s creation. This is NOT a political issue.

  122. I do beg the pardon of Global Warming believers, as I find no reason to believe their gospel.
    I suppose much of this stems from my current mode of existence, which is very much against the odds I was given by “scientists”.
    #1. When I was born, it was expected that I would inherit the Apocralypse (mispell intended) of The Next Ice Age *gasp*.
    #2. At about the same time, the inevitable Apocralypse of Pollution would make life impossible. America would just be one giant, poisonous blight. Love Canal would happen to every city and everyone would die! I had no chance of survival by the year 2000 whatsoever unless all chemical industry was halted. Uh, I survived, and the chemical industry did too.
    #3. There was some sort of Apocralypse about a Population Bomb. I guess we were only going to have a 3×3″ square of space per person, and we would all die of starvation by the year 2000. Yeah, I managed to survive that one. Now it seems we reacted too much, really got into contraception and abortion, and don’t have enough population to support the retiring Baby Boomers. Aw shucks.
    #4. Once Ronald Reagan was elected, the Apocralypse of Nuclear Winter was assured. We’re all gonna die because a (conservative/actor) had his hand on the button. I guess that one fizzled too.
    #5. I was assured that scientists had proven that we would run out of oil and live in a “Road Warrior/Beyond Thunderdome” post-Apocralyptic world. The experts were sure it would happen in 10-15 years (circa 1983). I was then told in 1995 by an esteemed professor that the model used was inaccurate, and that there was this new model of use vs. scarcity (price) and that we were just cresting that curve. I was assured that we would be running out of oil and suffering shortages in ten years. Uh, that didn’t happen either doc. Well, it did, but not due to drilling. Most of our petroleum problems come in lack of refineries, hurricanes, and political instability.
    #6. There was this really big panic back in ’98 about Y2K. It was the end of the world as we knew it. This particular Apocralypse was a sure thing. Anything and everything that was controlled by a computer would crash or be corrupted. Everything from banks to power plants to nuclear arsenals would do the very worst possible thing and we would all die. The funny thing is that the “Chicken Littles” of Y2K made lots and lots of money, scamming technologically illiterate businesses and governments of billions by ginned up hysteria. I recall that the only reported Y2K incident was some video rental store charged its patrons 99 year late fees. That was resolved quickly too.
    These are a few of the EotW sure bets that I have survived in my lifetime by those same scenarios not happening.
    All in all, I find the Global Warming believers to be the atheistic version of the Jehovah’s Witness, except infinitely more irritating. After all, I don’t have to answer my door, but I do have to pay taxes.

  123. I would like to add, that there is only one Apocalypse (correct spelling intended). It happened one dark afternoon on Calvary Hill, and is represented to us every time we go to Mass.

  124. SLowboy– what exactly do you disagree with in the statement you quote?
    Posted by: Sailorette/Foxfier | Mar 17, 2007 8:08:36 AM
    I think tim followed my poorly posted thought. Using “apologetics” as a badword on an apologitics site invites confusion. Tim followed with offering the word “propoganda” in place of apologitics.
    In turn: I seem to remember Chesterton saying that all good writing is propoganda, that is written to bring someone to your viewpoint. I will offer anthother word and say the Center is engaging in eisigesis of the facts rather than exegesis. That is they are starting from the viewpoint that man is bad and hurting the environment and now we will intrepret the facts to make it true. Not,rather, a cold reading of the facts that lead one to the conclusion that we are causing harm.
    This too points to why, I think, so many on this board are hostile to the whole GW theory. They recognise that at the root it is tied to the concept that “man is bad”/”earth is good” religion. For myself I worry that should the GW’ers have free reign part of their Ultimate Solution would be anti-human life measures. After all, follow the logic. What is the best method of reducing human caused CO2 emissions? Get rid of the people. Not you and me of course but all those smelly people over there (wherever there is). We should also make sure all those smelly people who keep trading their bikes in on cars can’t get anymore cars. It’s for their own good anyway.
    Earlier in the posts some used the “follow the money argument”. I’m not sure this is the best arguement since we (ok, I am) “all” tainted by the scrabble to pay for education and housing. Rather I would argue look forward to, “who’s the winner” in the end. I don’t know but, sorry, feel that the pro-GW forces are hand-in-glove with the pro-choice forces so I ask myself. What’s in it for them?
    **DISCLAIMER**: I am no more paranoid today than yesterday. 🙂

  125. Catholic Outsider– “stop arguing, I’m right, so back me up on this”? We *don’t* know that the world heating up is bad– it sure wasn’t that bad for the dinosaurs or for our far distant ancestors who lived in an ice age.
    Don’t you think it’s a little bit in bad faith to imply that anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t want to take care of this lovely Earth God gave us?

  126. “Don’t you think it’s a little bit in bad faith to imply that anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t want to take care of this lovely Earth God gave us?”
    Unfortunately, the argument has been framed by the human-caused GW supporters that if you do disagree with them, then you are for environmental destruction.

  127. If there is ‘only’ a 10% probability I will get lung cancer from smoking or a 10% chance that the earth’s climate will change significantly due to our CO2 emissions then even Kantian ‘rational devils’ using Expected Value criteria would stop smoking and reduce CO2 emisions.
    Smoking is an anti-depressant.* What if there is a 10% chance you will commit suicide in the next ten years if you don’t smoke?
    When calculating your criteria, you have to put in all the good things on both sides, and all the bad things as well.
    *True, incidentially. And they’ve found one anti-depressant that seems to mimic it well enough that it removes the desire to smoke.

  128. How about this one? There’s a 10% chance of failure each time someone uses a condom. How many folks that are pro-Kyoto are also pro-abstinence? (My bet would be rather low.)

  129. Yes, I think we’re finally getting near the point. Regardless of whether or not humans are causing harm to the Earth’s climate, the best course of action remains the same- let the markets work. The level of regulations needed to reduce CO2 emissions would severely hamper the ability of businessmen to respond to the changing conditions caused by CO2 emissions- this means starvation, poverty, and chaos. Clearly, humans can survive extremes of temperature- we survived very warm and very cold periods in the past, and without the benefit of modern technology.
    This, I think, is the critical flaw in the case for CO2 regulation. Those in favor have never established why the massive regulations that would be needed to stop CO2 would nor do more harm than good.
    If you have beachfront property in Florida, worry about global warming. For the rest of us, I wouldn’t worry too much.

  130. Awesome documentary! As Catholics, we should be ashamed of the energy situation in Africa being perpetuated by the UN. This is REAL racism. The population control goons at the UN are the real racists. They are the fruit of the eugenics movement led by Adolph Hitler and Margaret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood).
    Unfortunately, many well meaning catholic priests and protestant evangelicals are being sucked in by this global warming nonsense. There is even one priest in our Diocese showing Al Gore’s “documentary” at his parish! We must put our faith in God, not Al Gore (even though he did invent the internet). If only the same priests would be so zealous as to preach from the pulpit on subjects like abortion, euthanasia, and gay “marriage”!

  131. Jimmy,
    Thanks for posting this link. I enjoy letting scientists on both sides speak for themselves. Especially ones who agree with me!

  132. I don’t understand why people would be upset about Christianity getting involved in the debate. Far be it for religion to deal with the relevant issues of the day. Religion has and always will interact with popular culture, and I’m thankful for that. Religion reminds people of the ethical duties we all have towards humanity as a whole which secular culture would like to so conveniently forget.

  133. Earlier in the posts some used the “follow the money argument”. I’m not sure this is the best arguement…
    In all this GW ‘doomsday’ hoopla, only one question remains the most important: Cui bono?

  134. In response to foxfire: The article you gave is not peer-reviewed. Most people can say almost anything they want, without consequence, on the internet.
    As for the process of peer review (not the process of funding), if there is good empirical falsification to an accepted theory, the falsification is typically celebrated by the scientific community, as it means more publication, and more interest. That is exactly what theorists and experimentalists are hoping to find in physics researching high energy behavior. There has been an accepted model for the past thirty-some years, and people want to topple it.
    Funding is a different story. Everyone wants to fund the right radical idea. No one wants to fund the wrong radical idea, and conservative spending wins out. The longer an idea is around, the harder it is to get start-up support in challanging the idea.
    Global warming is well-established. So people are scared to fund investigation of alternate explanations.
    It’s not US Politics (though that also plays into the picture, to a lesser extent). It’s safe spending.

  135. I (naively?) assumed that this would be treated as a scientific issue, how wrong I was! In most of the world, outside the US, the issue has not polarised politically as in the US.
    There is no need to repeat the scientific arguments, but I would like to ask about the political and ad hominem issues. I feel out of my depth with ad hominem and conspiracy theories.
    Underlying the scientific evidence, the major thrust of the film is a two-fold conspiracy theory, which many here seem to accept, at least in part:
    1. The film explains why the majority of climate scientists say there is human-caused climate change – put bluntly they are (all?) LYING in order to ensure funding.
    2. There is a global political conspiracy, started by Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (of all people) which was supported by neo-Marxist environmentalists alongside romantic medievalist Luddite [neo-Pagan] environmentalists. This pro-nuclear power/leftist/liberal/green/neo-Pagan alliance wishes to keep the developing world poor by preventing them developing economically.
    Q1. Are the majority of climate scientists lying to secure funding?
    Scientists are human and some have admitted lying as in the Korean embryonic stem cell case. There have always been funding fashions in the academic world eg quest for the historical Jesus, youth gun crime, polio, cancer, stem cells (whether non-embryonic or embryonic), nanotechnology, HIV-AIDS. It does not mean that there is no undelying problem (or that these medical conditions are fabricated), only that, for whatever reason, there is public/private/charitable funding available. Not surprisingly research/charity workers will try to slant their bids to match the available funding. If we disregarded all the research on fashionable subjects on these grounds where would we be?
    The Da Vinci Code (following Voltaire and Marx) suggested that the Catholic Church had fabricated much of the evidence for orthodox Christianity in order to keep its power and keep the clerics, especially in the Vatican, in the lifestyle to which they had become accustomed.
    Q2. Is there a political conspiracy?
    The idea of a conspiracy involving Margaret Thatcher, neo-Marxist greens and neo-Pagan anti-industrial romantics is to me as bizarre as suggesting that Mossad (the Israeli Secret Service) somehow persuaded Jihadi Muslims to kill themselves on 9/11.
    I am temperamentally sceptical of conspiracy theories and genuinely seek enlightent regarding the GW political puppet masters, their motivation and their goals.
    The counter ad-hominem is George Bush’s refusal, until recently, to acknowledge any climate change and this is seen by some as evidence that this Texan was paying pack his oil-rich financial backers.
    Shalom

  136. Leo –
    I’m afraid you are mistaken. I am highly allergic to conspiracy theories, and I don’t see any over-arching conspiracy to the global-warming issue.
    The term you might want to address is “group think”.
    The same thing happened recently in the field of physics. See “string theory”.

  137. Leo:
    Curious, just what exactly makes you think the GW ‘gloom & doom’ soothsayers deserve far more credence than their opponents?
    What is your compelling scientific evidence that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the GW crusaders are absolutely in the right over their adversaries?
    You make it seem as if these GW folks are absolutely correct and those who oppose them are nothing more than conspiracy theorists and the like, neglecting the fact that these folks also comprise of respectable and prominent scientists who also have presented scientific data to corroborate their theories on the matter.
    Moreover, you neglect the fact that the conclusions of the GW doomsday folks are only as good as their assumptions!

  138. The Da Vinci Code (following Voltaire and Marx) suggested that the Catholic Church had fabricated much of the evidence for orthodox Christianity in order to keep its power and keep the clerics, especially in the Vatican, in the lifestyle to which they had become accustomed.
    Further to my comments above, I can’t believe that you not only IGNORED the scientific findings of those who oppose the GW crusaders but also REDUCED them to the sensationalistic garbage as that of the Da Vinci Code.
    If anything, the ‘sensationalists’ in the matter are more likely the GW ‘doomsday’ heralds.
    Again, the question remains: Cui bono?

  139. Paul- you require peer review to admit that folks have their lives threatened? It’s a newspaper article, for goodness sake, not a journal, and I did not imply that it was a journal. It’s just another reason folks might be unwilling to say anything against the global warming frenzy.
    Please give examples of a falsification of a popular theory which is making the careers of many scientists being celebrated. The *ideal* is that it would be, and that’s one of the things I love about science– in theory.
    It gets really clear when members of the Weather Channel want to yank the certifications of weathercasters who don’t agree with man-made global warming that we’re far, far from the ideal.

  140. Leo- I don’t believe in most conspiracies, however I have observed things that *look* like conspiracies that seems to be causes by social factors. (Manners, wanting to look “cool”, fear of rejection, trust in authority.)
    A silly example is from high school– I had a habit of setting by the science class’ door after lunch, reading, so I didn’t have to hurry to class when the bell rang. One day, without my knowing it, the teacher was setting inside with all the lights off– on his computer, I think. I didn’t want to go in, so I didn’t try the door. Long story short, everyone assumed I’d tried the door, and the first five or so folks there were accused of playing a joke on the later folks by trying to “trick” them into thinking the door was locked.
    Now, some of the folks thought there was a conspiracy. There wasn’t, but trust in authority (that I’d check the door before I’d set in the hall) and desire not to look stupid (not checking to see if the door was locked, because there are other folks there, of COURSE they’ve checked already!) made it seem to folks who showed up later that we’d planned something.
    I think you’re just trying to make folks angry, now, so I’m ignoring your nonsense about the Da Vinci code and all.

  141. Leo, you are a True Believer.
    Realist, those aren’t facts, those are falsehoods.
    I get the impression that the True Believers in Global Warmingism refused to watch the video because it might threaten their faith. Their posts certainly indicate that they didn’t watch it.
    Bill, correct, the Sun is unusually active right now. In fact, Solar activity maps very closely to climate fluctuations, CO2 does not.
    The chief removal agent for ozone during the six month polar night (when we hear the shrieks of the alarmists crying that the ozone hole is growing) is chlorine, which comes from sea water, not from freon, which saved lives. The worshippers of Gaia are willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of humans to their goddess.
    Peta is indeed saying that we must all become vegan so that boivne methane production will be reduced. Of course, that means we’d have to kill off the growing buffalo herds, too. Don’t they remember anything before 1980?
    The main greenhouse gas is water vapor, in terms of importance, methane is considerably more powerful than C02. In fact, the data seem to show that C02 has no effect on global warming.
    Augustine, more recently when science and politics mixed, DDT was banned, resulting in more than 65 million deaths in Africa.
    Bill, until the socialists grabbed hold of ‘global warming’ after ‘global cooling’ didn’t work, the optimum temperature was considered to be that of the Medieval Climactic Optimum when there were vinyards in the north of England. Europe was wealthy due to the increased crop production, the gothic cathedrals were built, tapestries and paintings show people dressed for the climate, just as paintings from 300-100 years ago show so much more ice than today, in winter.
    Leo, if you are going to complain about a chemist, how about how the majority of those “2500 scientists” aren’t scientists at all, but sociologists, UN bureaucrats, and so forth, and many of hte real scientists resigned from the project because of its bias, distorting papers written by the scientsts in order to support global warming, etc., and then putting out that report of the report (the real report not having yet been released) in order to induce hysteria and influence the upcoming elections?
    How do you account that CO2 rises FOLLOW temperature rises by 800 years?? Either the graphs you are talking about were “massaged” or it shows that industrial development is a result of previous climactic warming, and not the cause of it.
    Tim, the global climate has risen by one half of one degree centigrade in the past 100 years. Most of that before 1940. Since 1998, it has been cooling again.
    It is predicted that solar activity will begin going into a decline, with resultant increases in cloud cover, and global cooling. No doubt the Gaians will claim they made that happen.
    Warming is actually lower in the part of the atmosphere where it should be -higher- if it were due to the greenhouse effect.
    Shamus, indeed, the Inuit did not invade Greenland until the Little Ice Age was well under way. Before that, the Dorset people lived in the Canadian high arctic and Greenland. Their toolkit was not nearly as well prepared for ice age weather. The Inuit from Sibera are now experiencing the climate beginning to return to what it had been prior to their invasion and colonization of the area.
    Leo, there was no claim of conspiracy in the movie, apart from the corrupt and immoral way that the UN altered the climate report report. That several groups happen to see the benefit in supporting something does not indicate a conpsiracy.

  143. “GW is in fact caused by testosterone”
    Haw! Coffee out my nose on that one.
    Can anyone doubt it?! GW is the result of oppresive patriarchalism. Men are pigs.

  145. *sniffle* But I like rice cakes…. And bear jerky, actually, I think that might be better than steak.
    Sailorette:
    No, no, no!
    We MUST do our part in the fight against GW!
    Scientists say that methane released by cows is a contributing factor; therefore, it is our DUTY to eat as many steaks as possible and as many leather products, too, and WIPE them out!
    No more COW-a-BUNGA!

  147. Esau- my folks raise cattle. I got up close and personal with many slimy young’ns a few weeks ago, when I went to help out a bit. (mom just got knee surgery, so dad needed a hand who knows when to run like the blazes)
    The Bovine Enemy is alive and well! (also very, very cute)
    On an interesting side note, did you know that it’s stockyard animals that have the worst methane output, as best they guess?

  148. “The Bovine Enemy is alive and well!” I’ve got one of the varmints marinating right now. He’s not cute, but he looks delicious. (I should know for sure in about 48 hours).

  150. Hey,we forgot about all those 1,000,000,000 snorting and farting pigs at 102.5 F.
    I wonder if we could send off a few on the next mission to Mars. They could start the ice pack melting in preparation for the arrival of the “98.6 farters”.

  151. Foxfier – Let’s say that I am skeptical of the news article. And, let’s also say that it has zero bearing as to whether global warming is substantiated or not.
    But, you asked about other established theories that have been falsified, and have made scientist’s careers. Jay Gould would be a good example, challenging the current form of the Darwinian theory of evolution with punctuated equilibreum.
    Examples from my field (Physics) abound. We first have Electromagnetism, challenged by Einstein’s Photoelectric theory, an alternate interpretation which was formulated by Bohr into Quantum Theory, which was shown by Dirac to be lacking, and then became Relativistic Quantum Theory, and then Quantum Field Theory, first in the form of Landau’s scalar model, then in Dirac’s own Spinor formalism, then with Feynman and Dyson in QED. But QED, it turned out, failed to predict certain other interactions, and was CP invariant. CP-breaking, contradicting that well-established invariance, was a rogue prediction that was substantiated with Kaon decay and now with D-Bar mixing.
    After about fifteen more changes to the esbalished theory, we have what we expect now, an SU(3)xU(2)xU(1) theory. We are looking for the Higgs boson to finish the theory off, but everyone is praying that it isn’t there. And this, because it will make way for another Yang and Mills, or another Wilson, or another Dyson and Feynman.
    I can’t speak for climatology. But in Physics, people like change. They also like accuracy.
    And, according to every climatologist I know, and every climatologist they know (save a couple rogue professors), and to every peer-reviewed article I can find, Global Warming is the current explanation of the existing data. If you could do a more accurate Fourier Analysis to suggest some sort of extended-cyclic approach, and if you could get it to work out (no one has yet), I am certain someone would publish you.
    Good luck getting funding, though.

  152. Paul, I think it has been made plain that Global Warming is not *necessarily* in dispute, but that Man-Made Global Warming is.
    Global warming is a matter of observable data. Man-Made GW theory is highly disputable.

  153. Tim J:
    If that is the case, then I agree. Global warming is happening. No one really knows who’se causing it yet. (This conclusion I have gathered just by means of other experts; I am no expert at all)
    I was just worried a few posters on here denied global warming as a reality. Now, it’s certainly not sin to do so, but it’s irresponsible, and also it potentially misleads people.

  154. bill912:
    You go ahead and eat leather, Esau. I’ll stick to steaks.
    Ooops!
    My bad!
    I meant: … it is our DUTY to eat as many steaks as possible and make as many leather products…
    Sailorette:
    Actually, get this from the BBC News:
    Tackling UK’s gassy cows problem
    By Angus Crawford
    BBC News
    Number 128 is a jersey cow, she has beautiful brown eyes and cannot resist having a nibble of my microphone.
    She could be producing as much as 500 litres of methane per day.
    There are more than two million more like her across the UK.
    They are the UK’s biggest single source of methane – a gas 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to global warming.
    Cows and bulls can produce 500 litres of methane a day

  155. Examples from my field (Physics) abound…
    [snip about 37 pages of esoteric physics mumbo-jumbo]
    …We are looking for the Higgs boson to finish the theory off, but everyone is praying that it isn’t there.
    Boson? Isn’t that the chocolate drink that got George Constanza in trouble?

  157. Examples from my field (Physics) abound. We first have Electromagnetism, challenged by Einstein’s Photoelectric theory, an alternate interpretation which was formulated by Bohr into Quantum Theory, which was shown by Dirac to be lacking, and then became Relativistic Quantum Theory, and then Quantum Field Theory, first in the form of Landau’s scalar model, then in Dirac’s own Spinor formalism, then with Feynman and Dyson in QED. But QED, it turned out, failed to predict certain other interactions, and was CP invariant. CP-breaking, contradicting that well-established invariance, was a rogue prediction that was substantiated with Kaon decay and now with D-Bar mixing.
    O-kay, so you know esoteric stuff that perhaps the majority of us (save perhaps Augustine) don’t.
    That really helps in convincing us!
    After about fifteen more changes to the esbalished theory, we have what we expect now, an SU(3)xU(2)xU(1) theory. We are looking for the Higgs boson to finish the theory off, but everyone is praying that it isn’t there. And this, because it will make way for another Yang and Mills, or another Wilson, or another Dyson and Feynman.
    More impressive-sounding stuff — though, since the majority of us don’t get all this physics-speak, does it really advance your argument?
    I can’t speak for climatology. But in Physics, people like change. They also like accuracy.
    And, according to every climatologist I know, and every climatologist they know (save a couple rogue professors), and to every peer-reviewed article I can find, Global Warming is the current explanation of the existing data. If you could do a more accurate Fourier Analysis to suggest some sort of extended-cyclic approach, and if you could get it to work out (no one has yet), I am certain someone would publish you.
    Good luck getting funding, though.
    Okay, so you think that for the mere opinion of these folks you know that proclaim GW, we should accept wholesale these conclusions?
    Again, extrapolations on empirical data are only as good as their assumptions!

  158. But, you asked about other established theories that have been falsified, and have made scientist’s careers. Jay Gould would be a good example, challenging the current form of the Darwinian theory of evolution with punctuated equilibreum.
    No, I asked, to rephrase it more simply, for an example of lots of someones being glad their pet theory was gutted, and giving their full support to that.

  159. “Okay, so you think that for the mere opinion of these folks you know that proclaim GW, we should accept wholesale these conclusions?”
    If you want to sound like an intelligent person, unless you happen to be a climatologist, or at least happen to understand their jargon. Where, in a peer-reviewed publication, do we find any denial that global warming is the best explanation? Where do we find a more likely alternative?
    Whether you are actually right or not, unless you can provide a better model for the data than exists, or unless you can point to a better model, no one will listen to you, and you will have lost all credibility among (a) the scientific community and (b) most Americans, who have been filled with a pop-sci and skewed version of the facts by Al Gore.
    It’s just a suggestion, you don’t need to follow it. But if people want to be listened to about the objection about global warming being human caused, then those same people need to stop denying global warming altogether, without sufficient understanding or justification. Else they will get nowhere. Not with me. Certainly not with the scientific community. Likely not with the American People.
    As for the physics jargon, its purpose was only in establishing that many established theories have been shown to be wrong, typically in certain details, and corrected. The larger the correction, the more famous the physicist. New physicists, at least, want there to be large changes.

  160. Esau– Jersey is a dariy breed. That means they live in stock yards– except for the few that are on very, very small farms (less than several hundred cattle) that can be brought in each morning for milking, then put to pasture. (Not like you’re supposed to *know* that, I only know that because I grew up with a mother who has a BS in Ag with a minor in education.)

  161. To Foxfier:
    Thank you for simplifying. I miss the point quite often.
    Now, no one wants their own theory to be dismantled. However, since only very few people’s pet theories are established, and most people’s theories are not, more people want to overturn the existing theory than want to keep the existing theory.
    Typically the existing theories survive because they are more intelligent, because the facts fit them better, often because they are correct. Sometimes, simply because they are more beautiful.
    But existing theories don’t survive for very long on ego alone. Scientists torment each other (Mach and Boltzmann make an excellent example), and try to keep their theories alive, tooth and nail. But ultimately, reality wins out. That’s the beauty of the process.

  162. Paul- problem being that “not long” in science can be really, really long and cause a lot of damage. I am NOT slandering by assoiciation, but eugenics is a good example of a science theory that wasn’t around for long and still caused a huge amount of damage.
    We have a bit of a problem these days because science is becoming popularized– there is the possiblity of world-wide fads. The highly emotional reaction to any questioning of human-caused global warming is like that of someone’s pet theory being threatened than what science is *supposed* to be like.
    To twist an old phrase, politics is the natural state of man…..

  163. It is sad that politics is sunk so deep into this debate, especially since Al Gore, for example, is terrible at supporting what he thinks would be the best change (private jets are not a good idea).
    I have two friends, one a physicist, and one a climatologist, both strong Christians, who sold their cars, and now walk and use public transportation (easier for them, since they work at a University). One is trying to argue me into it.
    And, granted that Global Warming is a reality (I accept it like I accept that Japan exists, though I’ve never seen it), it certainly does not suggest that humans have caused it, that we can do anything about it, or that it is such a bad thing.
    I am probably also colored in my thinking since I have worked for the National Renewable Energy Labs in the past.
    Publication is not affected very much by politics. Funding is. And that will slow the process of really figuring out cause. Possibly, until it becomes obvious that humans are the cause, or until it becomes clear that global warming, in fact, was not the correct explanation.

  164. As for the physics jargon…
    I was just giving you a hard time; I don’t think your use of physics jargon was necessarily inappropriate given the subject, though the inclusion of a gasp! equation pushed the boundaries a bit.
    No harm intended.

  165. Esau– Jersey is a dariy breed. That means they live in stock yards– except for the few that are on very, very small farms (less than several hundred cattle) that can be brought in each morning for milking, then put to pasture. (Not like you’re supposed to *know* that, I only know that because I grew up with a mother who has a BS in Ag with a minor in education.)
    Thanks for the info!
    The only thing I know when it comes to cows presently is:
    cow ‘farts’ = bad
    steak = good
    <=^)

  166. Also (in an attempt to silence the throngs of Seinfeld fans who’ve sent me hundreds of hate emails in the last 20 minutes) — YES, I do realize it’s Bosco, not Boson.

  167. in an attempt to silence the throngs of Seinfeld fans who’ve sent me hundreds of hate emails in the last 20 minutes
    Smoky:
    How can you even claim that people here are sending you these ‘hundreds of hate emails’ when you don’t even list your email address under your name/post?

  168. How can you even claim that people here are sending you these ‘hundreds of hate emails’
    Hyberbole.
    You should try it some time.

  169. Paul,
    My apologies!
    Just visited your website; I now see why you posted as you did!
    Whoa!
    You’re into some heavy stuff!

  172. Hyperbole?
    More like false accusation
    You’re taking seriously what was meant as a joke.
    Sheesh. Who did I accuse?

  174. Hmmm. I get that you’re saying that you were kidding (I think?), but I don’t think your statement quite fits “hyperbole” — which I understand to mean “gross exaggeration for comic effect”.

  175. Also (in an attempt to silence the throngs of Seinfeld fans who’ve sent me hundreds of hate emails in the last 20 minutes) — YES, I do realize it’s Bosco, not Boson.
    Posted by: Smoky Mountain Hiker | Mar 19, 2007 2:20:47 PM

    Likewise, this is not hyperbole.
    But, that’s not relevant to the current topic — GW.

  176. Likewise, this is not hyperbole.
    Of course it is.
    But, that’s not relevant to the current topic
    No, it’s not. 🙂

  177. It would’ve been had one or two folks actually sent you such email.
    In perspective, it rises to ‘false accusation’.
    Again, it’s off-topic.

  178. Vastly remaking our society–as well as perpetuating a whole of lot human poverty and suffering, rather than alleviating it–is a very high price to pay as “a precaution.”
    Father, you’ve put in words exactly what I’ve been increasingly feeling.

  179. So, there is no organized conspiracy to promote human-caused GW, just common interests and groupthink by thousands of scientists who are lying to get funding.
    If ‘cui bono’ ‘who gains?’ is a relevant question, then it could be turned either way depending on your view: climate researchers seeking funding or oil companies and big business seeking profits. I mentioned Voltaire et al as an example of an invalid ‘follow the money’/cui bono allegation.
    Sure, groupthink happens, we all need to be alert to this in ourselves and the groups we regard as our circle/political allies. I suppose we should charitably give and receive such suggestions. A better solution might be to examine the science on its merits without ad hominem.
    In support of my claim that GW has a significant human cause, I mainly cited the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre. Some have claimed that those scientists have deliberately manipulated their models to achieve a particular result – lying rather than groupthink.
    I don’t deny that both sides have used ad hominem arguments, I enquired into whether the ad hominem against the scientific sources of my claims was justified.
    I’ve received an answer to why thousands of scientists claim that recent GW is human caused – they are lying for funding or deceived by groupthink. But what about the political side? who gains there?
    (Bear in mind that there is a general left-right consensus in Europe that GW is human caused.)

  182. Yes, I agree. Perhaps I did not make myself clear.
    I was asking :
    ‘But what about the political side? who gains there?’
    and asking for a viewpoint that accounted for the political consensus in Europe as this issue seems so party-polarised in the US.
    If it helps just ignore the bit in brackets.

  183. Okay, Leo — you’re right — your GW crusaders have NOT benefitted at all from all that capital gained from both political and other such heavy-weight third party factions.
    Again, you’ve yet to pour over the scientific data that was presented by the other side; yet, you claim such allegiance to the GW powerbase that currently controls both the perception and hearts of the populace.
    However, that doesn’t make it correct or factual!
    Mind you, there were hundreds of scientists back in the days that believed protein actually carried genetic data and not DNA!
    The consensus of hundreds of scientists (at least, from what you claim subscribe to human-caused GW) does not dictate scientific fact.
    If you are truly interested in the Science of it all, you would not narrow your point-of-view to just the advocates of human-caused GW, but to their opponents as well.
    Mind you, these are not run-of-the-mill scientists but respectable, prominent figures — many who were members of the IPCC, in fact!

  185. Over the last few years I have taken an interest in this subject. My science background has helped me to understand some of the evidence. I have examined evidence including that which was contrary to my positions at various times; most recently watching the film (twice), reading the transcript of the debate with Critchton et al and evaluating the sceptical sites such as oism. Others here can probably say the same and more.
    I do not claim (and I don’t know anyone who does) that human factors are the only causes of climate change. I would dearly like it to be case that our activities were not having any harmful effect on the climate. I am not a natural follower of any type of fashion – as my wardrobe confirms! Nor am I guilt-racked as my confessor can’t confirm.
    Put simply, I feel that the mainstream hypothesis is closer to the observed data and has greater and more consistent explanatory power. Not just because it is the majority expert view – although that has weighed when I have not had enough knowledge or information to decide. Obviously others have come to different conclusions from the same data.
    I keep referring to the UK Meteorological Office report ‘Climate Change and the Greenhouse Effect’ (Dec 2005)
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/index.htmlreport
    not because it is a sacred text or party manifesto but because it is a good summary with graphs and other research which accounts for a lot of the alternative/’sceptical’explanations. I try not to dismiss scientists who have spent many years studying a subject as ‘liars’ or ‘groupthinkers’ because I disagree with their factual (rather than value-based) conclusions.
    Science proceeds by testing hypotheses/models against observations. Neither majorities nor minorities, the establishment or the heretics make an hypothesis true or false. But until one has done enough research oneself on a complex scientific or medical issue it is rational to rely on those who have studied the subject in depth. That’s why I go to a qualified doctor for treatment, despite the many errors of the medical establishment over the centuries on eg semen/sperm. Jimmy’s expertise on certain matters is why people seek and value his opinion on those matters.
    Like medicine, climatology is not an exact science, we don’t know all the factors and how they interact – we would probably only know beyond a shadow of a doubt if we had 100 identical planets and a few centuries over which to conduct controlled experiments involving the main suspected variables.
    Unfortunately we have limited and imperfect information – as with most practical judgments. Just because one side cannot prove their case with 100% certainty, it does not mean the other side is 100% likely to be correct or 100% incorrect. We have a probability. I, in common with most of the scientists and governments, believe that it is more probable than not that recent GW is caused by human activity. My inexpert quantification of that probability is that I feel about 80% certain it is true. An admission of the scientific uncertainties is not inconsistent with saying the weight of available evidence is more on one side than the other when making a practical judgement.
    A few years ago most GW sceptics denied that the planet was warming. In the face of the evidence most now admit the planet is warming but say it is not significantly due to human activity. Once there was a denial of a CO2 -> temperature relationship now the opposite temperature -> CO2 relationship is posited.
    The most coherent sceptic explanation given on this page for recent warming and increased CO2 is that increased solar absorption has warmed the planet and caused an increase in CO2, some suggest a possible 800 year time lag before warming causes CO2 release.
    Although this may be true of ancient warmings, I do not find this a plausible explanation of recent warming because:
    CO2 levels are now at the highest they have ever been in 650,000 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm
    unlikely if this were caused by a natural cyclic phenomenon manifest in eg the Middle Ages.
    Ice cores and direct measurements reveal that since the end of the last ice age CO2, methane and nitrous oxide levels were relatively stable until the industrial revolution when they increased markedly and continue to rise. This seems too coincidental with industrialization. See graphs on page 3 of ‘IPCC Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers’. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
    What has caused the current unprecedented (650,000 years) levels of CO2? where has it come from? The unprecedented burning of coal, oil and gas? or solar activity releasing CO2? Measurements have been made of the relative ratios of radioactive Carbon14 to stable Carbon12 in tree rings known to be from 1850-1950. The proportion of Carbon14 reduced over that time due to being ‘diluted’ by older Carbon12 probably from coal, oil and gas not ‘newer’ Carbon14 sequestered within the last several thousand years. There is only enough carbon14-carbon12 to allow carbon dating up to about 60,000 years before the present. Note to Young Earthers: this study is not attempting to date the tree rings by carbon14 dating, the dates of the tree rings were determined from documentary and non-radiometric means.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide15.pdf
    I do not find a consistent ‘narrative’ or model within the GW sceptic accounts, which accounts for enough of the observations. Instead, I find the following evidence a ‘better fit’ although not a ‘perfect fit’:
    Significant global warming has been observed since the 1970s – I don’t think anyone challenges this observation any more.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide24.pdf
    Natural factors alone (including the sun and volcanoes) cannot explain recent warming ie models/hypotheses which exclude human activity cannot explain the observations
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide27.pdf
    Recent warming can be simulated when man-made factors are included ie models/hypotheses which add human activity to natural activity explain the observations better.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide28.pdf

  186. Leo-
    I happen to be solidly behind the idea of alternative fuels, driving less and green practices in general, just on theological grounds… waste is a sin, dirtying things up and leaving the mess for others to clean is a sin, taking more than you need and leaving little for others is a sin. Above all, ruining something beautiful when this is unnecessary is not only a sin, but just a shame.
    For all those reasons, I think we shhould be looking at the most environmentally friendly lifestyles we can reasonably manage.
    What I don’t care for, and what I think is more dangerous than this mild uptick in global temperature (which by no means spells imminent disaster), is the panicked stampede toward global treaties that claim authority over the resources and activities of the entire planet, and the benefits of which are not at all clear. This amounts to the creation of a powerful, elite, unelected uber-state.
    I don’t believe that the vast majority of REAL climate scientists (not climate “experts”, whatever that is) are sold on “man-made global warming” and I think many that might doubt it are afraid to say so. That does not make them liars, that just makes them human.
    All I know is what I read and hear. I have not independently polled climate scientists, I have not studied ALL the research, but the sense I have now is that man-made global warming is in no way proven, but one side keeps screaming that the debate is over, insisting that all “reputable” scientists are in agreement. The “disreputable” ones being, by definition, the ones who disagree with them.
    I am not buying it.

  187. Leo:
    Put simply, I feel that the mainstream hypothesis is closer to the observed data and has greater and more consistent explanatory power.
    Please list in elaborate detail the hard evidence for the above statement.
    Again, how can you clam that the mainstream hypothesis is closer to the observed data than any alternate?
    You seem to be more willing to yield to group mentality than to the Science of it all.
    But until one has done enough research oneself on a complex scientific or medical issue it is rational to rely on those who have studied the subject in depth.
    Are you saying here that their opponents have NOT studied the issue in depth?
    Again, aren’t these opponents on human-caused GW also eminent scientists as well?
    We have a probability. I, in common with most of the scientists and governments, believe that it is more probable than not that recent GW is caused by human activity.
    Most scientists?
    You know this how?
    Aren’t a majority of the scientists in the opposition once members of the IPCC, in fact?
    Further, how can you even claim most scientists when the only ones you’re actually listening to are those who hog up the media spotlight and act as harbingers of doom in order to drum up support for their agenda!
    Initially, you seemed to have admirable intentions in that you appeared to desire an interest in the science of it all rather than the mob; but need I mind you that science has nothing to do with the degree of group mentality, the strength of third party backings or even government support, it has all to do with empirical data and the logic that interprets. However, keep also in mind that the LOGIC there is only as good as the assumptions made.

  188. That’s why I go to a qualified doctor for treatment, despite the many errors of the medical establishment over the centuries on eg semen/sperm.
    Unless you’re unusually trusting, you will first go to a general practitioner to find out if anything is wrong– “hey, doc, my knee isn’t bending so well; is that bad?” Then, *if* he says that’s bad, you’ll look into a specialist, and then another specialist for a second opinion, see if an operation is needed, or if you can just change a little– take stairs one at a time, rather than two.
    You won’t go straight to New Knees R Us, tell them that your knee doesn’t bend as well as it did when you were younger and ask them if you should fix it.
    We haven’t even gotten to agreeing that there’s a problem yet– the general practitioner– to figure out if it’s something that will impact how we live. Folks want to skip going to the various specialists and seeing if we can take the steps one at a time– adapt to the changes– and go directly to radical surgery which may or may not work but will be hugely painful in any event.
    In other news….
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1
    Gore’s been challenged to a TV debate– wish he’d take it.

  189. Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
    “Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
    In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
    Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
    Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
    Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
    “For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”
    From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
    Of course, there are the WSJ Op-Eds:
    Don’t Believe the Hype
    Al Gore is wrong. There’s no “consensus” on global warming.
    Will Al Gore Melt?
    If not, why did he chicken out on an interview?

  190. 1.) Anyone who denies global warming is a Republican.
    2.) Republicans are red.
    3.) Some socks are red.
    4.) Boston is home to the Red Sox franchise.
    5.) The Red Sox can never win the World Series due to the curse of the Bambino.
    6.) Babe Ruth caused global warming.
    7.) Babe Ruth is a human.
    Thus, the obvious conclusion:
    Global Warming is human-caused.
    Duh! Try to poke holes in that argument.

  191. Anyone who denies global warming is a Republican.
    Either that or a conspiracy-theorist! ;^)

  193. Didn’t Al Gore invent the Boston Red Sox?
    Yes, which means he’s ultimately responsible for global warming, having personally signed Babe Ruth.
    It makes that whole “Inconvenient Truth” thing so ironic.

  195. Actually, Algore *did* invent the Red Sox, but he called them the Green Sox. The name change occurred when Che Guevera bought them for an unspecified number of Carbon Credits.

  196. It makes that whole “Inconvenient Truth” thing so ironic.
    Smoky:
    Okay, enough of the smearing.
    Let’s not make light of Global Warming.
    Whether or not GW is actually human-caused, there is still the care of the environment that remains amongst our responsibilties as stewards of God’s great green earth.
    Again, I am more than open to hard scientific evidence which supports Gore’s side (and, in fact, examined much of it); however, in light of several of the evidence presented by the actual scientific community that has explored both ends of the spectrum, there is too much of an uncertainty from both sides as to what exactly is the causative agent in all this GW.
    One bet might be a collection of contributing factors that might be resulting in such an occurrence.
    Nevertheless, whether it is or not, it shouldn’t relieve us of our duty to take care of the environment as God had given all this, His Creation, to us as a gift and a responsibility.

  197. Global Warming is caused by humans.
    See, most are forgeting that Nature was created within the Divine Order of the Universe.
    Now sin goes against that Order.
    So Nature takes revenge, only that God stops it.
    But there comes a point where He lets go.
    Like the Great Flood. Like Sodom…
    And we are reaching those limits where God will simply not stand and let His “hold”on Nature go, and it will make justice and reparation for our sins.
    Really close.

  199. Global Warming?
    That has nothing on what is in store for this broken world of ours…

  200. Smoky:
    Okay, enough of the smearing
    Smearing? What’s smearing? I apologize if making a joke bothered you; you did, however, include a link to a picture of a fire-breathing Al Gore, so…
    Whether or not GW is actually human-caused, there is still the care of the environment that remains amongst our responsibilties as stewards of God’s great green earth.
    I completely agree. Where would I hike if the environment were destroyed?

  201. “I was just worried a few posters on here denied global warming as a reality. Now, it’s certainly not sin to do so, but it’s irresponsible, and also it potentially misleads people.”
    Then you’re worried for no reason, Paul. Some of us have noticed that there’s no proof that human activity is the cause of the very slight increase in global temperatures that seems to be happening, but I don’t think any of us have denied that the earth’s climate seems to be a teeny bit warmer now than it was in the very recent past. We’ve also noticed that there’s no proof the earth’s climate will continue to warm, and that there’s no way to predict what the earth’s climate will be in another 50 to 100 years. We’ve also noticed that there’s no reason to believe global warming is a natural evil. Seems to be a mixed bag actually. God send His sun to shine upon the just and the unjust. My counsel is that you get worried about the irresponsibility of misleading people into thinking that we’re experiencing a slow-motion global catastrophe, not about the irresponsibility of noticing that the emperors of the religion of Global-Warmingism are buck naked.

  202. Smearing? What’s smearing? I apologize if making a joke bothered you; you did, however, include a link to a picture of a fire-breathing Al Gore, so…
    Sorry, Smoky —
    When I said: Okay, enough of the smearing.
    That was also meant to include me, brutha! ;^)
    Hope you enjoyed the fire-breathing Al Gore though! <=^)

  203. By the way, when I said smearing, I was only exaggerating since really we didn’t even do any such thing.
    Still, that picture CRACKS me up!

  204. Is Some Day refering to the destruction of countries Mary talked about in Fatima?

  205. It is really sad that regular people and even scientists don’ realize that the study of moleules IS chemistry. Water molecules absorb and releasd hundreds of times more heat energy than carbon dioxide molecules. CO2 never controlled climate, and will never do so in the future. Take the time to look at the numbers… don’t read newspapers and magazines, and for heaven’s sakes, don’t listen to politicians.
    Water molecules are the ONLY molecules in the atmosphere that exist in ALL THREE PHASES, and it is the amount of heat associated with the phases changes that influence climate.
    DO YOU OWN RESEARCH. Parroting headlines will not solve any problems. Taking actions against the wrong target will waste time, money, resources, and cost many lives.

Comments are closed.