Ag Weekly Online: Twin Falls, Idaho

As a plant scientist, I am concerned that Idaho and most states are planning to limit and reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions. This is being done to supposedly reduce global warming. The states are adopting the 1997 Kyoto Climate Treaty which the U.S. Senate rejected 95-0 because it would destroy our economy while exempting developing nations like China which do not control pollution.

CO2 is not a pollutant and is not causing global warming. CO2 is necessary for life on the planet, as plants utilize CO2 to produce the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat! Global warming now and cooling of the 40’s to mid-seventies is caused by solar activity. We have an active sun now! The earth has been warming for 300 years with most of the increase prior to increased CO2 levels.

Also, 279 research project reports have shown that increasing CO2 increases crop production. Higher levels of CO2 is creating a lush environment for plants and animals and will improve the health (more oxygen), longevity and prosperity of all people.

Over 20,000 U.S. scientists have signed a petition opposing man-caused global warming and the benefits of increased CO2 levels, but the mass media totally ignore them. John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, stated that man-caused global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.

The biased United Nation’s panel and Al Gore are promoting a lie to scare us into a U.N. global government. The bottom line is that we need to produce more energy, not less. We have a 300 year U.S. supply of crude oil and unlimited nuclear power. There is no scientific reason to limit CO2 production because it is not causing global warming!

See www.accesstoenergy.com for scientific proof of man-caused global warming hoax & lie and the benefits of extra CO2 to produce more food & fiber. Also see www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com for real service and get the DVD by the same name. Please help expose this hoax.

Comments »

Aady Pitt wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:46 AM:

" Your Dictionary.com citation seems to tell you C02 is a pollutant; and tells me it is not, so we have a gread divide here.

I also read today: "Evolutionary biologist and pale zoologist Susan Crock ford, of Canada's University of Victoria, points out that polar bears have historically flourished when temperatures were warmer than today's." Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really! Redux," National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 610, February 21, 2008.
___________________________
Aady
Addiction Recovery Idaho "

Grog wrote on Apr 14, 2008 4:55 PM:

" In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

* Because the sun is warmer ... and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

* The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

* It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

* It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age.

* How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

* Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

* The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

* The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

* Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

* Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

* What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

* Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

* Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

* In the United States, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

* There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

* Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ice mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

* Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

* Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

* Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

* During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

* Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

* Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?
"

Hoot wrote on Apr 13, 2008 3:38 PM:

" "Global Warming" is something that has been happening for a long time. The temperature of the earth has been increasing more or less continuously since the time of the cave man.

Approximately 18,000 years ago the earth began a gradual process of warming up after more than 100,000 years of ice ages. Much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.

By about 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.

By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.

Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.

From a geological perspective, global warming is the normal state of our accustomed natural world. Technically, we are in an "interglacial phase," or between ice ages. The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when.

Don't panic when you hear global alarmists warning the earth may have warmed almost 1 degree in the last 200 years. Although this still hasn't yet been proven, it is in fact exactly what should be happening if everything is normal.

If Global Warming stops, then you can start worrying! It means our warm interglacial phase is over and we may be heading into another Ice Age!

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:

During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.

The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.

According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Over 95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the greenhouse effect.

The world's natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, has demonstrated this phenomenon very effectively.

In 1989 as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war were winding down, the Union of Concerned Scientists began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists. Only three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology.

President Clinton and others cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10% of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine.

Over 17,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to express their view that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about 5 kilometers up. If global warming is occurring from an increasing greenhouse effect due to CO2 additions by humans the temperature of the middle troposphere should be warming faster than Earth's surface. However, the opposite has been happening-- which suggests either the surface temperature records are in error or natural factors, such as changes in solar activity, may be responsible for the slight rise in surface temperatures (approximately 0.6° C, globally) that appears to have occurred over the past century.

Interestingly, in the 5 years leading up to 2007 the temperature of the mid troposphere has actually decreased slightly and surface temperatures have ceased warming-- even as CO2 concentrations have continued to increase. This should not be happening if CO2 increases to the atmosphere are the primary driver of global warming.

"

beninmv wrote on Apr 2, 2008 3:56 PM:

" Anthony,

I have seen you also post on youtube. First off the belittling goes both ways. More importantly, the skeptic’s tent does include a wide range of characters who are industry shills or driven more by ideology than science. In addition to those who are or claim to be skeptical, are others who say things like "global warming will be beneficial".

Further muddling any legitimate skepticism are think tanks, media sources, blogs, Senator Inhofe (with the help of Mr. Swift Boat himself, Marc Munro), and even the Bush Administration's CEQ who have inundated us with propaganda, talking points and disinformation. Many of their “experts” don’t know what they are talking about or worse, don’t care. John Coleman and Art Horn are two examples.

The skeptical side also is very misleading when quoting legitimate, peer review work. In 2002 when Peter Doran’s work on Antarctic cooling was published in Nature, conservative media, Ann Coulter and Michael Crichton pounced on it misrepresented what the research meant. A similar thing was done to Dr. Kenneth Tapping’s research on solar cycles earlier this year by DailyTech and Investors Business Daily. Martin Durkin totally duped Carl Wunsch in his “documentary”

Finally, legitimate science that challenges the conventional view on AGW does find its way into the scientific debate. Doran’s work is widely accepted and has been used to explore what other factors affect the climate of Antarctica and to further refine models.

Good scientists do not belittle good science.
"

Clint wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:14 PM:

" I wonder how many of the "hoax" croud voted for Bush and still think Iraq was worth it?
Happy sheep falling in line.
Looking for religious leaders to tell them of Science.
Adrian Arp should ask for his money back for the PhD cause he got robbed.
"

Bruce wrote on Mar 15, 2008 11:32 PM:

" How much is one plus one? Is it two? Or should we foolishly call it three? We are taking billions upon billions of barrels of oil, world wide, and converting it to CO2 + H20 and WE are doing it. Not "nature". Scientists have been measuring CO2 saturation in water samples for quite some time now and it is increasing. Now, CO2 DOES in-fact absorb HEAT and our Planet maintains a "balance" of GASES. Do you think that our Planet will automatically increase the percentage of Oxygen ABOVE its “natural percentage” of Oxygen all because CO2 has increased? It better not and why? Because if some of you were educated and not Republican "crap heads" wanting to sell and make millions upon millions of dollars off of oil, at the cost of an entire Planet, you should ALL realize that we would die, if this Planet did not maintain a “balance of Gases”. The percentages of gases do vary upon Atmospheric pressure, etc. but there is a “balance”. The concentration of CO2 is rapidly building up and our Planet is now unable to “balance” it. Our Oceans are becoming saturated with CO2 and this is LOGICALLY why “Global Warming”, due to CO2 build up, is happening NOW! It’s that simple! Yeah, again, how much is one plus one? Is it ten? Or is it two? It’s two not ten!
Why are Oceans so important? Do they produce around 80% of the World’s Oxygen? Yes! Yes, they do! If the Oceans cannot handle this increase of CO2 then it’s PROOF that CO2 is becoming a MAJOR and very dangerous problem for our Planet. Our Planet is a living entity. Yes, it’s alive! It TRIES desperately hard to maintain “balance”.
Sad, but many of us live in a World now where Science, analytical reasoning is dead and the GREAT Washington Politicians are now going to tell us “what” to “blindly” believe. And like retarded fools, we mimic what they tell us and “what” are they really telling us? NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING!
“Wonderful!
"

Anthony wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:25 PM:

" I don't understand why so many people who cry for debates about global warming are the first ones to belittle anyone who says that man may not be the cause of it.

Why isn't there more of an open, honest debate about this topic? Believe it or not, there are many scientists and researchers, who are not in the pocket of Big Oil, who have done great research and said that man is not the cause.

As I wrote in my column, why can't we have an open-minded debate about this without the belittling? In the name of science and for the planet, I think we owe it to ourselves to have one.

timesobserver.blogspot.com "

beninmv wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:05 PM:

" John,

Your opinions seemed formed by blogs that hosted by denialists. There is no scientific evidence that there was a hemispheric or global warming that occurred during Medieval Times. There is some evidence of periodic regional warmings.

You refer to Federal monies promoting research that supports global warming. I've always wondered why the skeptical scientists have backgrounds that many times aren't directly relevant to climate sciences, why they submit so little peer reviewed research, why they are typically paid to speak and why some like Tim Ball and Patrick Michaels fudged their resumes? Also why do the organizations they belong to are so reticent to show where their money comes from? "

Owl wrote on Mar 13, 2008 12:22 PM:

" In the absence of any evidence that stood up, the example of kidnapping good science for power and monetary gains is actually you and the pro-pollutionist camp. It's right up there with your Easter Bunny reference for pitiful analogies.

Your personal distractions continue , and there's yet another strawman claiming you're defending us - from a fictitious 'they have all the answers' and 'they're trying to control the world'.

The galileo gambit is rubbish - your evidence and your arguments are so weak they add support for the GHG contribution to observed heat anomalies and recorded data.

The only evolution to your posts is the final redux of your self-absorption by starting every point with "I".

You never did face the Greenhouse Issue - it was a problem, so again you attempt to dismiss it by diminishing it. Even that's a failure: the whole point of the GHG problem is its growth in concentration and influence.

"

Boxorox wrote on Mar 12, 2008 7:06 PM:

" I am laughing at Owl - He takes offense where none was intended and cannot see where he is being made fun of.

I laugh at greenhouse-gas paranoia - It is not pollution and the planetary greenhouse is not the primary factor in the earth's climate.

I laugh at Al Gore - His hypocracy and scare-mongering are becoming ever more evident for everyone to see. He will eventually become known in history as the Laughing Stock of the early 21st Century.

I laugh at the IPCC - A political body presenting themselves as a bunch of learned scientists who will to control the world by inventing a problem and telling us all how to fix it,if we just do exactly as they dictate.

The perveyors of Global Warming, especially those in positions of influence remind me of the founders of the Geological Society of London at the time of its founding in the early 1800's. The were the intellectual aristocracy of society in the world's most advanced country and wrested control of William Smith's new scientific discipline, ostricized him, stole his ideas, branded Smith's principles as their own, and forced him into debtors' prison for no reason other than because they could twist the science to achieve their own political and power-centric ends. So it is in modern times with Greenhouse Theory and perceived human-caused Global Warming. We have a bunch of Yahoos on our hands who claim to have all the answers and urge us all to follow them blindly. Those of us who know better refuse to follow and will not stop to defend the truth and defy the herd mentality that fosters the growth of this pseudo-science. "

Owl wrote on Mar 12, 2008 1:18 AM:

" Box - You've gone back to the pathetic ad hominems. You haven't defended 'truth in science' - your science doesn't hold up any better than the math reading skills you used. You never faced the issue of the GHG concentration-change consequences, likely because basic greenhouse theory is your obstacle. Your solar-sourced attempts are yesterday's dust.

Your focus on the poster rather than the post underscores the lack of evidence for yours/Arpe's position. While calling on science and truth, you engage in personal sludgery as a deflection tactic.

Yes, human activity is in the business of climate change. It's the next step after ozone-layer damage, watershed sewage, habitat-loss extinction, acid-rain, and smog spread. Your attempt to make it separate, distinct, and excluded, has no scientific support. Quite the opposite, scientific consensus says GHG concentration have a proportional global climate influence.

Your attempt - 'it is clear that humans are not the driving force', revives that ridiculous premise where you want to frame the discussion as cause instead of contribution.

Human contribution to greenhouse climate change, with heat event anomalies, is in progress. The GHG pollution is accelerating and the build-up is faster than the IPCC's worst case (business as usual) projections.

And that, at it's essence, is what this is about - a pollution problem. Smog, acid-rain, DDT consequences - they all eventually were brought under control as waste management. This one is no different, and it will dealt with. The only thing your pro-pollutionist camp is accomplishing with the misinformation and disinformation agenda is increasing the cleanup cost and disruption.

So take your monastic paintbrush and put it away somewhere. Your attempt to throw the 'cave and hossack' answer is another abject failure. "

Owl wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:34 AM:

" John:- Your entry indicates you don't practice what you post (study more history). You've put up blog info.

English 'vintages' were not as well respected - Norman-period Bordeaux imports introduced th variety 'claret' (cellar wine) and it ruled everywhere but at the sacrements. Vineyards are a poor climate proxy - there were more during the 17thc Maunder minimum than the 19thc warming. The largest decline of English wineries was when Henry VIII looted and wrecked the monastaries.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/wine/industry.htm

As for how they're doing now - much more numerous (~50 in Norman England, over 360 now) and spreading northward.

http://www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk/lecture.htm

The northernmost vineyard was actually during the Roman period at the Legion HQ in York. It lasted less than a century with no climate-change signature in its creation or failure.

If you do use English vineyards as the proxy, then there is a massive warming far beyond what the scientists have reported. My guess is you'll abandon the evidence before you'll stop calling them money-grubbers and false forecasters. "

John Gasho wrote on Mar 10, 2008 6:01 PM:

" I am sure glad there are some scientists with some integrity and have not joined the Global warming club, so they would have a chance to get Federal Monies for there projects. I think if people were taught more history and less so called science, it would be evident of the Hoax that the Chicken Little crowd are playing. Back during the Medevil times in Europe the Britsh vineyards were as well respected as the French vineyards. Maybe someone should go and see how well the british vineyards are doing now. I think we should promote global warming, It is allot better than starving to death in the cold. My state of Arizona would love to have a Beach "

Boxorox wrote on Mar 10, 2008 5:47 PM:

" Love my children more than money (???)
You have got to be kidding! Absolutely, my position is not about the oil money. As a federal employee, I certainly have no stake in that. I am here to defend truth in science, since it is taking a serious beating at the hands of the control freaks and fools who follow them down this global warming mystery tour.
Owl wants me to shut up and uses circuitous logic to convince me that I am wrong -- which I am NOT -- and to use fancy phraseology to make other readers get the idea that I am politically motivated and like to pollute -- which I am NOT. So, I will NOT shut up. The truth deserves to be heard and I have nothing to lose but my invested time to post my understanding and what I know to be the truth.
I will agree that humans do much to damage and endanger the environment and we threaten this world in many ways. But I am here to resist the efforts on only a single point: CLIMATE CHANGE. On this single topic, it is clear that humans are not the driving force, we are not the major factors of change and we will do nothing to change the natural trends associated with it whether we devote all our energies to stop it, reverse it, or even to accelerate it.
I have come to the firm belief that Owl is a cynical, anti-social, cave dweller who resents technology, blames industry and business for every ill that befalls this planet and has some dreamy idea that a traditional lifestyle shared by 8 billion earthlings will lead to a wonderful tomorrow that is better without modern conveniences that with them. It won't work. "

Love my children more then money wrote on Mar 9, 2008 1:44 AM:

" Box: Why would u argue against ppl who are doing nothing but trying to help you, our children, and the future of our species? For god sakes if you are a good man and i hope u are, look at what u are trying say: Dont try to cut down on potentially harmful ways of life, because I'm not sure just how bad thet are?
I am certainly no scientist, and my grasp of global warming and why it occurs is definatly not absolute, but i have read enough and seen enough to see clearly that everything we can do to try and slow the process until it can hopefully be reversed is in the best interest of ourselves and more importantly our children.
Nothing is more important then our kids especially not money, which unfortunatly seems to be the driving force behind all arguements that impede the fight and research behind global warming. Oil money to be more accurate. I hope thats not the case 4 u, but i dont see much other alternative as 2 y u would argue so feverishly against these attempts to do as much as we can to help. it may prove to be a massive difference or it may prove to be a small contribution, in either case it is 4 the common good of all.
"

Owl wrote on Mar 6, 2008 5:06 PM:

" Box - More empty rhetoric, you wasted your keyboard. You are fixated on CO2. When I post GHG, you reply CO2. Human activity is affecting the environment,and will have more effects as the GHGs build up. And no, the Arp letter is not about the non-impact of human activity - it's about the benefits of 'the good' CO2 (a position you wasted multiple posts supporting be dealing with its singular case and chemical description).

I didn't state that all human output is pollution - the word byproduct seems to have been lost in your useless response.
Having created your own strawman (again), you proceed to almost win that argument with yourself and go straight back to the soapbox shrill against fictions and ghosts.

You're not a practitioner of science - your math, your parallels, your geology, and even your basic understanding of the solar concepts is lacking.

You haven't faced the issues, and your latest rant would read better if you'd kept it to yourself.

"

Boxorox wrote on Mar 6, 2008 3:43 PM:

" Political Science...
That term must be the biggest oxymoron in the history of the English language and becoming more so everyday.

Owl-Your statements here make the truth of this more evident everytime you hit the keyboard. You take my statements in refutation to your claims and throw them back at me as if they were my position. Pro-pollution is what you accuse me of...fixated on carbon dioxide is not my position, but where you so frequently react against my postion that human activity has very, very little to do with climate change. This is, after all, the basic message in Dr. Arp's letter to the paper--remember??

So you wish to stand on the premise that all human output is pollution...fair enough. To say this is also to state that any output from any biotic form should be equally considered pollution, chief among them: free oxygen. Would you like to do away with O2 as well? That would, of course, provide the ultimate solution to overpopulation, not only of people but of all mammalian and other life. Just what exactly would you like to see happen? As I ponder this, I can only think that you long for a return to the days of yon when all humanity either concealed themselves in caves or sought refuge in the treetops. Can 9 billion people possibly resort to such escapes in the course of the next generation? Would should they? What makes you so intently cynical about our society and people in general that you rant so fervently against everything we do and wish to hold humanity responsible for every perceived ill we can identify?
You make no sense.
As for me, as a learned person who is a practitioner of science, I rely on the known history of earth to know that we as a species are not ruining the planet through our supposed effects on climate, though we really do need to come to terms with resource management and land-use. Real, dirty pollution is a serious problem, but if you mix up this issue with GHG output, you're going to get nowhere.
"

Evil Carbon wrote on Mar 5, 2008 5:05 PM:

" Alarmists beware... EvilCarbon.com "

Owl wrote on Mar 3, 2008 7:49 PM:

" KuhnKat - not sure who the 'us' is, so it's a response to you.
The Geo blog site is an old misinformation source that played games with math and straight fabricated the water vapour effect at 95%. The simplest answer is that the warming changes of the last 30 years is weakest at the equator and strongest at the north pole. Water vapour's influence is strongest at the equator and weakest at the poles. Ironically, the water vapour theory actuals makes a case for a stronger GHG influence.
Best science says before the middle of the 20th century land use changes had a weak, but strongest human, influence on change. Note the IPCC - the warming trend of the last 30 years is the first observable GHG signal.

The DailyTech site is blogstuff getting its supporting data from other blog sites.

NASA's report - "The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Thx for helping get that cleared up.

We are seeing warming. Grabbing on to any cool breeze as disproof goes back to earlier remarks about claiming it's cool in the backyard at night during January. Other natural cycles haven't stopped working, and the chaotic systems of weather don't disappear. Just to save some time don't bother with the '1998 Gambit' it's just plain dishonest:-
http://tinyurl.com/yp7oew

The Gherlich paper was discussed and refuted on the global warming NG last year - it's over my head, but the basics critiqued it was mathmagic, cherry-picked data, and didn't lead to observations matching their theory (starting with the moon) ... and it hasn't gained any traction. However, if serious math-in-a-minefield is your thing, try starting here:- http://tinyurl.com/29u8c9
The OISM scam has already been covered -
here's a picture of three of eight(?) staff:-
http://www.oism.org/oism/faculty.jpg

Icecap is another blog site. Icecap throws the same curves the same way.

Screaming about real scientists and throwing out blog logs is part of the problem.

Box - pro-pollutionist doesn't join to your politics claim very well. Nor does your CO2 fixation - I'm claiming all the human-activity byproducts are pollution. You're the one singling out the "CO2 component". The Daily Tech article attempts to refute AGW and the GH effect without addressing it - typical blog spin.

Not only have your posts been wrong, you've gone back to the original claim after the discussion kills it and moves on.

My position has already been repeatedly stated, so the understanding problem is yours. One last time - human-activity byproducts are producing a massive, growing, and accelerating, pollution problem. This pollution-problem changes the mix of GH gases and contributes to climate disturbance (and other bad outcomes). It will be responded to; there is no practical alternative. The longer the response delay, the greater the economic disruption and the larger the cost.

Just so it's clear, if you're not going to put anything more than your own beliefs up then save your keyboard.

"

this world iz coming to a END !!!!! wrote on Mar 3, 2008 3:19 PM:

" i think global warming is really bad!!!so what i think is we should get off of our lazy butts and try to start doining somthing for the earth and other people that is ahead of us and maybe we will live longer and people try not to litter because if you do you might as well just go and rott in hell and i probally should because i've littered be for and im never doining it again because ever since i saw this thing on youtube aboout global warming i thought i would die cause now i actually know what i did and it was really bad and thats all i have to say peace for ever and ever "

Boxorox wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:26 PM:

" Owl - Funny point you make (I mean funny, hilarious as well as ironic) in calling me and those who side with my thinking as "pro-pollutionists." How political can you get? All the while calling me political, when most clearly I am NOT.

At any rate, you claim that I miss the point about your stance about CO2; you deny that you are fixated on carbon dioxide. On the other hand, you continually harp on how carbon dioxide in your view really is a pollutant and acts as the main force within the planetary greenhouse. You so fiercely make a case for the greenhouse, how I supposedly misunderstand it, yet you pretend to step away from the carbon dioxide aspect of it when I throw it in your face. So, what really is your stance here? What is your bottom line regarding your perception of Human-caused global warming? You seem very hesitant to make that clear, but all too eager to label me a denialist pro-polluter.
The DailyTech article does not address the GHG issue, because the GHGs are non-sequitors where the external effects upon the earth's climate are concerned. Be sure to get this right: The scientists are not out to by intent to prove that changed in carbon dioxide concentration play little or no role in climate change. It just seems to turn out to be the truth as studies of the solar magnetosphere illustrate that changes in the sun's activity overwhelm the gaseous content of our atmosphere.
I have stated nothing incorrect here. You can say that I am wrong, but that does not invalidate what I know to be true. "

KuhnKat wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:03 PM:

"
Owl, please explain the following data to us:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Exactly HOW will reducing MAN's contribution change ANYTHING, assuming the THEORY is actually VALID!!

Also, the cooling from the 40's thru the 70's were bad enough, BUT, CO2 has continued to go up right through it. Now we have the following data:

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

If GGH is such a powerful driver, why aren't we seeing INCREASED RATES OF WARMING INSTEAD OF COOLING???????

Have we not hit the MAGIC NUMBER YET FOR POSITIVE FEEDBACKS?? "

KuhnKat wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:21 PM:

" Please take a look at this paper from 2 German Physicists. It will walk you through the problems with the IPCC view of GreenHouse Gas Theory:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

If you are like me and can't do the math, read through it anyway. They present it very well in english. Most of the concepts are basic chemistry and physics that we learned in High School!!!

Here is another site with over 1000 PHD's in Physical and Environmental Science and over 15,000 other SCIENTISTS who all disagree with the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Theory of Global Warming:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

Another site with very readable presentation of accepted data debunking AGGW:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf

There is SOOO much information out there from REAL SCIENTISTS that the BULL from Gore and the IPCC should be IGNORED!!!

"

Owl wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:59 PM:

" Box - I'm not the one fixated on CO2. You can't even get the groundwork right, can you?

Your attempt to claim scientific support hasn't, and can't, work; the best science today says the buildup of GHG pollution will contribute to global changes. The scientific consensus referred to so often is about more than correlated evidence to prompt a response. You've put up nothing that refutes it, and a grab-bag full of data that mostly fails to even address it.

The DailyTech blog is the latest. It does not even address the GHG issue. If Kenneth Tapping is your science authority, then read his words:-

"It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades."

As Ben noted, the pro-pollution blog machinery gets some short attention span mileage out of it. It's another example of not doing the homework while you look for the answer you want.

And the article is still talking about the same solar cycles. Sunspots is the measuring stick. The radiation flux goes with it. He references the Maunder min century sunspot absence was the yardstick). It even states it - "Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet." It's event speculation, not trend explanation.

Here's the science comparison.
Stanford U Solar Centre graph:-
http://tinyurl.com/2sk83e

So again, you just don't want the greenhouse effect to be true. And the comparison to 'a flood is good because water is healthy' is appropriate when you claim CO2 isn't pollution while ignoring the quantity and location.

As you wrote:- "the carbon dioxide component is not a pollutant."

That's fiction - CFCs are natural elements, and they're also pollutants ripping a hole in the ozone layer.

The GHG buildup is human-driven, unnatural,global contamination of the natural levels of GHGs. The fact that CO2 is a natural element doesn't matter any more than O2 and CFC's occur naturally.
"

beninmv wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:22 AM:

" Box,

The Daily Tech article you reference on solar cooling is a misrepresentation of the views of Kenneth Tapping. Tapping in response to a similar article in Investor's Business Daily said the following:

"If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades."

This is a convenient ploy used by denialists. It reminds me of the articles that have been cirulated regarding the British judge ruling that nine points presented in an "An Inconvenient Truth" were not widely accepted by the scientific community. Many of those articles overlook the fact that the judge allowed the film to be shown to school children because the central thesis of the film was consistent with the great majority of scientifiic research. "

beninmv wrote on Feb 28, 2008 4:49 PM:

" Box,

I assume you are referring to the work of Dr. Kenneth Tapping. Dr. Tapping was misrepresented in this article as well as one in Investors Daily. The common thread in both articles was Dr. Tim Patterson, a member of Friends of Science, an organization that has hacks like Tim Ball and refuse to be upfront about their funding sources.

Dr. Tapping was quoted as follows after the Investors Daily article came out:

"If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades."

Once again the denialists cherry pick the facts to create a lie. "

Boxorox wrote on Feb 28, 2008 12:12 PM:

" Owl - Your fixation on carbon dioxide, which you share with so many others who refuse to look below the covers and find out what the real science is, should embarrass you.

A recent article in DailyTech sheds new light on solar activity that stresses the role of solar performance on our the earth's climate. Be sure: This is not about sun spots. This pertains to the variance of the solar magnet field which is showing the possible early signs of a potential solar minimum. It would be a few years yet before this activity (or lack thereof) would begin to confirm this suspicion, but the point is this: the sun is the major factor in what happens with planetary comet. Sure we should concern ourselves with pollution--REAL pollution that dirties our environment, but the carbon dioxide component is not a pollutant. You tried to make fun of my comparison to floodwater in a previous post by saying my logic was comparable to a fulfillment of a need for water, but you fell on your face in the effort.

Here is the URL to the article I mentioned. It is not long--
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm "

Owl wrote on Feb 28, 2008 1:21 AM:

" Box-As usual your analysis is flawed. The EU works as a group, so comparing small national units is comparable to individual US states. Here's the layout of the perps:- http://tinyurl.com/5g78v

That's the technical issue - the US and China are the key players.

However, my original post laid out the FUD nonsense about Kyoto causing an economic disaster. It hasn't. The American people were played. Arp's letter is typical - nothing is happening and something else is causing it, but we should do more because it will be good.

What is actually going to maximize the economic disruption is response delay - while the pollution problem gets worse. The ozone cleanup has already stretched by 30 years, guess what it will be for CO2 with a half-life of a century or two?

There's no confusion about this - the GHG absolute increase by 2030 is now forecast by the IEA to exceed the IPCC's worst-case scenario. "

Boxorox wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:24 PM:

" Kyoto failed and any follow-on "agreement" to it will be at least equally flawed and prone to disappointment to those who seek multinational solutions. It is a farce that any worldwide treaty that seeks to subvert economic forces to enact an environmental platform, would be designed for the betterment of society and expect positive results. Accords of this nature are nothing be feel-good measure to make the consituents think that their representative have thier best interests in mind and hope to improve the future of the world. It just doesn't work.
By the way, has anybody noticed that the last year has seen the biggest one-year change in worldwide measure average temperature since 1966 -- and it was a cooling?!! Sure, it only represents one year, so it would be a stretch to call it a climatic trend of any kind, but the supposed run-away warming sure doesn't look so solid with that kind of one-year performance. Obviously, there is still no clear picture of what what climate behavior really is. "

beninmv wrote on Feb 27, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Tavis,

What is your basis for thinking the scientists don't have a clue?? Your reference to the 70's cooling predictions, black blankets etc implies that you spend more time absorbing blog fodder then trying to understand the science. "

Owl wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:47 PM:

" Tavis - don't demand fact-checking without doing. Your statement that they all failed miserably is incorrect.

http://tinyurl.com/2dol47

Your statement that almost all increased dramatically is incorrect.

Your attempt to tie their economic performance improvement to flouting Kyoto obligations only applies to Canada.

It still stands that the nation that rejected Kyoto on economic grounds is the worst economic performer in the group and the largest polluter by far in the group.

Btw, your assessment of the science is just as weak as your knowledge of the Kyoto status and your rant at the UN.

"

Boxorox wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:43 PM:

" Agree with tavis -- All but two of the European signatories of Kyoto had their carbon dioxide emission increase since 1990 much more than even the U.S. during the same period. Apparently, sometimes the way to make things worse is to make a formal agreement to enact an improvement.

Interesting that this thread has remained "alive" for three months on the daily 'globalwarminginthenews.com' metasite. We must be entertaining! "

tavis wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:34 AM:

" Owl, you need to check your facts. Yes, some of the Kyoto signatories are economically doing well, but they are not even close to meeting the Kyoto requirements. As a matter of fact they all failed miserably with almost all signatories increasing their CO2 output dramatically, because their economies are doing well. "

tavis wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:30 AM:

" I don't think any of the scientists have a clue to what is causing the warming of the earth. In 20 years they will be crying global cooling just like they were in the 70's. The idots wanted to melt the Polar Ice Cap with black blankets thinking this would help warm things up!! Global warming is just another way for the government and the UN to get their hands on US tax dollars. And the UN has no business handling our money, Case in point Oil for food. "

beninmv wrote on Feb 25, 2008 4:46 PM:

" Thejunkscience web site is proof that Google will let you find websites that are aligned with what you want to believe.

All issues do have multiple viewpoints. However, that does no assure that a particular viewpoint is well based. Junkscience is one of them.

Box....I believe it is time that you give it a rest.

"

Owl wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Greg:- Junkscience is Steve Milloy's soapbox, not a portal to scientific journals. Upgrade to something with real science links in it:-
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Box: Spend an eternity claiming human-sourced boosting of GHGs isn't pollution, but you'll still fail to meet the basic criteria (no consequence).

Your reference to flooding is ridiculous; your arguments are like someone saying the flood is a good thing because we all need water.
Like all lame pro-polluters your latest post has gone back to invalid timeframe comparisons; and to repeating claims of solar/ET factors that have failed to gain scientific traction. Like Arp, it's 'wait and see' ... while the pollution problem grows. "

Gregory wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:19 PM:

" All good issues have multiple view points. Suggest you take a look at this site for a solid scientific analysis of the CO2 question...

www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse

Lots of links to scientific journals, diagrams, etc. to arrive at a conclusion about the impact of increased CO2 on earth's temperature.

As for the oil reserves, the US has oil shale reserves in excess of all the known crude oil reserves in the world....1.2to 1.3 Trillion barrels equivalent The question is how to harvest it. Shell Oil and others are working on prototype processes for extracting the kerogen. There are many articles available on the subject but here's one with good coverage of the topic.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/hl1015.cfm "

Gregory wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:40 AM:

Boxorox wrote on Feb 22, 2008 4:38 AM:

" Carbon dioxide is simply not, repeat NOT, a pollutant. CO2 is a vital component of the atmosphere. Calling CO2 a pollutant just because human activity has raised its levels is like calling the water that floods a town from a dam-break up-river a pollution problem. It just doesn't work. This is the nature of the political frenzy that surrounds this issue. Calling CO2 a pollutant under present conditions is only a ploy to instill a sense of guilt among the public and to invoke action needlessly. If CO2 concentrations were to reach 3000 - 5000 ppm as has been the case at time in the past few million years, then there would be some concern about its role in influencing climate. As it is, we should look at the bigger picture and realize that present variances in our weather in the short-term and possible trends in climate over the longer term are certainly due to other factors. These are the factors which have driven the fluctuations of polar glacial advances. The sun must not be dismissed as the major contributor to climate behavior. How could anyone possible disbelieve that the sun, with its myriad effects on so much in our world, is not also highly influential in rendering changes that can be measure in a few degrees change on the surface of the earth?
Looking to human causality for climate change, as we presently perceive it, is to ignore the macro-perspective of nature. "

Roger Carr wrote on Feb 21, 2008 8:54 PM:

" Owl

Your Dictionary.com quote seems to tell you C02 is a pollutant; and tells me it is not, so we have a gread divide here.

I also read today: "Evolutionary biologist and paleozoologist Susan Crockford, of Canada's University of Victoria, points out that polar bears have historically thrived when temperatures were warmer than today's..." Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really! Redux," National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 610, February 21, 2008.

It's a tall fence we are calling over to each other. "

Owl wrote on Feb 21, 2008 5:51 PM:

" RogerCarr:- Your disbelief in a source of climate disturbance means you deny the greenhouse effect.
Your framework about 'cause' is flawed - the context is contribution.
CO2/CH4/ghgs at artificial, excessive levels is pollution - go argue with Dictionary.com "undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities."
If joining the dots from CO2 properties, to industrial pollution, to climate consequence, is a mystery ... that's your issue.

The statement about transient pollution getting cleaned up as wealth follows is false illusion. It's cleaned up when the danger to health is recognized and the funds are available. You might want to check the Stern Report and the IEA energy forecast before you think the problem with clean itself up.

The GHG buildup by definition will affect the climate, and disrupting the air-conditioning is where the 'global warming' phrase comes from.

Provide good science that the greenhouse effect doesn't work, isn't a function of its elements, and doesn't vary by concentrations. Until then, your 'belief' comes across as another way of claiming the pro-pollution case. "

KENNETH NAUGLE wrote on Feb 21, 2008 12:07 PM:

" There was a poster below who threw out a lot of strange figures about how CO2 is a meaningless contributor. But consider this.

Water Vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect. As temperatures go up, the ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapor goes up. But let's ignore that for now. The statement that man's impact on global CO2 is "just 0.12%" is not borne out by the numbers. Let's look.

From the Mauna Loa, HI measurements, CO2 has increased from ~315 ppm in 1958 to ~380 ppm today. So, in 50 years, the CO2 has increased by 21%. Projections suggest that the actual human effect on CO2 since the mid-1800s is about 35%. Ignoring this, and just looking at the last 50 years, it is clear that 20% of 3.6% (CO2 only) is 0.72%. So if you have a system (Earth) that is in equilibrium, and you increase the greenhouse effect by ~1% (counting increases of other contributors), would you expect to see a change in system average temperatures. I would guess the answer is "yes".

Have we been seeing an increase in "system average" temperatures year-over-year? The answer appears to be "yes". Are we seeing symptoms of that? Let's see, glaciers are retreating, some evidence suggests areas of permafrost are becoming less stable, it appears that the arctic ice cap is receding. There are other less subtle effects, like European grape growers are moving north to find more suitable growing conditions. And, oh yes, the bulk of the temperature data suggests that the Earth is in fact getting warmer.

Bottom line here is that the argument over whether there even is global warming has shifted to whether what we are seeing is human caused. From where I sit, it appears that about 70% of what we are seeing is in fact human caused. "

Roger Carr wrote on Feb 21, 2008 2:01 AM:

" benimv

Your words: "This issue more that just about polar bears, Environmental changes are threatening species all over the world." in many ways encapsulates my thinking. Whereas a warming climate is quite possibly a long term threat to the polar bear, it is equally a threat, I would guess, to myriad other life forms. My second guess is that it will be equally beneficial to many others.

If I believed we could play God with the climate I would be a supporter of holding it steady at a mutually acceptable state (although I am cynical enough to doubt we, the human race, could reach agreement on what this would be). As I do not believe we can play God, then I believe we must learn to swing with the ebb and flow of the way it is.

If we are headed into a new chill period, then we better do our best to have a whole lot of heat available to we humans. If the world begins to heat up again (it seems to have stopped for now), then we should make sure we have plenty of energy for air conditioning. Those two matters being taken care of, we can then worry about the non-human life on Earth; and which to save.

I do not believe man has an influence on the global climate. Pollution of land, air and water has tended to follow mankind's advances; and has then been cleaned up (London smog), or will be cleaned up as our wealth allows; but is not driving "climate"... and let's not mistakenly allow a belief to arise that C02 is either a pollutant or driving the climate.

Deal me the fate of the polar bear is threatened by a warm period (but not by man-made global warming) and I will listen closely (I like the look and sound of those critters). Shout at me that we, mankind, is doing it and I become irritated. My own belief is that the polar bear is safe for a day or two yet... but I certainly acknowledge that something sure did get the dinosaurs; so certainty is not the high road. "

Boxorox wrote on Feb 20, 2008 8:31 AM:

" ThreeFish - I think you've got it all figured out! Wish I coulda said it myself. "

ThreeFish BlueFish wrote on Feb 18, 2008 7:28 AM:

" Next time, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your conversational communications possess a clarified conciseness, a compacted comprehensibleness, coalescent consistency, and a concatenated cogency. Eschew all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations of global warming.

"

beninmv wrote on Feb 17, 2008 12:52 PM:

" Roger,

In come areas of the Arctic, polar bear populations are increasing or at least more detailed studies are being performed to gain a more accurate count of just how many bears there are. Any increase is at least partially due to hunting limitations and greater protection of their food supply (i.e. baby seals). In some areas, the population is decreasing. Where long term detailed studies have been conducted, the population is clearly at risk and shrinking sea ice is a material factor. Further, the health of the population is at risk (survival rates of cubs, less healthy adults) preceded population decline. These indicators are showing up in some of the areas you reference. Assuming the Arctic continues to warm and if proper controls for hunting and protecting their food supply, a dramatic decline in their population is expected.

This issue more that just about polar bears, Environmental changes are threatening species all over the world. The desert is rapidly encroaching upon the higher elevations in Arizona. Shorter cold seasons and warmer weather is allowing noxious plants and insects to encroach north and affect plants and animals indigenous to those areas. The survival of many plants and animals are or will be at risk as well as human populations, particularly those in poorer areas.

I try hard to be open to the issue of global warming. I personally have invested a lot of time in trying to understand the science and the issues. It is complicated and I don’t profess to have handle on it, what make sit extremely difficult are the “experts” out there who are pushing an agenda through spin and pseudo science. Both sides are guilty, but to greatly varying degrees. What I have learned is that many of those who are skeptics are really denialists. Their science is not solid, much less peer reviewed, they continually attack the messengers, and they blog the hell out of the smallest bit of info that can cast doubt. When you look behind the curtain of many of the organizations that question AGW you find many of the same old characters, Fredrick Seitz, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Sallie Baliunas, Timothy Ball, etc. Some of them were involved with a bogus petition, Ball and Michaels have misrepresented their credentials and pretty much all of them have either lied or have refused to disclose who their funding sources are.
"

Ben wrote on Feb 16, 2008 4:26 PM:

" To all those who believe that man can change and/or control the global weather....The sky is falling. Run and hide. Algore contributes more than any one person on this blog. When those who believe in the HOAX of global warming caused by man's activities, then stop contributing. Die. "

Owl wrote on Feb 15, 2008 6:42 PM:

" Roger Carr- In my post of Feb 11, I'd already covered the exception study - the Davis Strait numbers (protected conservation since the 70s), so I don't understand why you're bringing that population back as an anti-AGW example.

Again, the issue is underlying habitat, and the West Hudson Bay population is the first study to note a correlation.

Box - your post said you followed and supported this ET radiation theory. The latest post:- "Again, at risk of repetition, I will rely on Henrik Svensmark work to illustrate that cloud cover, due to variances in the solar magnetic field -- NOT the SOLAR CYCLES!!"

Svensmark wrote:- "the flux of GCR varies with the solar cycle."
http://tinyurl.com/2ln9v5

The latest rebuttal summary:-
http://tinyurl.com/ys32pu

The LF study that showed the breakdown ( earlier posted the Standford study about the data errors): http://tinyurl.com/23fguy

Svensmark's rebuttal was that the LF study dismissed the solar cycle mathematically.
http://tinyurl.com/3cpgap

Your post about 'not the solar cycles' reads DOA. It goes back to my posts about your posts and the homework thing.

No one every posted or claimed that the greenhouse effect was the only factor. Your post is back in strawman mode.

"

Francisco J. Aguilar wrote on Feb 13, 2008 3:50 PM:

" It is remarkable how pseudo scientists divert so much of the media and public attention and energy in to polemics without merit. It is difficult enough to explain in a scientific way weather phenomena and more difficult to prove future time lines/consequences of today's conditions with absolute certainty. However it is possible, based on scientifically obtained data and theoretical knowledge to come to very solid approximations of what to expect in the future.
It seems to me that the nay sayers would tell their wife: I could not fix the roof leak because it is raining now, and then when the sun shines their excuse is, it is not leaking now.
The most benevolent comment I can muster is "Shame on that lazy and uncaring attitude" or a more accurate one:
"Who's interests are you protecting?" "

Aurora Feletti wrote on Feb 13, 2008 2:03 PM:

" Regardless of whether anthropogenic climate change is a fact or a hoax, it CANNOT hurt for us to implement technologies like CFLs and LEDs, solar power, wind power, and hybrid or electric vehicles (if the damn oil overlords would let it happen) to reduce emissions. Smog causes health problems! I disagree with you on the issue of plants needing so much carbon dioxide - they do not need it in the amounts we are expelling. Many studies have proven that initial CO2 concentration can support increased growth of plants but that LONG TERM exposure has a negative effect. While I too question global warming from time to time, since CO2 levels were as high as they are now before, and plenty of life (dinosaurs!) existed even back before that with presumably HIGHER temperatures and concentrations of CO2. However, it's pretty evident that the planet is warming, and as a species dependent on crops, air conditioners, buildings, and transportation, the impacts of the increased temps in the form of droughts, heavier and more frequent storms, and subsequent stresses on energy, urban life, soil, and agriculture (we're already seeing declines in world cereal crops) cannot be ignored. No matter what's causing it, higher temps spell bad news. Yes, it's an experiment - how can we possibly try to calculate the complex interweaving of all that is the planet earth in order to alter what is happening? The only way is to try our best and take action - it's called a positive feedback loop, similar to what the earth is showing us - so let's just try. "

Roger Carr wrote on Feb 13, 2008 1:17 AM:

" Bugged by the condescending doubt thrown on my belief in rising populations of polar bears, I did spend a little time looking around the web, Owl. The following quotes kinda reinforce my belief that the bears are quite safe right now; just as continuing stories of new (and a deal of old) research shows that the science of changing climate is far from "done". Mankind is going to need a lot more muscle yet before it can claim, or be blamed for, remaking the climate in its own image.

"The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s." (Don Martin in Ottawa, National Post Published: Tuesday, March 06, 2007)

"In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today. ... "There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals." (Fred Langan in Toronto and Tom Leonard, 09/03/207)

"Earlier in 2006 I spent some time reading technical reports about the relationship between the decline in the extent of sea ice in the Arctic and polar bear ecology. I was surprised to discover as part of this research that polar bear numbers have actually increased over the last 30 years. ... The more I read the more it became apparent that polar bear researchers were down playing this good news and promoting any finding that could be interpreted as a "decline" in any population of polar bears." (jennifermarohasy.com/blog, January 04, 2007)

"

Roger Carr wrote on Feb 12, 2008 10:52 PM:

" owl: Re your Feb 11 comment. Offhand I cannot supply hard data.
And to your Feb 12 note: Perhaps I am just believing "blog-fodder". I accept that as I am not prepared to make the time to research for hard data I leave myself open to that charge. Despite that, I continue to believe, from all I have read from both camps, that the polar bear is in no danger of extinction. But then, I do not believe man has anything much at all to do with changing climate, either, so I am probably a lost cause in your book.

beninmv: No; I was not referencing a particular study.

I'll keep reading y'all with interest.
"

Boxorox wrote on Feb 12, 2008 6:51 PM:

" Owl- You appear to be in desperation to support your claim that I am wrong. Again, you just say I'm wrong and that my citings of science are faulty. However, an examination of the sources will reveal that the greenhouse of Earth is only a piece of the puzzle that supports our climate.

Again, at risk of repetition, I will rely on Henrik Svensmark work to illustrate that cloud cover, due to variances in the solar magnetic field -- NOT the SOLAR CYCLES!! - are at the heart of the matter and determine the warming and cooling of world to a large, if not major extent:
Consult the Proceedings of the Royal Society (Denmark) wherein findings by Svensmark and Marsh et al, are published (April 2007) which describe nucleation under atmospheric effects. Bear in mind, this is a case where an alternate theory of climate change forcing is described. This work was not conducted in an effort to debunk greenhouse theory or the influence of increasing carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Svensmark and Marsh say as much, almost apologetically that their work has the potential to show conclusively that carbon dioxide is likely not the driver behind global warming.
"

owl wrote on Feb 12, 2008 2:46 PM:

" Ben: That economic-motivated report (the West Hudson Bay initiative) appears to be the work you're referencing - Roger's post says:- "Their numbers are growing quite rapidly in almost all of their colonies.", and that looks like blog-fodder. Either that, or he's misinterpretted the picture of the Greenpeace Bali Bears on his wall ... "

Owl wrote on Feb 12, 2008 2:37 PM:

" Box - Yes, from your rant about 'social engineering' to your vent about 'CO2 is not a pollutant' ... you're in favour of the current paradigm - which is polluting the atmosphere.

None of your supposed science has stood up. None of your posts has clearly addressed the issue or responded to the challenges from other posters. Your latest post has this 'time will tell' thing again. Waiting for the greenhouse to change the way it works appears to be your best chance.

Your second paragraph is a repeat of a previous post by you. That wasn't a Senate report - it was a collection of names by a Republican Senator based on his criteria (not them volunarily coming forward). As already posted, remove the duplicates and it reduces to about two hundred and 50; from there it's a grab-bag of anyone who ever had any beef of any kind with AGW, the IPCC, or media misrepresentation,(etc.) - it's not a compendum of AGW sceptics.

It was posted and refuted previously, yet you try your original swing at it again. That is sad. Your reference to the Easter Bunny is bizarre.

Your posts don't defend the truth or a promote good science. The dismissive 'time will tell' phrase illustrates just how badly you don't get it Arp's letter has a similar theme: 'you'll see, it's good for you.' ... well, a 40% increase hasn't produced any of this lush world from global CO2 fertilization; Kyoto signatories are economically outperforming the non-signatories; and the low-ebb of solar cycles haven't producing cooling trends like they used to ... how bad, how soon, and how long, is what 'time will tell.'

"

beninmv wrote on Feb 12, 2008 2:16 PM:

" Roger Carr may be referencing a study commissioned by the Inuit Tribe. The population may have increased because in this region they are licensed to kill six bears a year and they are banned from hunting for Harp seal pups, a major food supply for Polar Bears. More food, more Bears. Without these controls, Bears population would probably decline.

The Inuits want to be able to kill more Bears, so having a study that suports their case only helps. "

Travis wrote on Feb 12, 2008 10:59 AM:

" I suggest we all buy a lot of canned goods we're going to need them. "

Boxorox wrote on Feb 12, 2008 5:31 AM:

" Owl - So, I'm "pro-pollution" eh? Why in the world would you say that? What have ever said that would lead you to draw that conclusion? This is clearly an example of your silly attempt to paint me as something other than what I am, and to refute falsely what I have stated, by characterizing my facts as irrelevant or false. Nothing of what I have stated is false. If you wish to consider them as irrelevent, that is fine; time will determine who is right or wrong on these matters.
Don't forget that there was a lengthy Senate report issued not long ago detailing 400 specialists in science who have come forward to make it clear that AGW is bunk or at least certainly less than what is being reported in the popular press. This is not just a handful and they're not out trying to change the world. They just want to make sure that the truth is preserved. It's important to do this, but you can't make a career out of trying to prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. "

Owl wrote on Feb 11, 2008 4:06 PM:

" Roger Carr: Please provide data to support the claims that the polar bear issue "has been debunked so conclusively?" and
"Their numbers are growing quite rapidly in almost all of their colonies. "

The West Hudson Bay population has hard data - 22% decline in 20 years. The Beaufort Sea population isn't quantified, but shows the same pattern of cub mortality that began the Hudson Bay Study.
The IUCN Seattle Report of 2005 stated "of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five are declining, five are stable, two are increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision."
Reports of increasing numbers are mostly anectodal - visual contact with more polar bears encroaching on human habitats. The recovery of the Davis Straits population was due to 30 years of protection ... and lots more seals to eat.

The issue is loss of habitat, not today's attendance-taking. "

Owl wrote on Feb 11, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Box - Your errors are what they are. You can classify me as anything you want. Like your re-invention of the greenhouse theory, it's irrelevant.
The phrase was 'liberal hype' - more of your diversion to politics.
The Danes funding research into understanding clouds is good thing. You pretending it explains the warming or dismisses GHG contributions is a bad thing - another lame distraction. It's tiresome; go tell Stanford U they're wrong:
http://tinyurl.com/2bxnbc
Add the Royal Society to your hitlist: http://tinyurl.com/34wsj4
Don't leave NASA's decade-old rejection: http://tinyurl.com/2hmmap
If your attitude hasn't run out of gas, add American Geophysical Union to your "liberal hype" conspiracy:
http://tinyurl.com/2jkvtm

Your comment about following the research is suspect. This stuff has been whack-a-mole everywhere but on blogs since the day before forever-ago.

You keep claiming science, and defending science, while you throw suff at the wall to see if it sticks:- false comparisons, unsupported or refuted claims, timeframe problems, and just plain basic factual pro-pollution errors.
Seems requests from multiple posters to let go of the politics doesn't work, so here's one back - your posts are humiliating embarassments to decent conservative people and principles.
"

beninmv wrote on Feb 11, 2008 8:55 AM:

" Jim,

Your post goes straight to the heart of the issue with denialists. I have obviously proved my laymanship here, but you do not have to be a climatoligist to know the science put forth by denialists is many times out of context or misleading. If the science against AGW was so complelling, there would be more than a handful scientists, who publicly speak out against it, those scientists would have a substantial body of peer reviewed work, they would have more political support other than an idiot like James Inhofe, the White House would not have set up a department of industry hacks to spread disinformation, and TV personalities other than the likes or Glenn Beck, John Stossel or Marty Durkin would be making the case against AGW. "

Boxorox wrote on Feb 11, 2008 6:52 AM:

" Jim B - I read your comments with interest and was inspired to reply rationally to your question and proposal, until I came to your closing statement to: "please spare us the Political conspiracy theories."
Your accusation completely zaps any motivation to reply in a civil manner directly to what you stated. Not everybody is a layman. There must be experts in related specialties around here somewhere and they might even choose to post comments to threads like this one. Doing so as an enormous relief after feeling the constant pressure to stick to a party line in official communication or to adhere to the dry, clinical objectivity that dominates the community of scientific exchange. Perhaps you should realize that a number of people who know they're talking about can come to a forum such as this and say things LIKE THEY REALLY ARE.
"

Boxorox wrote on Feb 11, 2008 6:46 AM:

" Owl - It has puzzled me since the thread began why you have so much animosity at my posts. You claim that my science is wrong and that my relation of current events to history is wrong. If you really think that I am inaccurate to any significant degree in what I have said, then I would have to class you as one of those who wish to rewrite history in order to advance the present agenda. But wait a minute! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by revealing that I suspect you believe that I am writing here in direct support of the title of the original article. What I have not made clear, I am sure, is that I do NOT believe that global warming is a hoax.
Now, you said again that I have added "insulting slaner" in my latest post, but I really thought that liberals LIKE being called liberals!? What's the problem here, Owl? Is the truth hurting - again?
You react strongly to my citation of the scientific investigation into solar magnetic flux--what you cynically call ET irradiation theories. Well the research continues. The ESA is providing funding for the Danes to continue their research. Sometime next year, their SKY experiments are scheduled to begin, since the CLOUD experiments did demonstration plausibility for the cosmic-ray connection that spawns low-level cloud influences on heat retention. If what you said about my understanding of the planetary greenhouse were correct, then be sure that I wouldn't have been able to follow, understand and support the research that is going on in this area.
Again your efforts to discredit me, even make me look foolish, have fallen flat. While I rely on science and offer examples, you repeatedly claim I offer none and provide none of your own. That's a rather shallow way to conduct a discussion.
My motive for posting is: 49% to retaliate against the politicization of science (which I begin to realize can easily be seen as a political action--can't help that); 51% to defend truth in science while science presently undergoes so much distortion and the public is under a barrage of misinformation and misleading statements posing as facts which can lead not only to poor understanding of the situation with global warming, but to making poor and damaging decisions about what to do about it. "

Roger Carr wrote on Feb 11, 2008 1:56 AM:

" Spunkloaf wrote on Feb 9, 2008 12:47 PM:
"Why are the polar bears dying?"

I was reading you with a (somewhat forced, I admit) suspension of disbelief until I hit the dying polar bears.
Is this just a momentary memory lapse (this story was very big for a while), or do you seriously stand by what has been debunked so conclusively?

Their numbers are growing quite rapidly in almost all of their colonies. "

Mike wrote on Feb 10, 2008 6:10 PM:

" Look, I respect the point, however, If you look at the Scientific Data that has been uncovered, you can see that yes, there has always been CO2 in the Earths atmosphere and plants have survived without us spewing more into the atmosphere.
As far back as scientists can record through collection of ice cores there has never been more than 280 parts per million of CO2, never, hundereds of thousands of years. Never more.
Now, we have 320 parts per million. An increase in CO2 has always corresponded with warming and a decrease with cooling. We have never seen it go above 280 until...The industrial revolution when, we saw it start to rise, because what did humans start burning around 1900? Fossil Fuels. This botanist, is a joke and I would like to see names of the 20,000 scientists shes talking about and how much the Bush administration paid them off. "

Jim B wrote on Feb 9, 2008 6:20 PM:

" Box,... Many posts back I commented that I am a layman on this topic. Clearly everyone who have posted are also laymen on this topic including the author of this silly letter and even his references. Yet we insist on pretending.

Your comments on irradiance and albedo (I topic which I am not a layman) caught my interest. Certainly there are natural changes that drive the climate. The question is, does your claim of albedo change correlate with climate changes and does it do so in the proper time frame? The biggest claim for AGW is the strong correlations in time. (basic cause and effect) The idea that irradiance from the sun or changes in albedo do not correlate in our short time frame. I'll suggest this documentary on NOVA: "Dimming the Sun", which presents a case completely out of phase with your suggestions. You can find this online at the NOVA website. And please spare us the Political conspiracy theories.
"

Spunkloaf wrote on Feb 9, 2008 12:47 PM:

" (Forget) Politics. (Forget) political and personal motives. Those of you who claim climate change isn't happening, isn't imminent or that it is not a cause of our overpopulation and carelessness, send me a link to a verifiable source that proves it. For every one you provide, I can send you ten that disprove your theory.
The climate in my own state is changing. Winters are getting less predictable. Last year was one of the warmest on record, and this year had some of the coldest temperatures on record. Why now, and not 100 years ago? Why are lakes drying up that have been around for thousands of years? Why are the ice caps melting? Why are the glaciers retreating? Why is Greenland a pool? Why are species dying more rapidly? Why are species migrating to cooler parts of the planet where they were never seen before? Why are the polar bears dying? What about these huge hurricanes and tsunamis that have grown rapidly in size and number? What about numerous tornadoes and severe storms in JANUARY? WHY NOW? What more evidence do you need? SOMETHING is happening, and you have to be stubborn or stupid not to see it.
Also, what do people gain from claiming that we have to do something? NOTHING. So why do we do it? BECAUSE WE CARE. So tell me why I should stop trying to raise awareness. Please, because if I can find any evidence that this isn't happening, I would feel much better, and I could relax. All I see are biased statements from right-wing anti-terrorist conservatives who would rather give up their right of privacy to fight inner-America terrorism, which doesn't exist. They do that instead of finding ways to reduce their energy useage AND THEIR ENERGY BILL. Why? If you want to pay more to the energy companies, then let us handle the battle against energy usage and you can send them a donation if it makes you feel better.
I hate politics, and I don't vote. Maybe I should, but this issue will definitely influence my decision. So far, Obama has my vote. I don't care about black or white, man or woman. I think it's cool we got some different skin in the race. Maybe something will happen for the better, finally. I'd rather vote climate-oriented than faith-oriented. Religious ideology only makes this country worse, because it p_____ people off.
So, as I said--show me hard evidence against the stuff I said. Maybe I'll shut up, maybe I'll laugh. "

tominator wrote on Feb 8, 2008 1:35 PM:

" Go boxorox! Boo Owl! "

Owl wrote on Feb 8, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Box - you contradict yourself again. You say you're the science, and explain your motivation as fighting the political agenda. My reference to the 'social engineering' is right out of your post.
I don't care if you shut up or not.
I've provided the science, you've provided the comedy.
There's that insulting slander again - "the typical liberal hyped...".
No one has denied natural climate change. You don't know the difference.
I try to save wasted time on the ET radiation theory ... and you go to it like a large mouth bass. Their errors reduced the fit, and their work has not stood up to scrutiny (DamontLaut2004). The current plateau of record global temperatures is taking place during a sun cycle minimum. On top of that, there's no long-term trend-change to either the solar cycle or the radiation flux. It's a dead issue just about anywhere except on blogs and among the authors. The AGU tudy of 2005 found no significant change in global cloud cover over the last 30 years.
You still insist on parading your lack of knowledge about the greenhouse effect. You're right back to the temperature (fudged in your post as 'climate') drives CO2. Time to get a grip on AGW - an unnatural condition where pollution GHGs are force-fed into the environment.
One last time - your repeated claim that "the AGW proponents claim is due completely to increased CO2 content" is wrong, garbage, and stupid. Stop embarassing yourself with it. Do some homework.

"

beninmv wrote on Feb 8, 2008 8:45 AM:

" Adjusting for weather stations that are ipacted by the urban heat island effect still indicates warming is occurring. Scientists have acknowledged this problem and dealt with it. Comments like this are favs of the denialist blogs, conservative "think tankers" and a certain idiotic Senator in Washington.

There is a very significant consensus among scientists on AGW. There is still a lot to be learned, but the vast majority of scientists have moved well beyond calling it "hogwash". "

Boxorox wrote on Feb 8, 2008 7:23 AM:

" Owl - You should look in a mirror and read your posts to yourself. You say that my inability to read is getting silly then you throw accusations at me that are much more appropriately applied to yourself. There is not a single thread of politicization or social commentary in what I have stated. I am motivated to write about this topic because of the alarm I feel at the politics which so widely drive the campaign behind AGW. For you to point the finger at me as part of the problem is not only silly (to use your words), but outrageous and only highlights the motives behind your reactions to what I say.
Obviously, since you offer no science to challenge my scientific statements on the matter, you hope fervently to shut me up by saying nutty things about my reading ability, the supposed falseness of my science or the irrelevance of the natural history which is well documented. You practice the typical liberal hyped, tactics of cast aspersions on your opponents when they are really your own attributes.
Just to be sure: Climate change is natural. Climate change is not new. Climate is driven by solar irradiance, greenhouse capture of surface heating by the sun moderated by planetary albedo as a function of surface reflectivity due to: cloud cover, ice coverage, land and sea coloration. Solar irradiance varies over time due to many factors, all of them completely beyond the realm of human influence. Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark has made it very clear that solar magnetic fields flux has a great deal to do with changes in the amount of comic ray inflow to our planet which has direct influence on low-level widespread cloudcover. This change in cloudcover can easily account for the amount of heat-trapping change which the AGW proponents claim is due completely to increased CO2 content of the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide aspect is a result of the climate change, not the driving force. It is so obvious to see, only those who wish to change our world (for the sake of political control) can refuse to accept it. "

Brady Mann wrote on Feb 8, 2008 1:02 AM:

" For all the haters
So, global warming is a hoax.Really? We have all heard the facts of how temperatures have been rising for the last 300 years and this is all just part of the way the world works. CO2 does help the environment and all plants need it, but there is a thing as dangerous levels of CO2, people get sick from too much pollution and I do not believe that if we just keep polluting that crops are going to thrive off of the high levels of CO2. I do not know where some of this info comes from, there is not enough oil for 300 years. The rate we are using it at now it will barely last 100. Endless amounts of Nuclear? Are you crazy. We will not have any clean water left, where is all the waste going? By trying to keep our economy strong and exploiting all of our fossil fuels we are just digging a bigger hole for the economy to try to climb out of when all other countries change over to renewable resources and the States is still stuck burniing coal and drilling wells for oil. The whole global warming thing is not just to scare people into doing what is right for the environment it is that there is such a thing as we like to call the FUTURE. I am sure that most of these scientists do not have kids or are disownwed by them because of their beliefs but by keeping things the same as they are now will only limit resources for the future and our grandchildren. There will be no oil or gas left because if people start to believe this side of the story they will not stop using them. Hey technology is not reliant on oil and gas. We have the ability to create cleaner forms of energy. There will not be the same quality of life then because there will not be as diverse a population of species on the planet. No one will use the most obvious energy there is on the earth which is solar,by the way solar is the way of the future for the economy of the States believe it or not. The government will not have to take over other countries in order to take their sunshine away from them. There is unlimited amounts of sunshine and it comes back everyday. So remember that just because you believe that there is no such thing as global warming does not mean that we have to stop looking into our future to create something better for our grandchildren than what we had. By following your ways that pollution is good there are going to be major health problems within the world and resources will run dry. If the Government decides to take your side on this issue (god help us all) then I hope that for our sakes Mother Nature takes her course and creates a new ice age or melts the icecaps right away so we do not have to see or live in a world that you guys have created. "

Owl wrote on Feb 7, 2008 12:38 PM:

" Box - Your inability to read is getting silly - i's you that deflects AGW to a social and political. It's me that refers to the science. You're the one with the finger-pointing and blame-game stuff - the social-enginerring consipiracy nonsense. AGW is science; your posts have repeatedly demonstrated that you 'didn't do your homework' and you throw irrelevant generalizations full of errors out as 'facts'. You translate a small number as a small problem (use a different scale, the same problem would be bigger? ... what nonsense). You got the CO2 chemistry wrong, and now you get the anomaly wrong. You swing from admitting it but it's natural and the consequence of 100s of years, and when that doesn't fly you say there is no problem and it's data/observation errors. Rubbish. Just to save time, it's not ET radiation, or the whole solar system heating up either.
You're right back to square 1 with the data errors and urban heat islands - they've both been debunked. The actual two largest corrections (UAH satellite data, and Argosy sea buoy system) both added more support to AGW. Trying to revive this scam at this point is ... blogwash.

Your inadquate reply about consensus indicates you didn't get off your lazy chair and check it out - your post again shows you don't know what it is.

You are a denier, a pro-pollutionist, and a charlatan for claiming your arguments bring science to the discussion. "

Boxorox wrote on Feb 7, 2008 5:35 AM:

" Owl - You look at climate and its change over recent years as a social issue and that is fine. I approach the situation as a scientist, looking at the causes and effects over extended time and that is fine too. I am not looking at the change that takes place in the world and trying desperately to find someone to blame for it or to cause a panic. It is the misinterpretation of natural behavior that is not only a cause for public misinformation but is the root of most of our religions as well. I have complete disdain for such practices and that is what motivates me to poke holes in the AGW cause. The AGW campaign has little basis in solid science. Yes, it has plausibility on scientific principles, but it does not stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Just because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas does not mean that a seemingly impressive 35-percent increase of the stuff in our atmosphere accounts for a significant portion of what is really a minor increase in global temperatures. At the risk of sounding like a denier, the increase of global temperature is still rather uncertain. Much of what is reported as higher temperatures over the decades comes from weather reporting stations which are improperly located or are situated what urban and suburban encroachment have not been accounted for. For that matter, just what is an "average global temperature?" We don't have the means yet to determine what that truly is.
Scientific consensus is hogwash, as I stated before. The community has little respect for such a thing. Scientific truth is not determined by democratic means. This should be obvious to anybody who spends a little bit of time thinking about it. "

beninmv wrote on Feb 6, 2008 12:33 PM:

" You dismiss CO2 (0.035% of the atmosphere) as a trace gas in our atmosphere yet you indicate that methane is a far more troublesome greenhouse gas (true!!). Yet methane is 0.0002% of the atmosphere. Ozone is 0.000004% of the atmosephere, but it sure seems to have an impact.

While methane is considerably more powerful than C02, it is far less abundant in the atmospehere, While Methane concentration has almost doubled the since the 1750s, the growth rate has slowed over the past 20+/- years. However, as the earth continues to warm, we will see an increase in methane as the permafrost melts and releases methane. "

Owl wrote on Feb 6, 2008 12:09 PM:

" Box - Your post does deny the greenhouse effect. The claim that a 35% increase in the most common and persistant GHG is trivial - highlights your denial.
The distraction with thermal momentum is another example of not getting it. It's a 'so-what' that doesn't explain the anomaly. There's nothing new and special about water properties - there is something very new about global temperature patterns and climate disturbances.

Your claim that I have ever used the quote "overwhelming majority of scientists" again flags your inability to read. Btw-you should learn what the term 'scientific consensus' in relationship to AGW really means. Your re-definition is ... creative at best, but still wrong and irrelevant.

Yes, Box, massive increases in an industrial by-product that can disturb climate patterns is pollution. You don't get - comparing it to methane (measured in parts per billion, staying power of decade), and water vapour (no staying power at all), is trying to evade the problem by dividing it up into smaller parts. All of these components, and more, are part of the issue.

The statement that other pollution efforts have been sacrificed is rubbish.
That's another attempt to twist the enhanced greenhouse effect problem into an agenda conspiracy.

Your posts have run around throwing generalizations (geologists are good guys), distractions (thermal momentum), and clearly contradictory claims (byproduct-CO2 is not pollution), into the mix. The challenge remains - provide evidence that the greenhouse effect doesn't work and doesn't matter.
You wont because you can't. Your pretense of acceptance shows your position to be flimsy and weak.

AGW exists, and it's a pollution problem. The real issues on the table remains the same:
How bad will it get?
How fast will it get bad?
How long will it remain bad?

The issue of cleanup, in the long run, is unavoidable. The pro-polluters are only making the cost and economic disruption worse with the delays. The major polluters will be held accountable for their avoidance and delay.
"

Boxorox wrote on Feb 6, 2008 8:08 AM:

" Owl - Your political colors are shining through with brilliance. I have not denied that the greenhouse effect exists. I do not deny that CO2 has increased. What I state is that a 35 percent increase is trivial. It's almost the same as saying that twice nothing is still nothing. We're talking about a minor fraction of 1 percent component content of a trace gas in our atmosphere.
You speak of my "geology nonsense" but that in itself is a denial to say such a thing. Geologists are probably the best equipped scientific practioners around, on a general level, to see what is happening here. Glaciation is a slow process. The ice caps, sea ice and alpine glaciers do not make overnight moves based on the previous conditions and changes from the previous days. Have you ever heard of the term 'Thermal Momentum?' Before you jump out and say 'That's irrelevent!' I suggest you look it up--and please don't resort to Wikipedia--and find out that water in all its states resists temperature changes. This means that this century's temperature changes are due to effects imposed in large part by influences that happened over decades and centuries before.
You repeated rely and cite the "overwhelming majority of scientists" who side with the idea that carbon dioxide causes global warming, but that is just a not-so-veiled way of proclaiming the absurd consensus. Consensus has meaning when it comes to diagnosing something (an existing condition) or to explain an event of the past, but it is useless in prognosing coming events, especially when it comes to describing untestable theories.
I begin to laugh at your desperate attempts to discredit my position and how I present it. You offer nothing to advance this discussion except anger and distracting emotional reaction. Where exactly are the "insulting slanders" which seem to offend you so much?
One final note: Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is an inert, vital gaseous component of our atmosphere which does play a role as a greenhouse gas, but pales by comparison to methane and especially water vapor. The environmental movement to protect our world from the dangers of real pollution is being sacrificed due to the ridiculous focus on global warming. "

Owl wrote on Feb 5, 2008 2:35 PM:

" Box: 'a touch of added carbon dioxide'? Try +35%. Other GHGs more. Show real science that says this won't/can't make any difference. Get off your cracked soap-box and deliver real science that says enhancing the GHGs won't enhance the greenhouse effect. You claim to know greenhouse effect ... and then deny it.

The insulting slanders seem to be the source of your continued enjoyment - they continue to permeate your responses.

Your silly logic - framing this so human's can't have this effect (the ozone hole shreds your argument). Again, nature doesn't care where the CO2 originates - and this time it's human industrial activity.

More silly logic - cause versus contribution. You screwed up deglaciation, and current AGW, trying leverage that angle.

Another compression error - averaging the next two hundred thousand years to minimize the temperature 'spike'. It's as silly as the geology nonsense.

You are a denier. You are a pro-pollution defender. Claims to the contrary, you don't know the science. You're not defending rights, liberties, or freedoms - you're the one try to turn a pollution problem into a social or political scam.

"

beninmv wrote on Feb 5, 2008 11:40 AM:

" AW shcuks I had to come back once more.

Boxorox, all of your posts deal with broad statements and your comments about how inconsequential human activity has on the planet sound more like talking points than science.

No one knows exactly to what degree human activity has on global warming. The large majority of scientists and their peer reviewed work indicates that it is material. China and India are rapidly industrializing and their carbon footprints will dwarf other countries.

Your ending sentence about how you have better things to do than to listen to non sensical rants reminds me of Bobby Knight annoucing his retirement and wanting to go out on his terms. Bobby really isn't going out on his own terms since he is no longer relelvant as a basketball coach. He chose to live in the past, refuse to have his teams adapt to zone defenses and to treat people like he was the ultimate authority and you are an idiot to think otherwise. No Bobby, isn't leaving on his own terms, it just that he doesn't know it or can't admit to it. "

tominator wrote on Feb 4, 2008 2:08 PM:

" I agree with mary soll, and LOL. they know what their talking about. Global warming is all B.S. and I think that Owl dosen't know what he's talking about. "

Father wrote on Feb 4, 2008 12:59 PM:

" The Church of global warming has you.
www.churchofglobalwarming.com

All those who don't believe, repent your evil ways and buy carbon credits! "

Boxorox wrote on Feb 4, 2008 3:47 AM:

" Yes, the disussion continues to run its course and is far from over. Unfortunately, the discussion will continue in this manner until such time, probably decades in the future, when nature will demonstrate all too clearly that our presence does not matter much at all. The greenhouse effect is easy to understand. About that there is no question. What is doubtful about it is that a touch of added carbon dioxide really makes much difference.
It is easy for the unindoctrinated to look at present conditions and trends and think, 'Wow, look how powerful we are,' but the problem here is that, just because we see something going on doesn't not at all mean we are the cause of it. There is a fundamental failure here to understand cause-and-effect relationships in this campaign against human-caused global warming. Look at this from a different angle: While we see that present CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere appear to be exceptionally high, and mostly likely due to human activity, we cannot look at the past few hundred thousand years and say, "this has never happened before." The reason this may be true is that, if we project forward a few thousand years and look back on present conditions, it would be almost certainly true that today's "spike" in CO2 and possibly accompanying temperature rises would be all but undetectable. Seen through the filter of distant time, these blips in the record are meaningless.
I am no denier, just a realist who knows the science. There are many of us and most of us have better things to do that spend early-morning hours responding to nonsensical anti-social rants about the negativity of humanity. I find it fun. It is amazing what the public can be led to believe if they hear a claim, no matter how unfounded it is. "

Richard wrote on Feb 3, 2008 1:21 PM:

" WHO CARES if it is man made or natural people! Stop spending time and money on arguing if global warming is real or not! Start spending money on walls around miami, new york, and LA to keep the sea from flooding the areas! The planet is warming faster than we realize. Debate equals inactivity, trying to fight CO2 emissions equals stupidity. Start building now! "

Owl wrote on Feb 1, 2008 3:26 PM:

" Box - there's no confusion, your argument is false and flawed. Your statement about GHG's limited effect historically is wrong - it's a strong effect (or a 650,000-year co-incidence). The strawman you try to throw up about interglacials not driven by CO2 is more evidence of you not getting it. The estimate of the greenhouse effect contribution to ice age retreat is 40%.
Climate scientists have not restricted their study or claims about GHGs and climate to the last 200 years - you're wrong.
Not understanding the disruption effect of an enhanced GH-Effect is a key part of your posts' weakness. Energy is wasted on childish insults about the scientists and environmentalists. It continues again with a silly statement about Hanson and carbon taxes(?). The personal slander continues. You even get his focus wrong:- Hanson talks about the dangers of GHG+ affecting climate, and the dangers climate change presents. Your claim that he's basing his GHG forecast on Venus is rubbish.
Yes, in the context of this thread the Younger Dryas was an event (not a cyclical or oscilation phase). Even the suspected triggers were provided, but it's obvious you wanted to type some descriptive material instead.
Your ending is another useless generalization and lesson in distraction. The basic problem is you don't accept or understand the greenhouse effect. Your confusion with CO2 doing or not doing something speaks right back to not getting the chemistry beneath the climate.
Until you disprove Greenhouse theory, the unavoidable fact is climate and the greenhouse effect are strongly linked. Just as pumping more CFCs into the atmosphere led to ozone depletion, pumping more GHGs into the atmosphere results in climate change. The warming of the last 30 years doesn't run the same course with cycles/oscillations and natural levels of GHGs. It's the first real fingerprint of an anomaly. The pollution GHGs are enhancing the greenhouse effect and starting to affect climate. Box, I couldn't care less if you are unconvinced.
As ben said, the discussion has run its course again. "

beninmv wrote on Feb 1, 2008 8:48 AM:

" This discussion has run its course. Once again, one can conclude:

- Global warming skeptics are deniers, not skeptics since they do take a logical or scientific approach.
- Deniers many times always tout their credentials are as if that establishes them as an authority on the subject. Mr. Arp is supposedly a plant scientist. Why does that give him credibility? John Coleman reads the weather. Why is his opinion relevant? Tim Ball, a leading "skeptic" fudged his resume and has done little research.
- When a denier speaks out, it is amazing how their hooey quickly spreads to blogs, Fox News, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
- How come the voice for the deniers in Washington is Senator James Inhofe, arguably one of the dumbest Senators ever?

Deniers have become as desperate as tobacco lobbyists. But they still are there battling away. I have always found it interesting that one of the most well known skeptics Richard Lindzen also dismisses the link between tobacco and lung cancer.

"

Boxorox wrote on Feb 1, 2008 5:44 AM:

" Owl - You have completely confused the discussion here. You take me to task about my reliance upon the geologic record in my effort to make clear that, while CO2 is a GHG, it has a limited role at least historically in driving climate behavior. Then you continue in this tirade to point out that I am wrong to accuse "climate scientists" of fear-mongering because they base their claims solely upon the recent (last 200 years) human output of carbon dioxide. The end result is that I stand on the one side laughing at the campaign against carbon dioxide, and you stand on the other making the counter-claim that I am wrong about do so since climate change is not all about carbon dioxide. The fact is, however, that CO2 is THE FOCUS of the entire issue as the Global Warming campaign is presently being waged. What exactly is your point?
Dr. James Hansen, GISS of NASA, is the leading voice of scientific authority in this AGW campaign, but he has seemed to have gotten so caught up in the GW updraft, that he is sounding more and more like a political hack than an objective researcher. Dr. Hansen is a prime advocate for imposing carbon taxation to help deal with climate change. He points repeatedly to carbon dioxide output in modern times as THE driving force behind climate change. This from a respected scientist who came from the Mariner days of Venus exploration. Clearly he has become intoxicated with his convictions and applied what he knows to the wrong context. Earth is not Venus, but you can't argue with a planetary scientist who take the moral high ground on this problem.
Another proponent who is widely viewed as an authority, but seems to lack credentials in the matter is Australian Tim Flannery. He is a journalist, naturalist, and adventurer and a botanist of some measure who claims to understand the whole issue completely. His entire premise is founded upon the whacky idea that all climate trends in modern times is due to human-produced carbon dioxide.
The Younger Dryas period was not an "event" as you claim. It is an unexplained phase during the early stages of recovery from the Wisconsinian Glacial Maximum. It was a 5-9 degree drop in temps that took place in the space of 1-5 decades, lasted a few hundred years, then closed with an even more dramatic rise in temperatures, leading to a return to the "program" of the current interglacial warming in which we find ourselves today. Take a look as well as at the Eemian interglacial period, 110-125kya, and you will see that that period between glaciations was even warmer that we are experiencing in the Holocene. None of these episodes was driven by changes in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and certainly nothing humans were during at these times played any role.
If you wish to dispell my dissent to the overall anti-CO2 focus on global warming, I really must ask you what all the fuss really is about. As nature demonstrated repeated its ability to cause girations in climate without using carbon dioxide as a weapon, and even ignoring those periods where catastrophic events invoked cliamte change, what actually must be the cause of the variations in world climate throughout deep time? Clearly it must be the natural earth-bound and celestial cycles which are in motion all the time.
Despite what your impressions may be, I stand ready to be convinced (CONVINCED) that my views are wrong, but those who argue against my position seem to offer only argument, no convincing detail. Peer-reviewed publication of science is great and invaluable for airing ideas to propose what is, but there is nothing that peer-reviewed science can do to establish what "isn't." This is the problem of trying to prove a negative condition. What we rely upon instead is the free, open, often angry exchange of opinion, established facts and evidence to make a case for one position or the other. The publications I have found, those not based on speculative dramas of factors in confluence to produce a seemingly negative result, make it clear to me that natural forces hold sway in climate change. "

Owl wrote on Jan 31, 2008 12:55 PM:

" Box - You've stated that concentrations of CO2 10x or more present levels were part of similar climates. That's denying CO2 is a GHG. If you want to get passed it ... retract the relevance.

Please cite the evidence (science, not blogware) you lean on to state that anyone has claimed CO2 is the sole factor in driving temperature or climate changes for the last two hundred years. You won't because there isn't ... which goes back to your fear-mongering and scientist-bashing.

Your groping again with false compression of the past, and straw-grasping about changes that aren't GHG-driven, to make a failed attempt at debunking AGW. The Younger Dryas was an event (ex. Lake Agassiz drain or an ET bollide impact), not a function of GHG concentrations. Finding an example of slow or fast climate change is easy - smack the Cretaceous globe with a Manhatten-sized meteorite ...

Your laughter is hollow and embarrassing - GHG levels are at their highest levels in the last 850,000 years (rarely touching a 300 ppm baseline in natural conditions). And the rate is alarming - faster than any natural baseline rate rise (.016ppm/c natural vs 80 ppm in the 20thc).

Okay, so you basically agree CO2 is a GHG ... but it doesn't do anything. And your evidence for that is that it isn't responsible for everything.

Your argument is false and flawed. You should scoff at the attempt. You answered none of the challenges, and replied with a 'look what that can do' to attack AGW. Like beninmv posted, your examples lack relevance.
"

beninmv wrote on Jan 31, 2008 12:18 PM:

" I believe by now, most posters know what your point is. I do not disagree that historical CO2 levels have been much higher, but so was the earth's climate at that time as well as its biological diversity.

I could accept you scoffing at someone trying to make a scientific case for something like Intelligent Design, but to scoff at the peeer reviewed work of thousands of highly qualified scientists seems to imply that you do not have an open mind. "

Boxorox wrote on Jan 31, 2008 4:32 AM:

" As a degreed geologist who makes a living instead in the computer technology industry (far more lucrative in the long-term), I have no financial ties to an industry that relies on debunking the MMGW movement.
I will not and have not denied that carbon dioxide is a GHG. I will acknowledge that my claims in this thread could give the impression that I am of this persuasion. Saying that CO2 is not a GHG would be like saying that eating twinkies exclusively everyday is not a detriment to good health. Lets get past this point.
What I do assert and writings on the topic support this, is that CO2 in its present concentration and what is projected for the coming century, is not sufficient to account for the magnitude of climate change we have measured so far. Other forces dominate the environmental dynamic in ways that dwarf the greenhouse effect presently in action. Looking back at the history, geologically, I laugh at the claims that carbon dioxide is at record highs and is rising at "alarming" rates. Knowing the fact that CO2 concentrations have been as much as 10 times above today's levels and more in the millions of years past is sufficient to give us confidence to realize that wild swings in climate as well as atmospheric physical characterists do happen naturally. However, like trying to find the "missing link" of our ancestors, it will prove daunting, if not impossible, to discover the short-term periods of the past that illustrate these decadal variations. The record is not written in that fine a granularity. On the other hand, when we look at the single example of the Younger Dryas period of the "recent" 11.8 thousand years ago, which still eludes firm explanation, nobody should deny that climate and atmospheric physics (driven by whatever force) can alter on short time scales.
Knowing that there are other undeniable natural forces at work on our planet externally which effect not only our climate, but even the physical state of our planet (such as infrequent large meteor impacts), especially that of the sun, it is not easy to dismiss them as irrelevant when it comes to determining what causes what effects in our environment. This is why I scoff at human causality. "

beninmv wrote on Jan 30, 2008 2:53 PM:

" Boxorox,

It must be a dynamic time to be a geologist. There seems to be wide range of views on what impact humans have on the global environment. I know there are geologists who strongly believe that the human footprint is dwarfed by natural forces, but there are others who acknowledge the unprecedented impact that humans have on the planet. The net addition of CO2 by humans is significant enough to affect the equilibrium of the planet.

I also suspect that many geologists are conflicted in that their livelihood is tied to the oil, gas and coal industries. That makes it difficult to take a fully objective view of the situation. I fully understand as I am in the real estate industry and have seen many of my peers and lose their objectivity in the face of compelling facts.
"

owl wrote on Jan 30, 2008 12:43 PM:

" Box, your weak, and contradictory comparisons is reaching the pathetic point.
The oxygen revolution nearly wiped out all existing life on earth. Relationships between catastrophes, climate change, and ecosystem disruptions have lots of examples.
Your claim that humans can't do it is absurd - it's the ghg's that do it, and the natural world doesn't care if it came from a volcano or a smokestack.
You don't speak for geologists, and there is no statement by geologists as a group rejecting AGW.
Again you go back to this false compression with the record in the rocks. There is no prior precedent dramatic change in GHGs over a period of a century and a half (without a driving cataclysm behind it).
There is massive evidence that global disruption can occur and can severely impact the biosphere.
There is good evidence of massive GHG changes permanently affecting global climate: the Permian-Triassic juncture, and the Paleocene–Eocene boundary. As someone who leans so heavily on his degree, you should known this.
You still mash up ridiculous compression errors with false overviews with ad homenim fear-mongering (this time the mahem thing).
Case 1 - put up an example where doubling GHGs had no bad and some good, consequence. That example must have a time-frame of two hundred years. Case Two - show examples from history where regional climate change was good for the economy, total them and compare them to the total of kingdoms, empires, and nations, seeing their economies severely disrupted by climate change.
Each additional wish-washy post you put out does your argument more damage. Time to actually put something down to support your claim that GHGs don't affect temperature.
And skip the bogus contradiction of drawing all other forces in as factors to explain climate, while trying to sneak by the claim that ancient CO2 levels vs ancient temperatures has no relationship. It's just ... silly. "

Boxorox wrote on Jan 30, 2008 4:25 AM:

" Humans live on this planet, and like any species that is here in significant numbers, we do impact the environment. That much is not in question. What is in focus, however, is the nature of our impact. Humans are dirty and wasteful occupants of earth. Even before the industrial revolution came along, humans demonstrated a huge ability to disrupt the natural surroudings through forest-clearing, irrigation and other practices which altered the natural flow.
You must realize that we are not unique in this effect. Free oxygen in the atmosphere has been made possible due to the wanton action of phytoplankton and other small critters in the world's oceans over many hundreds of millions of years very, very long ago. Our impact on climate is not nearly as severe, but on a local basis, it can be measured. However, since the attention in this issue is directed at the role of carbon dioxide, geologists know better than to accept the idea that a mere 30 percent increase over 150-200 years is going to cause the supposed mahem that is claimed. The past does matter. There have been a number of times in geologic history when CO2 concentrations were measured in the full percentages and the record of the rocks does not indicate significant variation in global temperatures during those times from what we experience today. Other natural forces, tied to astronomic, solar, orbital and tectonic factors, plus others have much more influence over planetary climate. These influences work in cycles of vastly different magnitude and periodicity which time-to-time superimpose to result in measurable and sometimes large departures from "normal." As the Pleistocene period continues through this Holocene chapter, it remains to be seen how these swings of the complex climatic pendulum will play out. But I strongly believe as do others in my field that, humans are puny, utterly minor players in this arena. "

beninmv wrote on Jan 29, 2008 3:09 PM:

" Boxorox,
YOu have every right to protest, but there are a gowing number of geoligists who disagree with you.

Living things impact their environment. Until industrialization came along, those impacts were on a micro basis while global changes have been due to natural changes. In both cases, the environment changes and living things adapt, migrate or die off. Humans have a long track record of dramatically changing micro environments. Unlike other living things we can adapt through technology. Technological adaption can solve one problem but create other problems. We have gone beyond changing micro environments to materially impacting the entire planet.
"

Edfwild wrote on Jan 29, 2008 7:21 AM:

" I realize there are many ways to interpret the science and data of Global Warming. What is irrefutable to me is with CO2 and Methane levels as high as they are Earth is heading into uncharted territory. When I read blogs and articles by warming critics I question what exactly their point is. There is no doubt that man is by far the most, perhaps only destructive species on the planet. Are the critics saying it is their god given right to abuse the planet and environment. The very planet they need for survival. Global Warming is real. How the Earth got here or whether it is caused by man could be debated for decades. It really makes me question who the most intelligent species on the planet is. Would it be us humans who seem willing to follow a path of self destruction or those that live within their environment? However we got here is to some degree irrelevant. We are not masters of the planet. We need the Earth to continue our journey but be quit aware Gaia doesn't need us. It is time for a major change of attitude.

"

owl wrote on Jan 28, 2008 7:46 PM:

" Box - you don't rely on anything but cherry-picked repackaged nonsense.

You've identified yourself as someone with poor reading skills. My post says 'come back when you have evidence that shows evidence of falling sea-levels, or climate cooling and you respond by posting you never said that. You can't read a post.

And yes, you have denied the warming subject - it is and has been about unnatural disruption related human activity. You've denied that by claiming some magical combination of the earth doing what it does naturally, or the extra CO2 lacks effect. Blog-junk.

"except out of your own little head."

Your ad homenims never end, do they?

"Yes, the world is warming ... "

And then you completely misrepresent the pattern. It's right back to the average over 15,000 years of climate history.

Your arguments are axe-hacks and crazy glue. It's already been posted by enough people and you still head-bag it - the Holocene peak was 12,000 years ago. Sea-level rises reduced to a trickle 3,000 years ago. The recent swings don't match natural patterns in the short or medium term. The most recent addition to the anomaly is a disruption of the greenhouse effect. No material you've presented, even repetitiously, counters that evidence or the theory of AGW that goes with it. Please go waste your time with people who think their cold backyard at 5 a.m. disproves AGW. They'll give you the feedback you're looking for.

"But, oh well, you said that the earth history doesn't matter here."

You should give the ticketmaster money for another merry-go-round. I'm the one that says it's very important and not something to be abused by bad math and compression distortions.

"You call me an ideologue with a political angle"

No, but I will if you say please.

"I am an degreed geoscientist, unpaid by any lobby or corporate sponsor, who is dedicated to defend science from the maniacs of global warming propogandists who seek to twist science to promote this kind of social-engineering."

The useless buttress of framed paper, and more disgusting ad homenims.

If you can't figure this out, then it makes ever more obvious that I have over-estimated your intelligence, and for that I would offer my apologies "

Huh? Look if you need to apologize for anything, it should be for letting your attitude crush your aptitude.

"

Boxorox wrote on Jan 28, 2008 7:25 PM:

" I protest the use of the term "Anthropocene." As a geologist myself, I can only view that term as a cynical indictment of humanity simply for the fact that we exist. If there is a collective insinstance on renaming this latest chapter of the Pleistocene Period--which is what this really is--we not we call it the "Obscenocene." That ought to make all the zealots happy.

To characterize the current geologic era by human standards, rather than to base the divisions of earth time by natural, over-arching conditions and events, is to cast a hugely negative pall upon everything mankind has done. Would you prefer that we erase our mark upon the world...that is to say, that we simply erase ourselves? Let us all en masse volunteer to terminate our existance. We try so hard to save a single life, but many are eager it seems to cancel 6 billion out of delusional rage. What is the point of all this? "

TC wrote on Jan 28, 2008 6:14 PM:

" When I began researching global warming for my website, www.carbonphallusy.com I wasn't sure what I would find. I set out to expose some of the scams associated by the global warming alarmist. The more I researched, the more I am beginning to believe that there is more of a political push for man made global warming. You have to take notice when something this important is divided by political affiliation. The honest truth is, the best I can get out of this, is that most scientist just don't have enough data to make a clear conclusion. "

beninmv wrote on Jan 28, 2008 3:50 PM:

" A few comments:

I understand that a growing number of geoscientists are accepting the fact that we have left the Holocene Epoch and have entered a new epoch called Anthropocene. This new epoch relfects the impact that humans have made on the planet.

"

Boxorox wrote on Jan 28, 2008 4:01 AM:

" owl - You make me laugh. I rely on science and the study of earth history to make my points. In reply, you twist what I say in a vain effort to make me look ridiculous, but anybody with good reading skills can tell that you're not doing too well.
I am not and have not denied the warming. I have said nothing about falling sea levels, nor have I said anything about cooling. Where do you get this stuff? -- except out of your own little head. Yes, the world is warming, gradually, as it has been sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly for as much as 15,000 years. This is all part of the glacial cycle that runs on a 110,00 - 145,000 period throughout the Pleistocene. But, oh well, you said that the earth history doesn't matter here. You call me an ideologue with a political angle, but nothing can be further from the truth. I am an degreed geoscientist, unpaid by any lobby or corporate sponsor, who is dedicated to defend science from the maniacs of global warming propogandists who seek to twist science to promote this kind of social-engineering.
If you can't figure this out, then it makes ever more obvious that I have over-estimated your intelligence, and for that I would offer my apologies "

Ytterbius wrote on Jan 27, 2008 4:33 PM:

" Mr. Arp, your arguments are failed, and your links are simply Fossil Industry attempts distract and confused.

How about if rather than continue to fruitlessly struggle against the facts, if you join the Global Team that is working to develop the infrastructure and technologies to allow us to overcome the very real problems that we're facing.

There will still be plenty of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere to sustain your crops.

http://americansolareconomy.blogspot.com "

pharmer wrote on Jan 27, 2008 4:08 PM:

" There are at the very least hundreds of scientists who are skeptical over AWG. When I hear that there are thousands of climate scientists who believe in AGW and as ALgore suggests "only a handful of scientists" who are skeptical, I start to agree that maybe this is a hoax. When scientists who are co-winners of the nobel prize claim that the IPCC and Algore are disingenuis, I have to at least wonder why they are skeptical. "

beninmv wrote on Jan 27, 2008 2:56 PM:

" I'm glad to see intelligent posts here. It makes the inane braying by skeptics appear what it really is...disinformation and sound bites.

E Fry, not only is the world population increasing, but the third world is hurtling towards rising their standard of living. China in seven years will be buying as many cars as we do in the US. India is rapidly devloping too.

Arlan Dirkson - This letter from Arp is all over the web. The skeptics don't care about accuracy and science. One of the chief skeptics, Tim Ball, has such a lame resume, that he actually fudged on the number of years he was a professor.

Owl - keep posting. The more you post, the more it is clear that Box is little more than an idealogue who throws out broad statisics that have no relevance to the issue at hand.

"

owl wrote on Jan 25, 2008 6:44 PM:

" Box:-

"owl- Your responses to my posts make it clear that you fear I am right, "

No, you're not right and your responses result in counter-argument with evidence, not fear. You've drawn that well dry, unsuccessfully.

".. and that anyone who might believe me represent departure from the scripture of human guilt. "

Nice try on the martyr complex. That fails too. And again with the fear-mongering ad homenims. You didn't do your homework, you misrepresented evidence, and you kept ignoring facts. Increased rates of sea-level rise are known. Warming is known. The greenhouse effect is known. Come back with evidence of sea-levels falling, climate cooling, or repudiation of the greenhouse effect. Until then, save your political soap-boxing and intelligence bashing for your cold-at-5am crowd. "

Arlan Dirkson wrote on Jan 25, 2008 4:06 PM:

" I believe this contrarian is in extreme denial and it is difficult to grasp what universtity on this planet would give this man a phd. The carbon cycle has been in effect since the creation of the earth and is well understood physically and chemically. Scientist have been able to figure out how different levels of carbondioxide in the atmosphere has effected global temperature in geologic history. I'm not saying all climate change in history was due to the carbon cycle. There are many factors that are being understood and have been understood for years. Geologist are well aware of how coal is created. It's pure carbon (100%) decomposed and consolidated deep beneath the earth's surface. The coal dug up and burned over the bast century and a half is the remnants of plant life on the earth during the Creatious period. And if you completed elementary school, you are aware the earth was much warmer then. The more fossil fuel we burn, the more co2 goes back into the atmosphere that is supposed to be burried in the earth. Climate change effects different places on the planet in complex ways, and there is no one sided simple answer like " CO2 increases crop production. Higher levels of CO2 is creating a lush environment for plants and animals and will improve the health (more oxygen), longevity and prosperity of all people." This statement is ludicrously broad and does not take into effect the damage CO2 can do when put into the atmosphere at incredible rates unnaturally, it being the largest heat trapping chemical in the atmosphere besides water. "

E Fry wrote on Jan 25, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Yes, the planet needs CO2 as well as oxygen, methane etc… But it all needs to stay in check. Here is the science in a nutshell. Photosynthesizes (CO2 users) need consumers (oxygen users). Extra carbon (Oil, coal etc…) gets buried below the Earth surface in several different processes. Everything stays in check…. Man takes out mass amounts of carbon faster then it can be replaced and releases it back into the atmosphere where it doesn’t belong. CO2 levels go up trapping more heat causing a chain reaction with a release of even more CO2, methane and water vapor. All of which are greenhouse gases. Now for the other problem. In I believe 1800 the world population was about one billion. Now it is over 6 billion and will be over 9 billion in 50 years or so. With ANY disruption we will not be able to feed that many people. The planet will not be able to support these numbers and billions will cease to exist. The planet is greater then man and has the ability to cast man off as it has other species. We need to live within our environment. "

edfwild wrote on Jan 25, 2008 11:39 AM:

" Please send me you research. Have you been published? I would love to read it. I have been reading for years about this and I would like to include yours. "

Boxorox wrote on Jan 25, 2008 4:27 AM:

" Almost wonder why I try to reason with maniacs, but...
Sea level increase prediction are only that--predictions, not the result of measured changes. The fanatical effort to warn the world about the major ill-effects we supposedly cause is only political leveraging to impose social engineering. The propagandists hope to sway the public using plausible science that is distorted and wrong.
I do not deny the climate change, but completely deny that human activity is the root cause of it. It is a denial of science to think that natural causes are not at work here. It amazes me that thinking people can believe this nonsense about "Anthropogenic Global Warming."
owl- Your responses to my posts make it clear that you fear I am right, and that anyone who might believe me represent departure from the scripture of human guilt. "

beninmv wrote on Jan 24, 2008 5:07 PM:

" A significant majority of scientists are convicned that humans are materially contributing to global warming. Skeptics continue to hide behind bad science, talking points and disinformation that is intended to confuse. They have learned their lessons well from the likes of tobacco companies, swift boaters and the current administration in Washington.

"

owl wrote on Jan 23, 2008 9:49 PM:

" I haven't dismissed history, I've quoted it and relied on it. You've abused the history by trying to dismiss AGW with it.

" ... nature has the power to inflict massive change almost without even trying."

?? More lame poetry as a response? It demonstrates again that you don't get it. The accelerated sea rise is a known. It is not alarmist. The evidence and studies are available.

Your attempted distraction (that I'm proclaiming things drastically changing) is as lame as your other deflections.

Box, if there's any fear-mongering here it's coming from your posts. Your attempt at issue-responses fail.

The basics should be clear enough for you to grasp. The greenhouse effect is one key ingredient of climate. Human pollution is changing the mix. Climate will adjust to the changes. Your response seem stuck either "There's nothing happening." or "Okay, but it's natural/geological(?)." The rest comes out as repeated attempts at insults as a counter-argument. Pity.
"

Boxorox wrote on Jan 23, 2008 4:30 AM:

" History is very relevant to the issue at hand. You cannot dismiss it. The comparatively high rates of sea level change in the past, even if thousands of years ago (geologically recent), demonstrate that nature has the power to inflict massive change almost without even trying. The claimed recent acclerated sea level changes are still non-existant and only reflect alarmist speculation, not measured variance. Wait for the evidence to come in before you start going out and proclaiming that things are changing drastically--they just are not.
Science rules. Speculation and fear-mongering have no place here. "

owl wrote on Jan 21, 2008 11:38 PM:

" Box, you made no point. Your 'average' for sea-level change is invalid. That logic creates an 'average' human with one testes, one udder, and averaging half a baby per delivery.
Your labelling my post 'howling' is lame distraction.
Recent sea level rises are new. Forecasted sea level rises are new.
AGW is the new game in town and it's real.
Your claim of extreme near-term changes leans on long-term geological records.
Your claim of a few thousand years' focus contradicts your own posts.
There's no discomfort here. Your material lacks science, common sense, and originality. It adds to the weakness of the original article.
Natural history does not invalidate the current human contribution to future climate change. You, and the original article, haven't put down any evidence that stands up.
"

beninmv wrote on Jan 21, 2008 4:47 PM:

" We can all play around with the numbers for sea level rise. The peak of the last glacial period was 18 to 20,000 years ago versus 15,000. if you use 18,000, the average sea level rise has been 26.7 inches per century. Much of that melting occurred during the first 12,000 years and only 0.5% and 0.2% of that melting occured during the last 3000 years (between 0.37 and 0.74 inches per century) and without the dramatic swings we have recently seen.

While one can argue that the rise in sea levsl during the past 140 years does not approach the averages of 12 to 18,000 years ago, the recent changes are very dramatic as compared to what has happened during most of civilization and during a time that humans have dramtically increased their CO2 footprint. For one to be dismissive and say it is all due to natural sources, reflects a mind of someone who has an agenda or is an idealogue. "

Boxorox wrote on Jan 19, 2008 5:45 PM:

" wol (or owl, whatever it is)--
You missed the point, again, about my citing averages (valid as they most certainly are) concerning sea-level increases. What I am emphasizing is that current and projected future sea level changes are NOT new, and that natural forces can cause relatively extreme changes in near-term effects. I made no claim to being an expert in these things, but I am well-read on the subject and my geology background helps me validate the finds in the record not over MILLIONS of years as you incorrectly stated, but over only a few thousand years.
Your howling reaction to what I say serves to reassure me that I am on the mark with my comparison of present with past climate changes. Clearly, what I assert is causing discomfort to those who wish to claim in any way possible that humans are responsible for modern climate change. This just is not the case, as natural history so easily points out. "

wol wrote on Jan 17, 2008 4:45 PM:

" Box - Your use of averages over the time period claimed is invalid. Your time-frame abuse does not support your claim of expertise in the field. Nearly all the sea level rise occurred before 3000 years ago. Similarly your reading comprehension is weak; my post actually noted the acceleration sea level rise (the opposite of your post). You fiction a comparable pattern to get the 'average' you want. You and Mazr also use false compression of geological epochs to misrepresent current climate issues. The last of your ad hominem response only adds to the absurdity, by equating a century of industrial impacts to millenia of Ice Age cycles or CO2 levels from hundreds of millions of years ago.

Perhaps you and Mazr would feel more comfortable disussing this with someone pointing out how cold it was in their back yard at 5 a.m. this morning. It's the other side of the same coin.

"

beninmv wrote on Jan 17, 2008 2:41 PM:

" I have been following this issue for many years now and the arguements from the skeptics change very little. They will confuse you with discussions about CO2 lag and stri you up with allegations of propaganda and scare tactics used by Gore and the significant majority of scientists who believe humans are materially contributing to global warming (besides they are all opportunitists anyway..right??) etc.

I have always wondered why so many of the scientists who are skeptics, don't seem all that qualified. present little peer reviewed work and many times are senior fellows for think tanks (aka lobbyists). Why did the Bush Administation staff the Council on Environmental Quality, with lobbyists from the oil and energy industries and have it report to Cheney and Rove? How come the leading global warming skeptics in Congress are morons like James Inhofe and Joe Barton? How come skeptics like Tim Ball can't even get thier resume right? "

Boxorox wrote on Jan 16, 2008 4:09 AM:

" The problem with this climate-scare propaganda by those like Gore and poster here who agree with the idea of human-caused global warming is that it distorts science and hands control of our society to those who are interested only in self-promotion.
By claiming that the authorities who refute anthropogenic climate change have been discredited does not mean that they really are. Saying this only means that you hope they are wrong or at least hope that no one who is unsure believes the wrong philosophy. Science makes it abundantly clear (to those who really bother to study the issues) that climate change is natural and is not a product of our actions. Just because we can see it happen now with modern technology does not mean that we caused it. This is just a matter of being unable to determine cause-and-effect situations. Take a look at the geologic record. "

Mike wrote on Jan 15, 2008 5:49 PM:

" "The biased United Nation’s panel and Al Gore are promoting a lie to scare us into a U.N. global government."

Comments such as these only show you for what you are. Are you really a scientist, or some paranoid militia-man in the same mold as those extremists who ranted against Clinton in the 90s? I suggest you go back to a real university to learn true science and knock it off with your Coca-Cola university, pro-oil rhetoric. "

Beninmv wrote on Jan 15, 2008 2:01 PM:

" Mr. Arp has spread this message of his all over the internet. He cites a bogus petition that Fred Singer was behind, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel (which by the way has shows about global warming) is little more than a local weatherman in San Diego these days. His bio does not identify what type of degree he has. On other sites, Mr. Arp has referenced the "documentary" The Great Warming Swindle which has been widely discredited.

I am not surprised that there are studies showing that plants grow better with higher CO2 levels. Conversely, how about the studies that identify the more rapid growth of noxious plants and increased insect populations as well as the climatic impact on major regions that will cause rising temperatures and more drought? "

no name wrote on Jan 13, 2008 8:11 PM:

" Global Warming is true. If it isnt caused by co2 then it is caused by other polutants given off by cars. If we dont act soon, bad things will happen "

Boxorox wrote on Jan 11, 2008 4:20 AM:

" I'd like to second what Mazr stated here. In the long-term view of earth history, it is actually a rare thing for this planet to have extensive ice coverage across its surface. The Pleistocene period is defined as an episide in which the earth has been experiencing unusual glaciation. Aside from the extreme episodes of 650 millions years ago and more when this planet experienced a number of global glaciations, we live today in a phase where ice is somewhat strange to see and the warmth that is taking place now is a return to more "normal" conditoins. But you can be sure that the overall Pleistocene state of our world has not yet concluded. There will be a future glacial advance, following the 11 or so that have occurred already in the past 2 million years. It's nothing for us to worry about, but it should offer us perspective to appreciate the power of nature and the ineffectiveness of humans to influence world processes. "

Mazr wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:25 PM:

" If his credentials aren't appropriate enough for you maybe mine are. I have a MS from PSU in paleoclimatology, am a Feloow in the Geophysical Union. Simple fact is that most of the "climate scientists" that you refer to do not have the background or training in past climate change and the causes nor in the required astrophysics to interpret the effects the sun has. They are mostly Meteorologists and biologists and even by their own admittance do not do any research. And of those that do have a paleoclimatolgy background, most did not support the claims made by the IPCC. Simply put the science does not support the claims or conjecture when looked at as a whole in historical perspective going back 600 million years. We are still at one of the lowest CO2 concentrations of that period. The median for the last 600,000,000 years is almost 3,000 ppm compared to the current 380ppm. Even if we triple that number (which we should not do) the amount would not have nearly the effects that are predicted long term.
"

Boxorox wrote on Jan 8, 2008 4:01 AM:

" owl - Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of averages. You start with the amount of sea level rise of roughly 400 feet (that's 4800 inches, so I can do the hard work for you) and divide that by the 150 centuries that have passed since the peak of the last glaciation, and you get a ballpark figure of 32 inches per century--ON AVERAGE.
That average increase is well above the 8 inches of sea level increase that have been recorded since the end of the 18th Century. It even exceeds the amount predicted by the more even-tempered proponents of global warming today. Sea level rise recently, as you say, has not accelerated to any measurable degree, no matter how much the Maldive residents have been convinced otherwise.
You and I can certainly disagree about what causes global warming but don't insult me about my field of expertise. Doing so just reveals you to be nothing more than a reactionary who wishes only to refute me out of frustration to deal with this topic intelligently and ratinally. "

Mike Powell wrote on Jan 5, 2008 2:14 PM:

" Nice discussion of Arp's letter here. Someone submitted the text of his letter to my local paper and I went through and provided comments. There's too much to post here, but let it suffice to say that Arp manages to get just about all of the science wrong. If you're interested, see:

http://community.tri-cityherald.com/?q=node/436/16817#comment-16817

-mrp
"

owl wrote on Jan 5, 2008 12:53 AM:

" Box, your statement on geology and the last ice age makes no sense.
Sea level rise from 3000ya to 1800 was .1-.2 mm, and since 1900 it's 10x that rate. Your numbers are wrong.
Similarly your description of 'warming over the span of the Holocene' is silly - it peaked 8kya, started it's decline, and then reversed. It's been within a narrow band until recently.

Your knowledge on the subject appears consistent with your knowledge about the IPCC and the Senate Report.

The statement about your political elite bowing to the IPCC is more fiction. The only silence on this issue is the pro-pollutionists delivery of decent science. They did as much homework as you did, and less.

"

Shayan wrote on Jan 4, 2008 8:31 PM:

" You are a moron. "

Boxorox wrote on Jan 4, 2008 4:09 AM:

" owl-Geologic events take place in geologic timeframes and they matter. However, when it comes to the examination of the ongoing recovery from the Wisconsonian, that progression cannot be defined within normal geologic parameters; 15ka is simply too short to discuss such things in those terms.
At any rate, you are incorrect to dismiss the warming and sea-level rise that has taken place over the span of the Holocene. If you consider what has happened since the glacial maximum entered demise, you will begin to appreciate that what we see today is minor by comparison (8-11 inches per century today, in contrast to the average of 32 inches per century up to the Middle Ages).
I will certainly be happen to ignore the IPCC and the schemes they cook up. But I'll keep an eye on them since that bunch seems inclined to continue to force this issue upon us and our political elite are prone to bowing to them. The Senate Minority Report on Climate is, of course not much more than a position paper on the issue. But it serves as a compendium of views by knowledgeable and accredited experts from an array of applicable fields who want to make sure the public understands that this debate is far from over. The report is not objective science, instead it allows the voice of dissent to be heard, which is a necessary thing, even if you wish it to be silenced. If that makes you uncomfortable ... GOOD! "

Ron Campbell wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:37 PM:

" Stop Argueing - Take Action Now

As mankind faces the most dramatic natural disaster in history we are squabbling instead of taking action. Quit arguing and let's come up with a plan.

Our poles are melting, temperature and weather patterns are changing. Those are facts. Whose fault it is, man made or natural is almost irrelevant. The important thing is that we take action to prepare for the unavoidable consequences of climate change NOW.

Past climate changes have happened quick, the most recent having taken only about a decade. We have seen weather patterns change over the last few years, lost a bunch of ice, witnessed massive amounts of species going extinct and see a slow-down of the ocean's conveyor which regulates temperature patterns around the globe. My gut feeling is to say that we are in the midst of climate change. Whether it's caused by CO2, an active sun or any other cause is not the issue. The issue is... we can't change, avert or avoid it so we have to figure out how to deal with it and survive it's effects.

The focal point of all the issues surrounding climate change is energy. More specifically, present and future energy. The energy we currently use, which most say changes the climate, and the energy we will need in the future to supply more people and to stave off the effects of a changed climate. We need cleaner fuel now, not only because of pollution or the fact that we are running out, but because we will need much more fuel in the future.

The world economy is currently dependant upon CO2 emitting fossil fuels and we won't just be able to throw a switch to convert to another source so we have to start now. We have to stop spending billions fighting over the remaining oil. No matter who owns it, we will use it up. As demand increases and supply dwindles it will become more expensive and economic factors will dictate that we replace it. If we're lucky, mankind will be reasonable enough to spend more money finding new energy sources than fighting over obsolete ones. That's a long shot but there's always hope.

We will need more energy and there is no denying that burning oil and coal pollutes our planet. We have 2 choices if we want to survive as a species.

1. Come up with more, preferably cleaner energy.

2. Shrink our global population to a size that our current energy supply can sustain.

The first is preferable but considering our primitive human nature, the second is more probable. Let's let common sense overpower human nature and strive towards option 1.

Think about it. There are many sources of energy, known and yet to be discovered that we can use. Wind, water, tidal, and solar are clean technologies that we have explored and can improve. We have started tinkering with ways to use the Earth's magnetic field. There is gravity and countless types of cosmic rays that we haven't even tried to harness yet. Nuclear has been around for decades and if it doesn't blow up on you, it is extremely clean.

My suggestion, no, my demand is that mankind stop it's economic and religious squabbling and start taking the action we need for our survival as a species. It will be impossible to get mankind to act as one, but someone has to start. If the US trimmed it's government and military to a minimum, keeping enough troops and nukes to sustain sovereignty, we could save billions and use it to develop energy sources.

That scenario might even be good for the economy. Imagine all of the workers needed to make electric cars or cosmic ray powered toasters. Besides, whoever discovers a technology usually has a lead when it comes to selling it's usage or the products it spins off.

New energy won't solve global warming but it will help us deal with it better. Right now it's the only option we have so let's get on it!

Ron
http://moreronnie.blogspot.com

"

owl wrote on Jan 3, 2008 5:54 PM:

" Boxorox - You've provided further evidence that you didn't read the Senate Report, or understand that it's a snippet collection of context-removed material. Your response about repetition and duplicaiton goes off on a strange tangent - you didn't get it. The Republican collection is certainly not a compendium of anti-greenhouse theory or the anti-AGW Legion you want it to be.

As for your insults at the IPCC, your poetic emotional response ignores their warning; your attempt at a strawman rebuttal is lame. The comparison of pollution-driven consequences with the 15,000 retreat of the Wisconsonian (note the spelling) doesn't work. The false compression comparison of epoch sea-level rise versus AGW timeframes again advertises your weak knowledge of the issues. Reverting to namecalling ... what's next? ... sticking out your tongue?

The one place you accidentally hit a chord is about our civilization. The Stern Report has been re-inforced by other economic studies - AGW carries a price-tag that far outweighs the cleanup cost. Our economy, our society, and our 'civlization' likes climate stability.

The CO2 rise, almost 40% in just over a century, mocks your attempt at minimization. Our economy doesn't give a spit about geological timeframes.

The issues on the table are how soon, how bad, and for how long. Your pre-occupation with your preoccupation with the IPCC is a timewaste.

"

Boxorox wrote on Jan 3, 2008 5:20 PM:

" Certainly Global Warming is not a plot on the part of environmental extremists, though they have certainly joined in to fan the flames. What we have instead is a loosely associated group of power elite who have latched onto climate effects to twist science and distort cause-and-effect relationships to instill fear and guilt and thereby invoke action among the people to do their bidding. Global Warming, as a campaign to control people, squash what they view as exploitive capitalism and destructive industrialism, is a Dream-come-true for these self-promoters. "

Jim B wrote on Jan 3, 2008 8:25 AM:

" Another good read: "Big Coal" by Jeff Goodell. On page 194 a review of Art Robinson (of www.accesstoenergy.com) is given. Art is a religious extremist, who believes global warming is a global plot by who he sees as environmental extremist. Also, his petition of 17,000 was challenged by Scientific American. In a random sample of the signers, they found that a mere 42% still agreed with the petition. Don't be fooled by fanatics. "

Boxorox wrote on Jan 2, 2008 7:52 PM:

" The 400 (or 250) credentialled experts in fields which relate to climate change in the Senate Minority report have voiced their concern about the hype, alarmism and political propagandizing that is spread by the climate fanatics. That is is repetitive and duplicative, as is suggested by the opposition, is not surprising since these individuals generally represent the collecitive thinking by those who know that the planetary greenhouse is not the major force behind the climate change we see today.
The IPCC and those who follow and constantly nod their heads in blind agreement with that panel do indeed point the crooked finger at modern society as the "greedy" and "ignorant" destroyers of the world our children and their children must live in. Please spare us the guilt trip! Should we judge the global warming that has taken place over the past 15,000 years in the same manner? If we do, then what greenhouse agents were involved that started the demise of the Wisconsinian glacial maximum at that time? Why do these self-proclaimed experts try to force the belief that global warming is something new, when the fact is, sea level rise is lower now on average that it has been over the past 15 millennia (approx 32 inches per century)? It is outrageous and the falseness of the radical claims by the Folly-in-Bali bunch becomes evident when you learn about the history of this planet, especially of that period during the Pleistocene period (2.5 +/-0.25 million years). Our civilization almost owes its existence to global warming. Current carbon dioxide emissions, impressive to those who devote their news gathering to CNN and USA Today, is not great and greatly pales to what has occurred in the geologic past without abrupt and extreme global warminging "

owl wrote on Jan 2, 2008 5:08 PM:

" Boxorox - add 'accurate reading' to your to-do list, okay? The IPCC numbers are real and serious. Your dismissive response requires content. Your claim that they've stated industrialists and capitalists are 'evil' and 'eager to destroy the world' is insult bordering on slander. (it can be quoted from the Senate Minority Report, however).

The Senate Minority Report is a dump-truck of repetition, duplication, and contradiction. As posted earlier, many names are the same usual suspects and/or the same usual misquotes. There aren't 400, not even approximately, btw.
More like 250 plus the Letter-of-60 and the Letter-of-100 (duplication galore). Also, your ref that they're climate scientists+geologists indicates you haven't actually looked at the material - economists, physicists, engineers, mathematicians pad the parade of The "I have an opinion" Report.

You may be right about the days of AGW nonsense being numbered - the nonsense-spewers will run out of refuted objections they can recycle. Until there is some real alternative evidence on which to build a thesis, the enhanced Greenhouse Effect will be ID'd in the lineup.

"

LOL wrote on Jan 2, 2008 4:55 PM:

" This is not actually about the issue itself--I just wanted to let you all know that reading these posts has absolutely made my day. It's great how quickly everyone is eager to start name-calling and writing other people off as "ignorant". "

James Lewis wrote on Jan 1, 2008 10:22 PM:

" In my previous comment, I was so stunned by the ignorance of Mr Arp that I hardly knew where to start. Let me make it more simple. If you wish to state an opinion on Global Warming, you need to do some basic research first. There is an excellent book, impeccably researched and well written, that covers the entire topic of our planet's history and present condition from the standpoint of ecology and human effects on the environment. It is "Collapse" by Jared Diamond, published by Viking in 2005. If you have not read this book, you must do so. Only after reading it will you understand why it is so important. I have studied ecology and climate change for several years, and only recently read "Collapse". I am stunned by the amount of new information I found in this book. The chapters on Australia and China alone will expand your understanding of the immensity of the problem we all face. Whichever side you are inclined toward now, by the time you finish this book, you will be far better prepared to understand our world. Please read this book. "

James Lewis wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:12 PM:

" Mr Adrian Arp is completely wrong. CO2 levels have been rising due to the burning of fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The increase in CO2 levels recently has accelerated rapidly, and is far in excess of anything needed for plants. Even if growth would be more "lush", the warming caused by excess CO2 and Methane (being released by melting tundra snd permafrost and the largest ruminant herds in the history of the planet) is causing the melting of the Greenland and South Polar icecaps which contain 99% of the world's landlocked ice, and the result will be 20 feet of ocean rise in the next 50 to 100 years, followed by another 50 or so feet if the process is not stopped. The evidence is overwhelming, and if Mr. Arp has any doubts, he should check with Dr. Earnest C. Watson at Cal Tech university. Dr. Watson is one of the foremost experts on the subject, and one of the things he has shown clearly is that the idea that Solar changes are causing a significant effect is ridiculous.

The following quote shows what sort of fringe nonsense has trapped Mr Arp:

"The biased United Nation’s panel and Al Gore are promoting a lie to scare us into a U.N. global government"

Every person I have seen who denies Global Warming, referring to such topics as "global Government" as their fear and justification, has one thing in common. They all ignore the evidence and make emotional statements such as this. Mr Arp needs to look at the evidence honestly. He will otherwise continue to sound like a complete fool, and only do damage to efforts to counteract an impending disaster. The only people who are inclined to agree with Mr Arp are others who have not looked at the real facts and evidence. Emotional babbling is no substitute for study. "

Boxorox wrote on Jan 1, 2008 7:49 PM:

" 2500 of the best climate scientists in the world,huh? It is hardly likely that there are even half that many credentialled climate scientists in the whole world, let alone that twice that number would gather one place twice each year for their biannual climate fests. The IPCC is a club of politically chosen hacks who are sent around the world for group hugs and to issue heady statements about how evil mankind is, especially those industrialists and capitalists who are supposedly very eager to destroy the world to earn a buck. How can any propagandistic tripe be more transparant that this?
Taake a look at the Senate Minority Report on Climate Change (google will fine this) and see the actual words of approximately 400 credentialled scientists in fields relating to climate (which of course included geology) whereby they refute the claims of the Global Warming scare campaign.
The days of the Anthropengenic Global Warming nonsense are numbered. It's a big number I am sure, but eventually the world will realize that this campaign is not worth paying attention to, and we can resume our work on REAL environmental issues. "

Jim B wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:24 PM:

" Al- You might enjoy taking a class on the philosophy of science, it may clear-up some of your confusion. Also, I have the book, "An Inconvenient Truth". Please provide a page number where Al Gore claims to originate the theory of Global warming. I thought he was simply a spokesman, but you seem to know something more. You seem to be concerned that incorrect charges are being leveled. Best clear yourself.

finally I'll quit hinting at the problem with the 300 year supply of oil. The author implies (to me) that WE (USA) have a 300 year supply. Hubbert predicted a decline in US oil production based on the fact that we had reached the halfway point in pumping out all the known reserves in the US. (approximately) He predicted domestic oil production would being to decline in the 1970s and it did, a mere 100 years or so since we started pumping. (this prediction was made in the 50's or 60's) So, if the first half was burnt up in 100 years, how in the world could we have the second half last 300 years? Obviously it could only last if consumption of this oil was drastically curtailed. But the 300 year statement in the editorial says nothing of this. It is implied that we'll keep driving our monster trucks with no interruption. The Author makes no mention of alternatives being developed and thus reducing consumption of oil.

So, if you would like to throw in all the other factors, I can confidently claim the second half of the domestic oil will last INDEFINITELY. Again the 300 year claim is meaningless. After all, it will continue to be harder to get, more expensive, and less relevant. Consumption will continue to decrease. Again, I'm a layman to most of these issues, but the arguments of the right wing continue to have trouble with the smell test. "

owl wrote on Dec 31, 2007 5:06 PM:

" Mr. Hochman's post could have been less embarassing if he'd taken a minute to check it out - over 450 direct contributers, more than 2500 discipline specialists, from over 130 countries, contributed to AR4. Hundreds of pro-pollution scientists? More like the same couple of dozen named Singer, Christie, Lintzman, Ball, Grey, Michaels, etc. Your 'Earth is okay' soapbox is back to square one again.

The IPCC has driven no one out of the process. The pro-pollutionists have, in fact, had far more publicity than the seance-fiction they pass off deserves.

There's no heat-driving CO2 increase. Boxorox, you should drop Singer's anectodal cherry picking and dig into the issue. You're being played. "

Steve Hochman wrote on Dec 29, 2007 5:11 PM:

" Sorry Larry...it's a boatload of manure...thousands of scientists? The IPCC doesn't have thousands of climate scientists....it's nonsense. This is pure rubbish repeated by a willing media that loves a great scare story. I can give you dozens, probably hundreds of scientists that will tell you AGW is nonsense. The IPCC has conveniently driven anyone with a dissenting view out of the process so they have a brethren of "true" believers. This resembles a cult or religion far more than science. My background is engineering...you know, that field that actually applies real scientific principles and laws into actual practice. It's not this pseudo science crap. All the best and Happy New Year. Save yourself, the planet is fine. "

Al wrote on Dec 29, 2007 1:32 PM:

" Jim B, I find your comment about the biased chemistry teacher hysterical in light of the fact that the whole AGW theory was originally proposed in a little book called “An Inconvenient Truth” written by a POLITICIAN who also happens to be chairman of the company that wants to sell carbon offsets. You might not want to throw that word “biased” around too much.

Also, please explain exactly what you mean by the chemistry teacher being biased. Why? For what reason? What benefit?
"

Boxorox wrote on Dec 29, 2007 4:51 AM:

" The 300-year crude oil supply only stipulates that there is potentially enough burnable petro available, in whatever form and location, to last for up to 3 centuries. To say that it is a 300-yr reserve is somewhat meaningless though, because long before 300 years passes we will have extracted and refined all the oil that is "easy" to reach and relatively cheap to send to the gas pump. You should be sure to know that the major oil companies are aware of this and are investing heavily not only in advanced drilling, extraction and refining technologies but also in energy sources for the phase of production AFTER oil. They know all too well that oil doesn't last forever.
There is an excellent, reasonable and clearly written description (with many supporting references) in Fred Sears' book "Unstoppable Global Warming" about the nature of CO2 increases in the atmosphere. The lag of CO2 changes behind those of temperature is up to 800 years. "

Ron Campbell wrote on Dec 28, 2007 5:36 PM:

" Does it matter who's to blame?

Man made or natural. Placing blame is pitiful squabble. The fact is that our climate is changing. We can't change it so we have to prepare for it. End of story.

We do have to stop burning fossil fuels but we can't destroy the world economy to do it.

http://moreronnie.blogspot.com "

Jim B wrote on Dec 28, 2007 11:09 AM:

" Dr. J: Care to share your data on the CO2 lagging temperature? And how did the EPA under Bush get this wrong on their website?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc_fig1.html
"

Jim B wrote on Dec 28, 2007 9:57 AM:

" I was told to disregard everything that I read which has interpreted the data as a man-made warming of the globe. I agree that all people have a natural bias and it can be hard to normalize that bias when drawing conclusions. It is because of this that science has relied on referred journals for ages. It is harder for those who are not in that scientific loop to draw accurate conclusions. As a consequence, we usually have to depend on the consensus which arises from the debates in the scientific community. The only way to challenge that is to involve yourself in the debate at that referred journal level. The reference given

accesstoenergy.com

appears to be written by a chemistry teacher who is NOT in that critical debate, but is an outsider drawing conclusion from his own biased view. So, why should I reject Tim Flannery's book and accept Art Robinson? The website is clearly biased, even still talking about impeaching Clinton! Come on,...get up to date! In short, I question this editorial, and I question the sources listed.

On the 300 year supply, Boxorox states a couple facets of the Hubbert argument, which is fine. Now what? How do we get to 300 year supply conclusion? What's the burn rate? How much will it cost? The Author's 300 year supply still rings hollow to me. "

owl wrote on Dec 27, 2007 11:10 PM:

" The CO2-Lag Spin is another crutch the pro-pollutionists lean on. The temperature increase preceding CO2 rise only applies to the Antarctic turnaround that started the end of each deep freeze. (Btw -AGW studies never claimed a greenhouse trigger.) The key is the full 5000 years of deglacial warming, and the 4,000-year ice-age retreat in the northern hemisphere. The greenhouse effect contributed to spreading, and maintaining, the southern warming around the globe. The dribblet steady rise of CO2 simply added some more greenhouse effect.
Work it out for yourself. Apply their lag spin. In the year 1200, Europe should been turned into a Sahara Desert North - in order to drive CO2 levels up 35% 800 years later. "

Thom wrote on Dec 27, 2007 2:38 PM:

" Read this hateful little screed and consider the motives of the left on this issue:

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/122407Lindorff.shtml

Aren't they happy, happy little people?

I'd also like to point out that despite the fact this "journalist" mentions it first in the list of states he wishes to see destroyed in his Marxist dream, Texas is NOT in the Southeast. "

Boxorox wrote on Dec 26, 2007 4:49 AM:

" Jim B- First recommendation to you is recall everything you "learned" from reading Tim Flannery's book as pure idelological nonsense. It is environmental sature written with a angry distrust of everything American. He has traced every ecological problem in the world and traced it back to the supposedly evil ways of America and Capitalism. Very little of what is in that book is truthful or accurate to any degree. One point about the 300-year supply of oil to know: It is a quantity that could serve our needs for centuries, but drilling for it, pumping it, and processing it becomes increasingly difficult and expensive. The "easy" oil comes first, the "difficult" oil comes next and requires revolutionary technology and methods to get the crude to the pump. We advocates of distrust against the AGW group stems from a sincere desire to maintain truth in science and to prevent a needless social engineering campaign that seeks to thwart development and market-based capitalism to serve the ambitions of those who control this issue. We are smart enough to know that climate change is a natural phenomenon. Do not let the ideological propoganda of the politicians distort the truth and lead us down a dead-end path to self-limiting environmental totalitarianism. "

Jim B wrote on Dec 22, 2007 11:47 AM:

" Hmmm, I'm not an expert in climate science, but this letter and the comments which follow sound a bit off to me. Some of the "FACTS" Cheryl is shouting about are quickly seen to be in error. For example, 1934 is the hottest year? See NASA publication: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/2006_warm.html. I know I'm not supposed to believe what I read, unless it is supporting the anti-warmers theories, but filtering this is difficult for the layman. Another "FACT" put out several times here is the lag of CO2 and temperature. Hmmm? A 5 second search on this produced the following link: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc_fig1.html. And what about the comment in the letter that the US has a 300 year supply of crude oil. Hmmm? I confess again that I am a mere layman, but a read of "Beyond Oil" by Kenneth Deffeyes explains Hubbert's peak and the 300 year claim rings hollow to me. And as for Cheryl asking that her "FACTS" be challenged, the 0.12% number is troubling to me. Is this supposed to look small and insignificant to me? What is small? A read of "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery would seem to dispel the fear of small numbers. In this book, (again for the layman like me) a very eloquent explanation of the chemistry of global warming is outlined. This letter and the comments that follow have a senses of outrage and hysteria which often turns people off. It is the anti-warmers that sound as if they have a hidden agenda, not Al Gore. "

James Owen wrote on Dec 22, 2007 11:13 AM:

" I think that it's really to late either way for any of us to stop it from happening. Maybe we should stop arguing with each other and start thinking about what we can do to save as many of the Earths life as we can. Bit**ing back and forth at each other is probably causing more problems than any of you can see. "

Dr. J wrote on Dec 19, 2007 8:32 AM:

" Well, my scientific credientials are in paleoclimatology, and Dr. Arp has it right. There is a mountain of evidence showing the earth's natural cycles over many hundreds of millions of years. These cycles show CO2 and temperature variances (and many times CO2 increases do not lead but rather lag temperature increases, showing no causation) are large, rapid, and in predictable patterns. The current minuscule .6 degree C rise is noise compared to the earth's natural climate signal, man made CO2 is just not a significant factor. If you waste untold billions of $$ on "solutions" that will do nothing to change climate, you will do untold damage to the poor people who cannot afford it, and make us all less wealthy in the process and the earth a less prosperous palce to live. That is stupid, as well as unscientific. "

Kent wrote on Dec 17, 2007 11:33 PM:

" Core samples show CO2 increases to LAG temperature increases by 800 years. An undisputed scientific fact. Google away if you don't believe it. In other words, Al Gore got it exactly backwards in his movie. As much as it hurts, Al, CO2 was not responsible for past warming trends. CO2 levels only started to increase hundreds of years after temperatures had already started to rise. An extremely inconvenient data point for the nature-made global warming deniers. "

Tony Lindstrom wrote on Dec 16, 2007 12:52 PM:

" I'm so sick and tired of the popular stance on the global warming issue. It is clear to me that the scientific experts have not reached a consensus and that there is insufficient evidence that WE are causing global warming. It makes much more sense that global warming is a cyclic event that is getting a boost from solar activity - all of which humans have little to no control of. Furthermore, what do the global warming fanatics like Gore say about the fact that CO2 increases are the effect not the cause of temperature increases? This country and world needs to step back and take the hysteria out of this issue and start thinking smarter. Pollution is never good for the environment, so it's always a good idea to protect it. But, global warming and cooling are going to occur regardless, so let's concentrate on what we can control and stop the global hysteria that I fear will result in some type of "global taxation" - refer to the global warming conference action plan. These world leaders are really pissing me off! "

Cheryl wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:23 PM:

" Hey Markus, instead of bringing up disingenuous statistics that are irrelevant to AGW, why don't you answer ANY of the questions in my post or respond to the science? If that's too much for you, how about you just answer this one question: How can humans be causing global warming with their CO2 emissions when our contribution to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.12%? As I pointed out in my original post, the only response to these questions I ever receive from believers in AGW are more insults. Insulting me does not prove any point at all. "

Boxorox wrote on Dec 14, 2007 4:00 AM:

" Markus-- To the contrary, the scientific evidence doesn't really support the human-causality of global warming. Furthermore, the true influence of carbon dioxide on climatic behavior is minimal while CO2 is at such relatively small concentrations, well less than one percent. "

Turner wrote on Dec 13, 2007 8:12 PM:

" Wow Markus you are an idiot. Yes 99% of species have been extinct but they werent all from global warming. If you bring up that statistic you have to bring up all the species that are extinct, you have to bring up all the invasive species and the K/T extinction. "

mary soll wrote on Dec 13, 2007 2:17 PM:

" gobal warming is a piece of cra*** if you ask me...... "

Markus wrote on Dec 12, 2007 7:02 AM:

" So large claims. Yet the scientific research doesn't support you. Oh and Cheryl, More than 99% of species that ever existed have gone extinct. We are getting ready to cause another mass extinction. Telling how the "skeptics" have to rely on conspiracy theories to make their case. "

Mark J wrote on Dec 12, 2007 6:31 AM:

" The latest remarks by Gore make it clear that he dislikes the United States. He hates Bush so much that he is willing to take his campaign overseas to fan the flames of distrust and acrimony among our international adversaries and thereby somehow justify a declaration that the U.S. is a global environmental outlaw. Is there no stopping this maniac as he resorts to every possible trick to promote his political agenda at our expense? "

Todd in Seattle wrote on Dec 11, 2007 3:19 PM:

" Follow the money to see where this "crisis" gets it's fuel. Post cold war, there were 10s of thousands of scientists and researchers with little work. Goverments need justification for spend and nothing like a "global crisis" to get the troops going. Just listen to your next briefing and not how many new grants are in the works. There is no doubt the plantet is warming, I'd just like to see a balanced presentation of the facts. Unfortunately, those dont get grants funded..... When in doubt, followthe money. "

Cheryl wrote on Dec 11, 2007 12:56 PM:

" Man's contribution to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not enough to affect the climate. This is a FACT. Unless Al Gore and the IPCC are going to announce they lied about man made global warming for political gain, nothing they says is relevant to fact. And until Gore and the IPCC are willing to even openly debate this issue, their claims are meaningless opinions derived from their own preconceived notions that man is "unnatural" and doesn't fit on this planet. Building consensus through censorship is not science. The following is: Water vapor dominates. It is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide and other CFC's contribute only 5 percent of the effect. Carbon dioxide is the greatest contributor from this group at 3.6 percent. Carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities is only 3.2 percent of that. That makes man's contribution to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere 0.12 percent. We couldn't change the climate if we wanted to because water vapor dominates. Sorry Gore and the rest of you true believers. This is science, not consensus. Man-made global warming is a lie. The proof is there, it's just censored and that is why they won't debate the issue. If you believe in man-made global warming, then perhaps you'll have the answers to the following: Why did scientists have to sue the IPCC to get their names off the study? How can the IPCC claim one-third of all species will vanish with a climate change of 1-2 degrees when climate change of 6-8 degrees has happened several times in the past without this catastrophic loss? (Polar bears have survived this several times) Why did they have to get rid of the Medieval warming period in order to make the numbers work? Why did the IPCC use weather stations mounted over asphalt, under air conditioning units, installed at the incorrect height and stations that were moved several times for their study? How can the earth have a "fever" when temperatures have been dropping since 1998? Why did the IPCC lie about the hottest year on record (it was 1934, not 1998 as the IPCC claimed)? Why do the true believers seek to silence all debate on the issue if they are so sure of the theory? Answers please, not insults. "

Agustin Toro wrote on Dec 11, 2007 8:38 AM:

" Global warming is a hoax. "Hockey stick" graph has proven a hoax. Temperature reading used in IPCC charts are completely biased. Biofuel production is killing forests and increasing cost of food crops, and btw using fossil fuel to produce. IPCC doesn't allow any discent. How scientific is this? Why it doesn't publish discenting oppinion? What kind of science is this? "

Boxorox wrote on Dec 10, 2007 4:33 AM:

" Good letter. You make valid and reasonable points. Thank you. "

owl wrote on Dec 10, 2007 12:28 AM:

" There has been no economic pattern of gain or loss due to Kyoto. The worst economic performance, of any 21stC industrialized nation, is the anti-Kyoto USA. CO2/CH4 emissions that have altered the atmospheric balance is human-sourced pollution. No semantics will change that. Increased CO2 levels have, at best, a trivial beneficial effect on the edges of the agri-conomy. There are no CO2 fertilizers. The 'petition' was and is a log-cabin fraud. Finding someone to say AGW is a fraud is easy; building a very concerned scientific consensus is the real deal. You're not exposing a hoax, you're repeating well-worn and often-rebuked nonsense. As a plant scientist, try an experiment - fertilize a field with the smokestack emissions from a coal-plant. "

Tom Moses wrote on Dec 8, 2007 11:49 AM:

" Thank you for putting into text what I have been telling people for years "

Larry Chamblin wrote on Dec 8, 2007 11:35 AM:

" With all due respect to your scientific credentials, they may be the wrong ones for this crisis. The world's most authoritative body of scientists-- thousands of climate scientists working on research and reviews of research for the past two decades--has concluded that global warming is "unequivocal" and is "very likely" caused by human activity, primarily burning fossil fuel. As a consequence, without changing "business as usual" we face a future of sea level rise, extreme weather such a hurricanes, spreading drought and shortage of clean water, and so forth. The issues must be seen, not just as a matter of survival of the earth as we know it, but as a national security issue, an economic issue, and a moral issue. "

Comment on this story

Comments will be approved within 48 hours

Story Tools

Share this Story

Related Links

More Stories in News » Letters