EPA Comment Period On CO2 Ends Today

EPA comment period closes Tues: tell ‘em no state-establishment of CO2-phobic religion

Only a couple more days to let the EPA know what you think of its proposed war against CO2. Just click on the little yellow “add comments” balloon. The following is a comment (ending at “sincerely”) that you can copy and paste. (If you choose to roll your own, feel free to leave it here too.)

Dear EPA:

There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the primary driver of natural temperature change is solar-magnetic activity, yet the solar flux is completely omitted as an influence on climate in all four IPCC assessments and in the Obama administration’s new “Climate Change Impacts in the United Sates” report. This omission is rationalized on grounds that the existing theories of how solar activity affects climate are still formative. The scientific method rejects this rationalization. Observational evidence is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa, but the IPCC is using theory (its distrust of existing theories of the mechanism by which solar-magnetic activity drives global temperature), as an excuse for ignoring the overwhelming evidence that solar-magnetic DOES drive global temperature. Not all religions are anti-scientific, but the demonstrably anti-scientific nature of CO2 alarmism proves that it IS religion, not science.

EPA regulations are supposed to be science based. Imposing restrictions based on an anti-scientific religious doctrine would not just violate the EPA’s mandate, but would violate the constitutional prohibition on state establishment of religion.

Solar-magnetic warming: theory and evidence

The sunspot-temperature theory is actually looking pretty solid. It is known that a strong solar-magnetic flux shields the earth from high energy cosmic rays which otherwise, according to the theory of Henrik Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, would ionize the atmosphere, seeding cloud formation. Thus the solar wind in effect blows the clouds away, giving the earth a sunburn.

Whatever the precise mechanism, researchers have found that solar-magnetic activity “explains” statistically about 60-80 percent of global temperature change on all time scales going back hundreds of millions of years. On the decadal time scale, see the seminal 1991 paper by Christensen and Lassen (“Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate”) and the 2003 isotope study by Usoskin et al (“Solar activity over the last 1150 yrs: does it correlate with climate?”), which found: “a correlation coefficient of about .7 – .8 at a 94% – 98% confidence level.”

For longer time scales, see the 2003 paper by Shaviv and Veiser (“Celestial driver of Phranerozoic climate?”), which found that found that the cosmic ray flux explains statistically about 75% of global temperature variation over the last 550 million years.

Omitted variable fraud

Solar activity was at “grand maximum” levels from 1940 and 2000 which, given the historical correlation between solar activity and temperature, could easily explain most or all late 20th century warming. When the IPCC and others omit the solar-magnetic variable from their models, any warming effect of solar activity gets misattributed to whatever correlated variables ARE included in their models.

By sheer coincidence, CO2 reached its own “grand maximum” levels (at least compared to the rest of the Holocene) in the second half of the 20th century. Thus in the alarmist models, whatever warming effect the omitted solar-magnetic variable is responsible for gets misattributed to CO2.

You can find rationalizations for this omitted-variable fraud in every IPCC report. For instance, section 6.11.2.2 of the Third Assessment Report does not question the correlation between solar activity and climate, but dismisses the cosmic-ray cloud THEORY as too speculative to include in their climate models:

At present there is insufficient evidence to confirm that cloud cover responds to solar variability.

But they don’t just leave solar-magnetic activity out of their models. Because their forecasts are based entirely on their climate models, they also leave solar magnetic effects completely out of their climate forecasts, despite knowing that there is SOME mechanism (even if the cosmic-ray/cloud theory turns out to be wrong) by which solar-magnetic activity is the primary driver of global temperature.

The only solar variable they do include is solar output or Total Solar Insolation (from long to short-wave radiation), which does not include the solar-magnetic flux. The Fourth Assessment Report does the same thing, looking only at TSI, as do all of the analyses that follow from these reports. For instance, if you look at he “Natural Influences” subsection of the Obama administration’s new report, you will see on page 16 that the only natural influence listed is “solar output’ (or TSI), which is why it is shown graphically to be so tiny.

Solar output is close to constant over the solar cycle (less than 0.1% variation), which is why it is called “the solar constant.” Because TSI is nearly constant, it cannot account for the many thousands of years of close correlation between solar activity and temperature. That must be coming from the one solar variable that DOES vary with solar activity: the solar magnetic flux. Every IPCC climate scientist knows this, yet they still omit the solar-magnetic variable.

Proof of omission: page 16 graphic from the June 2009 report by U.S. Global Change Research Program (in effect, the NOAA). The only natural warming effect listed is total solar output, which does not include the solar-magnetic flux. Similar graphics can be found in each of the IPCC’s assessment reports, where this analysis originates.

Religion, not science

When the alarmists omit solar-magnetic effects on the grounds that they are not satisfied with with existing theories of HOW these effects work, they are not just committing statistical fraud, but they are contradicting the very definition of science. Observation (the overwhelming correlation between solar activity and global temperature) is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa.

Consider an analogy. Until Einstein developed his theory of general relativity there was no good theory of gravity. Newton had a description of the gravitational force (that it diminishes by the inverse of the square of the distance) but nobody had any sensible account for the mechanism by which massive objects were drawn to each other. Applying the standards of the IPCC, a pre-Einsteinian or pre-Newtonian scientist should have forecast that when a stone is released in the air, it would waft away on the breeze. After all, we understand the force that the breeze imparts on the stone, but we don’t understand this thing called gravity, so we should not include it, even though we observe that heavy objects fall.

That is not science, and neither is CO2 alarmism. Data is supposed to trump Theory. By using theory (the proclaimed insufficiency of solar-magnetic theory) as an excuse to ignore the evidence (where solar activity is known to somehow warm the climate), warming alarmism perverts the scientific method.

That makes it religion in the constitutionally barred sense. Not only is this belief system embraced by millions of people WITHOUT EVIDENCE, but it is embraced in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Alarmism about CO2 is not just a religion, it is a demonstrably irrational religion, equivalent to believing that rocks will waft away on the breeze.

EPA is supposed to make science-based rulings. If you regulate CO2 based on demonstrably anti-scientific ideology, it will be an unconstitutional state establishment of religion.

The current cooling trend fits the solar-magnetic theory, not the CO2 theory

All of the major temperature records show that the earth’s average temperature has been falling for ten years now (with the 21 year smoothed temperature falling for five). In this period, CO2 has continued to increase, while the sun has descended into a prolonged solar minimum. This turn in the sun (breaking the coincidental correlation between solar activity and CO2 that existed for the previous 70 years), is rapidly unmasking the hoax of anthropogenic global warming.

It should not take a rare astrological event to unmask an obvious statistical and scientific fraud. Will the EPA now destroy its reputation by codifying the “green” religion at the very moment when the heavens themselves are exposing its dishonesty? If you choose this course, you will be destroying the nation’s economy and the lives of your countrymen in the service of your own anti-scientific religious beliefs, in violation of your oath of office.

Sincerely,

On the subject of state established religion

Blogburst logo, petition

This is also the subject of our blogbursts, trying to stop the Flight 93 Memorial Project from stamping a giant Mecca-oriented crescent on the graves our murdered heroes:

A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. (Some mihrabs are pointed arch shape, but the archetypical mihrab is crescent shaped.)

The Crescent of Embrace memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque, replete with a full complement of typical mosque features, like the minaret-like Tower of Voices that has an Islamic shaped crescent on top and turns out to be a year-round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial.

Outcry over the apparent Islamic symbolism forced the Park Service to make changes. They promised that they would remove the Islamic symbol shapes, but they never did. They call it a broken circle now, but the circle is broken in the exact same places as before.

The unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

67 Responses to “EPA Comment Period On CO2 Ends Today”

  1. Darrel says:

    “There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the primary driver of natural temperature change is solar-magnetic activity”>>

    DAR
    There is actually, none. This is why climate scientists don’t this seriously and haven’t for years (not to suggest that they did for more than a few moments).

    If you like that pop science book from Henrik Svensmark and Calder (citing ancient material from 1991), you might also like books on the Bermuda Triangle, UFO’s and Von Daniken with his lost civilizations. They’re out in paperback now too. Cheap.

    This crock you pass along is known as the “Cosmic Ray” hypothesis. Very old quackery, not science, not peer reviewed. I roasted this stuff, with careful references, over three years ago.

    And guess what, this Nigel Calder fellow wrote a book in 1974 called: “The Weather Machine And The Threat Of Ice (BBC Books).” It warned of a imminent ice age within one year. So the guy was wrong and on the nutty fringe back then and, no big surprise, he still is!

    Perhaps you would like to defend some specific claims in your post?

    ***
    “Nigel Calder in the Times

    As a prelude to a new book, Nigel Calder (who was the editor of New Scientist for four years in the 1960s) has written an op-ed for the Times (UK) basically recapitulating the hype over the
    Svensmark cosmic ray/climate experiments we
    reported on a couple of month ago —see Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin.

    At the time we pointed out that while the
    experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases and more ‘popular’ pieces. Even if the
    evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change is simply wrong.
    Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes.”

    <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/nigel-calder-in-the-times/"Real Climate Science by real climate scientists

    DAR
    Especially note: “No trend = no explanation for current changes.”

    One more time with feeling: “No trend = no explanation for current changes.”

    There are many more extensive responses to Svensmark’s idea in the peer reviewed literature. Here are two I had handy:

    “Atmospheric electric fields at the Kennedy Space Center, 1997–2005: No evidence for effects of global warming or modulation by galactic cosmic rays”

    LINK

    “Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth’s temperature: A millennium-scale comparison”

    LINK

    Excerpt:

    “Comparison of the Sun-related data sets with various reconstructions of terrestrial Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperatures reveals consistently positive correlation coefficients for the sunspot numbers and consistently negative correlation coefficients for the cosmic rays…”

    Translation: Cosmic rays are not, and cannot, be the explanation for our warming.

    Just a taste, I have a lots more on this.

    D.
    ——————
    ps. You really think the Park Service has been taken over by Muslims?

    • Darrel says:

      Real Climate Science by real climate scientists

      Fixed link.

      You really think the Park Service has been taken over by Muslims? Really?

      • Blake says:

        The Parks Service has ecological nut- jobs who lick the feet of the left, yes- that should be obvious, not from this park but their general behavior.ou would recognize them and deny that it is so, bubt any nut job who wants to halt the progress of anything to save less than 500 of any species has to be out of their mind. This is but another indicator.

        • Darrel says:

          Okay, so we have your conspiracy theory that GW Bush’s Park Service was taken over in some sense by Islamic fundamentalists and they have decided to make a monument to Islam on top of our crash site.

          I agree that this makes a lot of sense.*

          But I have a theory that is much more likely. If you look at the caption given above, it clearly shows a giant female breast. You can even see the veins, a representation of glands and you know what that dot in the middle really represents….

          I think this proposed monument was in fact designed by breast cancer researchers and they are sending a message to aliens that we are having trouble finding the cure for breast cancer and the hope is that we can get some help (notice also the concerning tissue mass in the picture).

          Another possibility is that the Park Service is filled with perverts and they just wanted to make a giant boob for you to stare at should you be flying over.

          I realize these might seem a bit of a stretch to some people but I do consider either one of them MUCH more likely than your proposal.

          D.
          —————–
          *not actually

        • Blake says:

          I did not say “Islamic Fundamentalists”- your term- are you islamophobic? I said ecological nut- jobs, which is true. If you are trying vainly to save 500 of any species, your gene pool is remarkably depleted, and you obviously do not believe in evolution, or survival of the fittest.

    • Blake says:

      You left out the Newsweek cover of the Earth as a ball of ice circa 1974- every “scientist ” was talking about a global ice age, because they knew they could scare some grant money from not only government, but private donors- when the glaciers didn’t move down to Texas in a timely fashion, they changed the scare to “Global Warming”, then when that lost it’s appeal, due to no real evidence, they decided to hedge their bets, and changed the bumper sticker slogan to “Climate Change”- what a crock- change is what climate does NATURALLY.
      I choose to be skeptical of all scientists that have a stake in grant money, thus have a stake in how this shakes out.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: You left out the Newsweek cover of the Earth as a ball of ice circa 1974- every “scientist ” was talking about a global ice age”>>

        DAR
        Actually, I didn’t forget, but you have. I responded to this same claim from you, on this forum, on May 24.

        Let’s revisit:

        ***
        BLK: “…the Newsweek cover depicting the Earth as a ball of ice.>>

        DAR
        A piece of advice: Don’t appeal, to a single article, in a non-science, non-peer reviewed, coffee table news magazine written 36 years ago for the lay public. That’s not where science is done.

        As one fellow put it:

        “There was some speculation on the part of some scientists, and it got picked up in the popular press. But there was no serious peer-reviewed work which supported this speculation.

        To imply any similarity, let alone equivalence, between such relatively unsupported speculation back in the 60’s and 70’s and the massive volume of peer-reviewed work on global warming today is dishonest in the extreme.”

        D.

    • Blake says:

      Ad whether you choose to call them “cosmic rays” or sunspot activity, there are correlations- enough to warrant more than a casual look, and certainly much more than a disdainful dismissal by someone who always is a “specialist.”

  2. Savonarola says:

    Here’s food for thought that everybody should chow down on:

    Suppose that humans have so far had little or no effect on the climate. Does this mean that we will not ever have any effect? Does this mean that we shouldn’t do anything to prevent damaging climate change?

    Even though Darrel is right, I keep finding myself wanting to take a different approach that takes advantage of the fact that — finally — even the most scientifically illiterate anti-GW loudmouths acknowledge that change is taking place:
    So you don’t believe that anything we’ve done has changed anything. I’ll consider that irrelevant for now. Forecasts predict that the observed changes will continue, bringing possibly catastrophic results. Should we:
    (a) do nothing,
    (b) work on ways to possibly prevent catastrophe?

    Now, one may do well to consider probabilities, but then we get back to the science, don’t we? Then the argument switches from “Have we had an effect?” to “Is it possible for us to have an effect?” Once again, even the hardcore denialists get shifty about this one.

    • Blake says:

      I think that regardless of whether we as a people have a substantial effect on the climate, I do not think we can change it in a meaningful way.
      I believe the focus is all wrong- its not cow farts, or exhaust of cars and coal plants- it’s the clear cutting of trees that is our worst offense, and what will be hardest to replace.
      The trees are the lungs of this world and we cold handle the cars, especially as good as they are becoming in their emissions, but for the lack of trees.

    • Blake says:

      It does seem to me to be arrogant of us to think that we can have a sudden, ( and for it to be “meaningful” it would have to ,by definition be sudden) impact on the earth’s climate, when we truly do not know all the variables.
      Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

      • Savonarola says:

        Interesting. You say that we haven’t had any effect and that we can’t have any effect, then you turn around and say that our deforestation is what’s causing trouble and that replacing those trees will be tough. So when you said that we haven’t had any effect, you didn’t really mean it, and when you said that we can’t have any effect, you didn’t really mean that, either? Apparently, I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at.

        BLAKE
        It does seem to me to be arrogant of us to think that we can have a sudden, ( and for it to be “meaningful” it would have to ,by definition be sudden) impact on the earth’s climate, when we truly do not know all the variables.

        SAV
        But it doesn’t seem arrogant to hand-wave away loads of scientific research with a few completely unqualified “I think” assertions, and then accuse others of being arrogant? My goodness. Pot, have you met kettle?
        A baby sits on train tracks as a train approaches. You don’t know where the track goes, the identity of the baby, the identity of the engineer, the identity of the person who left the baby on the tracks, the reason for leaving the baby on the tracks, or precisely how long it will take the train to reach the baby, so the “unknown variables” and the law of unintended consequences say that we shouldn’t remove the baby from the tracks?

        • Big Dog says:

          But you do know how the train will get there and thus, that it will endanger the child. With GW we don’t even know that the child will get hurt.

        • Blake says:

          I think that where man has had an effect has been in the deforestation of trees- I do not think that the effect we have had is responsible for all the increases these scientific shills are screaming about.
          What I have said is that the increases on Co2 are more brought about by the lessening of trees than the fossil fuels themselves.
          The total GW “effect” is still debatable as to the cause(s).
          Sunspot activity does affect our atmosphere, and to exclude it from the discussion seems rather arrogant to me.

        • Blake says:

          The deforestation has more to do with air quality than with temperatures themselves.
          For temps and rain patterns, see el nino or la nina for that, I feel they, along with the conveyor belt current in the Atlantic have more to do with those things.

    • Darrel says:

      SAV: “Here’s food for thought that everybody should chow down on: Suppose that humans have so far had little or no effect on the climate. Does this mean that we will not ever have any effect? Does this mean that we shouldn’t do anything to prevent damaging climate change?”>>

      DAR
      This brings up an important but very different question than I usually address. Let’s break it into two statements, with two parts, this way:

      1) Serious, concerning, global warming is occurring
      1a) Humans are a substantial cause of this

      2) We should, or should not do something about this
      2a) list things we can do about this

      People who do not believe in #1 are really not going to be very interested in #2. I have to admit I am not so much interested in #2 because there really aren’t clear answers (not much certainty) but rather conjecture about what may or may not work.

      I agree that #2 is where the important discussion is, for adults well informed about #1. I remind SAV of where he is at.

      For some reason I am much more knowledgeable about #1 just from having spent so many hundreds of hours researching it while swatting down the endless stream of anti-GW material. So I tend to focus on #1 for this reason.

      We have positively mountains of evidence supporting #1. It’s so overwhelming most devoted (former) anti-GW folks get angry if you refer to them as GW deniers. Those were the old days and since they have been dragged kicking and screaming all the way and eaten so much crow, best to given a little credit for now admitting the undeniable (but they still slide back to their old ways, see the comments about “climate is always changing” etc).

      #1a has less clear evidence but it is still overwhelming and only denied by a very few with advanced knowledge of the subject.

      Anyway, that’s why I focus on teaching people about #1. If someone can’t bring themselves to learn about or grasp the fact of #1, they probably aren’t capable of talking intelligently about #2 anyway. Folks have to learn to walk before they can run.

      D.

  3. Big Dog says:

    There is no doubt that the planet is warming and cooling and warming and cooling just as it has for millions of years. It is cyclic and man has little effect on it. Having said that, it is reasonable to ensure we are trying to do what we can not to emit large amounts of pollution. However, what we do has to be cost effective. Spending billions of dollars on things that will give tangible results makes no sense.

    The planet will be fine and we will not all burn to death in 7 years (at least not from global warming).

    The planet was going to have an ice age 30 years ago and now we will have warming. The scientists can’t say with absolute certainty what the weather will be in three days so I doubt they will be accurate with 10 or 20 year predictions.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “scientists can’t say with absolute certainty what the weather will be in three days so…>>

      DAR
      This is a standard, if cliche, objection.

      Consider:

      “Climate and weather are really very different things and the level of predictability is comparably different.

      Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time, generally around 30 years. This averaging over time removes the random and unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now that will come splashing up the beach versus predicting the height of tomorrow’s high tide. The former is clearly quite a challenge, as your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness to, but the latter is routine and reliable.

      This by no means says that it is necessarily easy to predict climate changes, but clearly seizing on the weather man’s one week failure to cast doubt on a climate model’s 100 year projection is an argument of ignorance.”

      LINK

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      With GW we don’t even know that the child will get hurt.

      SAV
      From what I can tell, you have at least two objections, one of which is espoused with your continued metaphor above. I gather that the second could be explained as realizing that there’s a train approaching but not knowing whether it will halt and reverse direction at a depot before it gets to the child. Does this accurately describe your position? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

      Continuing the metaphor, I’ll accept that it’s not as easy to predict exactly what injuries the child will sustain, but it’s a tough sell that the child won’t experience negative effects if a train is indeed coming. With GW, it is likely — beyond a reasonable doubt — that there will be negative consequences of continued warming, regardless of cause, even if there’s uncertainty as to exactly what the impact will be. Darrel is more well-read about these specifics than am I, so I hope he’ll be back to expound.

      Switching gears (tracks?) for just a moment:

      DOG
      Having said that, it is reasonable to ensure we are trying to do what we can not to emit large amounts of pollution.

      SAV
      To your credit, you recognize this. In fact, I’d argue that it’s the responsible thing to do regardless of any expectations regarding climate change. (I realize that this might have been your point, but I couldn’t be sure.)

      Back to the train: All indicators that we have show that the train won’t be stopping at the depot under current conditions. Once again, regardless of cause, we become obligated to effect a stop of the train. On this point, Blake says that we can’t effect a change, and then he says that we do. I’m still waiting for a clarification. Again, I’ll defer to Darrel’s information regarding predictions. An unbelievable amount of dialogue can be found on our forum; links provided upon request.

      But here’s the bottom line: You can argue that you “don’t even know” that the child will get hurt, and I’ll argue that you also “don’t even know” that evolution is true. This certainly isn’t a shortcoming of science; it’s an indicator of your unfamiliarity with its findings. (Now, I won’t even hesitate to acknowledge that evolutionary theory is better supported, but virtually nothing else is.)

      DOG
      The scientists can’t say with absolute certainty what the weather will be in three days so I doubt they will be accurate with 10 or 20 year predictions.

      SAV
      Guh. You’re more intelligent than that, Dog. Weather and climate are not the same thing. Your statement is a non-sequitur, to an even greater extent than is “I don’t know the high temperature for tomorrow, therefore there is no reason to expect July and August to be hot.”

      DOG
      However, what we do has to be cost effective. Spending billions of dollars on things that will give tangible results makes no sense.

      SAV
      I’m not trying to nit-pick or put words in your mouth, but I’m presuming you accidentally left out a “not” and were trying to say that spending money for no tangible results is illogical. If I’m mistaken again, please correct me.
      In any case, I think it’s more accurate to say that most people won’t do anything *unless* it’s cost effective, because our society is driven by the almighty dollar. You know as well as I do that a capitalist society of people and companies would largely do the cheapest thing possible, environment be damned. Only do people start chirping about hybrid cars and hydrogen fuel when gas prices hit $4.00 per gallon, and that’s because of the almighty dollar, not because of a concern for future environmental or political situations.
      Spending billions of dollars on things that produce no results makes no sense. Spending billions of dollars on things that produce results farther down the road might. (Consider drug companies, who sink millions or billions of dollars into developing a drug that won’t make them a dime for years and years.) Scientific ignorance leading to short-sightedness is not a valid damnation of technological development and diversification. But, fine — for any capitalist pigs who must be convinced of financial benefit, I can make this really simple: You pay for fossil fuels from finite stores. The sun shines for free, for longer than you can do anything about it. Why aren’t you using the free energy? Invest now, pay less later. And it’s a lot less risky than drug manufacturing.
      But there’s an additional issue here. What impact does our current usage of the fossil fuels have? What is the effect of smogging up our cities? How are the prices of fuels affected? Does the environment allow us to grow enough to keep food prices down? (Should I go on?)

      So, even if somebody’s answer to the question of whether global warming means that we should take action is “I don’t know,” it becomes a question of probability using implied odds. Are the probability of complications and the extent of possible impact low enough? While I find the science convincing on its own, I have trouble seeing how a decision even based only on implied odds is one of inaction.

      ETA: I see that Darrel has been back. He has provided multiple links, some to relevant threads in our forum. Do stop by, even if it’s just to read.

      • Blake says:

        Sav- our usage of fossil fuels has fallen, as our usage has become more frugal, and our cars cleaner- Yes, solar can work in some instances, wind in some instances- we are at the least, ten years from either making a substantial dent- we could also go nuclear in the same amount of time, and double our power output, and we will need to, with the increase in people- that is if Hussein’s healthcare doesn’t kill a bunch of people in the waiting rooms.
        I see you are with FFT forum- is Tamara also?

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          our usage of fossil fuels has fallen, as our usage has become more frugal,

          SAV
          “Frugal” is a word I’d stay completely away from when describing our fossil fuel use, even if there’s been a decrease. The fact remains that many people and companies are resisting a transition because it’s not immediately cost-effective.

          BLAKE
          we are at the least, ten years from either making a substantial dent-

          SAV
          We were ten years away from making these alternative sources a reality five years ago, too. It’s time to gear up and get it done without falling back on the “we aren’t ready yet” bit. In fact, that’s the whole point.
          I mentioned solar because (1) it’s very promising and (2) I had to pick something for my spiel. I have some reservations about nuclear but am open to discussion. Sadly, I predict that what prevents nuclear from being done right is once again the almighty dollar.

          BLAKE
          that is if Hussein’s healthcare doesn’t kill a bunch of people in the waiting rooms.

          SAV
          We can always count on you for an off-topic, partisan drive-by. Good show.

          BLAKE
          I see you are with FFT forum- is Tamara also?

          SAV
          Tamara is a registered user at FFForums but is not a moderator or administrator.

          BLAKE
          I think that where man has had an effect has been in the deforestation of trees- I do not think that the effect we have had is responsible for all the increases these scientific shills are screaming about.
          What I have said is that the increases on Co2 are more brought about by the lessening of trees than the fossil fuels themselves.

          SAV
          OK, so you acknowledge that our deforestation has impacted CO2 levels but you deny that fuel usage and deforestation have impacted the climate. Do I have it right now?

          BLAKE
          The total GW “effect” is still debatable as to the cause(s).

          SAV
          Let’s suppose, merely for the sake of argument, that this is true. My argument that we should be environmentally responsible for our own sake still holds.

          BLAKE
          Sunspot activity does affect our atmosphere, and to exclude it from the discussion seems rather arrogant to me.

          SAV
          While this could be discussed at length (and it has — a search for “sunspot” on FFForums produces half a dozen topical threads), I’ll try to keep this brief. Again, let’s suppose that sunspot activity/cosmic rays have an effect on the atmosphere. In fact, I’ll go a step farther just to show how feeble the position is: Let’s presume that sunspot activity/cosmic rays have driven global temperatures for much of the last millenium. Does the level of this activity correlate to the recent spike in global temperatures? The answer is no. The bottom line is: it’s being excluded as a cause for recent warming because there’s not even a correlation between it and the recent warming. Let me provide an analogy: Supposing that ants make anthills, and that more ants means more and bigger anthills, this reasoning concludes that a fifty-foot pile of dirt is probably from ants — not from a nearby backhoe — even though there aren’t anny more ants than there were before the pile showed up.

          • Big Dog says:

            Is it your contention that sunspot and solar activity have no effect on our temperatures?

            • Savonarola says:

              If you’re talking to me: That’s not my contention. My contention is that attributing recent global warming to sunspots/solar activity is — at best — like attributing the heat from a five-alarm house fire to a cotton ball that was next to the bathroom sink. Comparing the data, that’s actually being generous.

            • Darrel says:

              As SAV said, negligible at best. I have an extensive response to this question of solar forcing, with six references, here. Second post down.

              Excerpt:

              “According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.

              There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.”

              LINK

              BIGD (main article): “All of the major temperature records show that the earth’s average temperature has been falling for ten years now…”>>

              DAR
              This is terribly misleading and based upon the utterly transparent trick of cherry picking the anomalous hot year of 1998. It’s really shameless, yet I see it all the time.

              Note: “And 11 of the last 12 years rank among the warmest since record keeping began in 1850.”

              Scientific American, 11/07

            • Savonarola says:

              DAR
              This is terribly misleading and based upon the utterly transparent trick of cherry picking the anomalous hot year of 1998. It’s really shameless, yet I see it all the time.

              SAV
              I suspect that you see it all the time because many computer-chair GW-deniers repeat statements with no understanding. Comparing elapsed time between local minima or maxima actually gives zero information about the magnitude of the level in question.
              Take the claim, “Jones has raised his batting average to its highest level since his rookie season.” Which of these is the case?Jones batted .380 his rookie year, dipped to .350, and is now batting .375.Jones batted .380 his rookie year, dipped to .100, and is now batting .350.Jones batted .380 his rookie year, dipped to .100, and is now batting .120.Jones batted .100 his rookie year, dipped to .080, and is now batting .090.These are all very, very different situations that still fit the description of extrema.

              The claim that “temperatures peaked ten years ago” is like saying that we can strike out George Brett with fat pitches because he’s batting .390 instead of .395. In reality, his average “went down,” but he was still a hot bat.

            • Savonarola says:

              Sorry for the double post — please feel free to delete the earlier duplicate above due to formatting errors.

            • Big Dog says:

              I think I got the right one.

        • Blake says:

          Frugal is comparative when talking about past use, and valid therefore- not everything can be done overnight, cost effective or not. There are companies that will resist to the bitter end, but will certainly resist more the more they are pushed. Stubbornness is not just the trait of the jackass, but of people also.
          A little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down- the changeover needs to be made attractive, not onerous.

      • Blake says:

        Your next to last paragraph has several valid questions that have one valid, if odious answer- there are too many people. They contribute to the smog, and eat finite stores of food, What do you propose we do? Would a variation of Occam’s Theorem apply here, and how would you see it?

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          Would a variation of Occam’s Theorem apply here, and how would you see it?

          SAV
          I’m going out of order here because I think you’ve misunderstood my point. The purpose of my posing these questions is not to come up with a simple answer to each, but rather to ensure consideration of these factors when making decisions. Are you familiar with the basics of game theory? The idea is to take multiple factors into consideration in order to decide the wisest choice to make.
          I mentioned “implied odds” earlier; perhaps you’re aware of this in poker lingo: “pot odds.” Take into account the size of the pot and how much it would cost to call an opponent’s raise along with considering the strength of your hand. If I have only a 30% chance of winning a pot, but that pot would increase my stack tenfold, implied odds state that calling the raise is the most beneficial action — on average, I’ll come out ahead.
          For a more on-topic example (though with completely made up numbers): If you had to choose between paying 10% extra for a 95% probability of price stability and paying the same old amount with a 5% chance of your bill being 5000% extra next year, which would you choose?
          The more factors there are, the more difficult these calculations become. But with factors depending upon other factors, the potential impact becomes greater. Less food and more expensive fuel means not just more expensive food, it means MUCH more expensive food.
          If you find this topic intriguing, I suggest reading Conned Again, Watson! Cautionary Tales in Logic, Math, and Probability by Colin Bruce.

          BLAKE
          … one valid, if odious answer- there are too many people.

          SAV
          I agree. We need population control. (See below.)

          BLAKE
          What do you propose we do?

          SAV
          For reasons of civil rights, I don’t think that we can mandate population control. I think that our best bet is in educating people what happens on the planet. People need to understand how food gets to their table, the impact of clearcutting entire forests and guzzling gasoline, etc. Only via education can we make people realize that they should be their own population control. No more families of seventeen kids merely because Mom’s uterus is still technically intact.
          The Achilles’ heel of this plan, and all others, is that people are stupid, and I can’t reach them all.

        • Blake says:

          So let me ask you if you feel that sunspot activity has no effect on climate or temperature here,

  4. Alec Rawls says:

    Darrel denies that there is a correlation between cosmic rays and temperature by citing a Real Climate comment on cosmic ray counts since 1953. Did he bother to read the post? Usoskin’s 1150 year study found a .7-.8 degree of correlation. Shaviv’s 550 million year study found .75 correlation.

    The alarmists are not denying this correlation. They are only claiming that it cannot explain climate since 1980. (Duh. A correlation of .7-.8 means that 20-30% of the time, cosmic radiation and temperature are out of sync, as other influences, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation–which was warm from 1980 until 2005–do their thing.)

    Obviously it is not legitimate to dismiss a high degree of statistical correlation over millions of years because of a short possibly-out-of-sync period, but even this illegitimate excuse for omitting the cosmic-ray/temperature correlation is now defunct, since the two have been in sync again since 1998.

    • Darrel says:

      ALEC: “Darrel denies that there is a correlation between cosmic rays and temperature by citing a Real Climate comment on cosmic ray counts since 1953.>>

      DAR
      It’s not a comment, it’s an article written by climate scientists, and yes, I read it. And I understood it too. Did you?

      ALEC: “Usoskin’s 1150 year study found a .7-.8 degree of correlation. Shaviv’s 550 million year study found .75 correlation.>>

      DAR
      Show this, and then, show that it matters by citing where their data has been published and then examined by their peers and has held up to examination. I’ll warn you in advance. You can’t do this.

      Actually, this is absurd on it’s face. Our knowledge of temperature’s 1,150 years ago and half a billion years ago, are not nearly sensitive enough to show such a sensitive correlation. Who are these guys? Let me check…

      Oh, I see, one of the fellows from the “Swindled.” Great. I’ve written extensively about that flick and the fellows in it, but it’s been awhile.

      Here is a nice overview of their claims.

      ***
      Shaviv and Veizer (2003) published a paper in the journal GSA Today, where the authors claimed to establish a correlation between cosmic ray flux (CRF) and temperature evolution over hundreds of millions of years, concluding that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide was much smaller than currently accepted. The paper was accompanied by a press release entitled “Global Warming not a Man-made Phenomenon”, in which Shaviv was quoted as stating,“The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man”. However, in the paper the authors actually stated that “our conclusion about the dominance of the CRF over climate variability is valid only on multimillion-year time scales”. Unsurprisingly, there was a public relations offensive using the seriously flawed conclusions expressed in the press release to once again try to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are influencing climate. These claims were subsequently disputed in an article in Eos (Rahmstorf et al, 2004) by an international team of scientists and geologists (including some of us here at RealClimate), who suggested that Shaviv and Veizer’s analyses were based on unreliable and poorly replicated estimates, selective adjustments of the data (shifting the data, in one case by 40 million years) and drew untenable conclusions, particularly with regard to the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations on recent warming (see for example the exchange between the two sets of authors). However, by the time this came out the misleading conclusions had already been publicized widely.”

      ALEX: “The alarmists are not denying this correlation.”>>

      DAR
      Actually, they are. If you would like to have a civil discussion about this issue, please avoid the ad hominem “alarmists.” I won’t refer to your with a loaded term you don’t want directed at you.

      ALEC: “the two have been in sync again since 1998.>>

      DAR
      See above. Your author admits:

      “the dominance of the CRF over climate variability is valid only on multimillion-year time scales”

      So your claim about a correlation of importance happening “since 1998” is, to put it nicely, nonsense on stilts.

      D.
      ——————-
      “[Peer Review] is an undisputed cornerstone of modern science. Central to the competitive clash of ideas that moves knowledge forward, peer review enjoys so much renown in the scientific community that studies lacking its imprimatur meet with automatic skepticism. Academic reputations hinge on an ability to get work through peer review and into leading journals; university presses employ peer review to decide which books they’re willing to publish…”
      –ibid

  5. Alec Rawls says:

    Should I also comment on Darryl’s total failure to even grasp what the observed correlations are referring to? He says:

    Excerpt: “Comparison of the Sun-related data sets with various reconstructions of terrestrial Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperatures reveals consistently positive correlation coefficients for the sunspot numbers and consistently negative correlation coefficients for the cosmic rays…” Translation: Cosmic rays are not, and cannot, be the explanation for our warming.

    Wrong. The translation is that high levels of cosmic radiation cool the planet. He is actually citing a study that SUPPORTS the cosmic-ray/temperature theory.

    As the post explains, high levels of solar activity shield the earth from cosmic rays, keeping them from seeding cloud formation and cooling the planet. That is how solar magnetic activity is theorized to warm the planet: by blowing the clouds away.

    • Darrel says:

      Hmm… I’ll look into this. You may be right. If so how did this theory that:

      “solar magnetic activity is theorized to warm the planet: by blowing the clouds away.”

      Hold up? Do you have any good science to back it up?

      I don’t think it’s held up so well.

      Example:

      “Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.”

      Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?

      See also A critique on Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver.

      etc.

      D.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Hey Alec,
    Glad you could stop by. Darrel says that everything is his specialty so he probably thinks he is a climate specialist. I think the only thing that is an absolute specialty for him is tuning pianos. Other than that, not so much.

    • Tamara says:

      This coming from the guy who posts that Flight 93 Memorial Project is actually for Muslims. Oh brother, (eyes rolling back into head) talk about paranoid conspiracy crap. How boring and inane.

      Well, you’ve done it. I’m so tired of the complete insanity, paranoia and bias from you and Blake (particularly him and his petty, immature insulting behavior) and others that I’m oughta here. I know you won’t be sad to see me go since you only like to hear opinions that exactly mirror your own anyway. Ciao!

      By the way Darrel…do something useful and leave these dimwits to their insanity already.

      • Blake says:

        Tamara- when it comes to petty, immature, insulting, you and Darrel take the cake- As far as calling you Tammy, I did not know that was “demeaning”- I have a cousin with that name- but when it comes to slurs, you have given as good as you got, so no apologies from me on that count. Sorry to see you go.

  7. Big Dog says:

    NASA seems to think so:

    Here

    and
    Here

    Of course this is scientific theory but they believe there is a connection between solar activity and sunspots and our temperature.

    Since you guys are all about specialties I would say this is theirs.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: NASA seems to think so: Here>>

      DAR
      That is not a NASA site. It seems to be an article written for children and doesn’t talk about sunspots making the earth hotter.

      Bigd: And Here.>>

      DAR
      Did you read that article? I did. It’s ten years old and starts with:

      “Right now, we are approaching the maximum activity phase of the current solar cycle. The Sun is daily exhibiting many sunspots, flares and coronal mass ejections. We feel the effects of an active Sun here on Earth – radio communications, power distribution, orbiting spacecraft and even the weather are all affected.”

      Notice, they didn’t include “earth temperature” in the four things they listed. That wasn’t an accident. Weather is not climate.

      The only thing I can find you might be referring to is:

      “Scientists believe that a long period of solar inactivity may correspond with colder temperatures on Earth. From 1645 to 1715, astronomers observed very little solar activity.”

      They refer to a 60 year period, a long time ago. Some have floated this idea but it is dubious. I can refer to you lengthy scientific articles, but maybe this would be better. It has lots of charts. See if you can find a correlation:

      about sunspots

      We don’t completely understand the degree to which sunspots may effect the earth’s climate but we have good reason to think sunspots are not causing the current warming. We have much stronger candidates for that.

      D.

  8. Big Dog says:

    I believe they already recanted that temperatures have risen the fastest in the last 30 years.

  9. Big Dog says:

    One site cites NOAA and the other is from the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA and has a .gov address.

    NOAA states:

    So the question remains, do solar minimums help to create periods of cooler than normal weather, and do solar maximums help to cause drought over sections of Earth? This question is not easily answered due to the immensely complex interaction between our atmosphere, land and oceans. In addition, there is evidence that some of the major ice ages Earth has experienced were caused by Earth being deviated from its “average” 23.5 degrees tilt on its axis. The Earth has tilted anywhere from near 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees on its axis. The number of sunspots alone does not alter the overall solar emissions much at all. However, the increased/decreased magnetic activity which accompanies sunspot maxima/minima directly influences the amount of ultraviolet radiation which moves through the upper atmosphere.

    Which means the science is NOT settled. There are many things that can cause warming. The hottest period was in the early part of the last century, not recently.

    Human produced CO2 is not a very large part at all of all the CO2 emitted. The Earth has been warming and cooling for a long time.

    NASA says:

    A new NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400s to the 1700s and triggered a “Little Ice Age” in several regions including North America and Europe. Changes in the sun’s energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution.

    I note that NASA says that the Sun was responsible for climate changes a long time ago but that the Sun has been replaced by greenhouse gasses. I want to know how those could “replace” the Sun since it is still there and still doing the same thing?

    All I am saying is that the science is NOT settled. There are many things (and probably a combination of them) that cause warming but very little, if any, is due to man’s activity. Carnon Dioxide is necessary for life to exist and the amount emitted is small in the over all scheme of things.

    But if GW propagandists are in favor of reducing it they could all commit suicide and reduce it by quite a lot.

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      I want to know how those could “replace” the Sun since it is still there and still doing the same thing?

      SAV
      Please re-read my cotton ball analogy. Different warming effects have replaced solar forcing as the primary influence of climate change. That is, burning an additional cotton ball in a house fire doesn’t mean that there’s no heat produced by the cotton, it means that the amount of heat coming from the house is not explained by saying that the cotton is producing heat.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: [NASA quote] “there is evidence that some of the major ice ages Earth has experienced were caused by Earth being deviated from its “average” 23.5 degrees tilt on its axis.”>>

      DAR
      This refers to a 100 million year cycle and thus can have no bearing upon the spike we are observing today. Please.

      BIGD: Which means the science is NOT settled.>>

      DAR
      Scientific estimates about the future are not truly settled until the future arrives. With mountains of evidence we have about a 95% certainty that we are causing a lot of the warming. The latest evidence coming in now is finding that estimates from a few years ago were too conservative. And that the CO2 stays up much longer than we thought.

      BIGD: There are many things that can cause warming.>>

      DAR
      Such as?

      BIGD: The hottest period was in the early part of the last century, not recently.>>

      DAR
      How can you say something so foolish and clearly false? Where on earth do you get such bogus information?

      Bigd, look at this standard, uncontroversial chart, and then tell me that “the hottest period was in the early part of the last century.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

      BIGD: Human produced CO2 is not a very large part at all of all the CO2 emitted.”

      DAR
      It’s about 1/20th. But doesn’t have to be “a very large part” to have a profound effect. CO2 is a very small part of our atmosphere. Less than 1% in volume percent.

      Standard mainstream info on this from wiki:

      ***
      Besides other changes to the environment, since about 1750 human activity has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Measured atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are currently 100 ppmv higher than pre-industrial levels.[20] Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity,[21] but over periods longer than a few years natural sources are closely balanced by natural sinks such as weathering of continental rocks and photosynthesis of carbon compounds by plants and marine plankton. As a result of this balance, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had remained between 260 and 280 parts per million for the 10,000 years between the end of the last glacial maximum and the start of the industrial era.[22]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_emission

      Please look at this chart:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png

      D.

  10. Big Dog says:

    But the increase in electromagnetic activity can have an effect. The times of decreased sunspot activity correspond to times of cooling, increased with warming. The tilt of the Earth’s axis is also another consideration.

    The point is, the science is not settled. There are other reasons besides CO2 which is necessary and produced in relatively small quantities by humans.

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      But the increase in electromagnetic activity can have an effect.

      SAV
      I’m not sure what the problem here is, Dog. The cotton balls have an effect, too. But the cotton balls do not explain the observations.

      DOG
      The tilt of the Earth’s axis is also another consideration.

      SAV
      So you’re saying that there might be cotton swabs burning in addition to the cotton balls in the burning house? You think that a burning trash can from a vanity puts out the same amount of heat as a burning house? Maybe we need another analogy.
      Solar forcing is like adding or removing grains of to/from a bucket one at a time. Greenhouse gases are like putting sand into a bucket one shovelful at a time. Solar forcing does not explain how the bucket got as full as it is. In fact, when the solar forcing idea is applied to recent data, sand grains would be being removed from the bucket (solar activity was decreasing) even though the bucket was still getting fuller (temperatures were still going up). No correlation means no causation.

      DOG
      The point is, the science is not settled.

      SAV
      To the extent you’re implying, that’s absurd. Who better to ask about the science of climate than scientists who study climate? They don’t agree with you. Neither do the data, and that’s why they don’t agree with you.
      The argument of “You don’t know! It could be other things!” is a very weak one. It could be unicorns. It could be the decrease in number of pirates. It could be because Big Dog is older now than he was in 1990. You have to show that unicorns or pirates or aging is a better explanation of the phenomenon. You haven’t done so, be it with unicorns, cotton balls, solar forcing, or axis tilt.

  11. Big Dog says:

    SAV, many climate scientists do not agree. The science is not settled. Man made CO2 is a very small part of CO2 emissions.

    This is all speculation being hyped to make some folks very wealthy.

    • Savonarola says:

      What percentage of climatologists do not agree, Dog? (And by “climatologist,” I mean a person with an appropriate degree and working in an appropriate field.)

  12. Big Dog says:

    What percent agree? And the same standards apply. Many who signed on are not climate scientists.

    • Savonarola says:

      Signed on to what, Dog?

      I have a source, but I have to ask first: What percentage would convince you that this is not “all speculation being hyped to make some people very wealthy”? What percentage would convince you that confidence within the scientific community is high?

    • Savonarola says:

      I find it interesting that Dog hasn’t provided a number that would convince him that the jury is in when it comes to global warming. Nevertheless, let’s take a look at the number:

      The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments “found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role”.

      97%.

  13. Big Dog says:

    Maybe you should read that again. It says that 97% of scientists INVOLVED IN RESEARCH agree. Other scientists involved in other areas are lower on the scale.

    I have often stated that those in research are more likely to follow the GW trail because if they keep finding it then the government will keep funding it.

    Researches who get their money from research are more likely to find things that will keep them employed and get them more money.

    I don’t know what percentage but I have yet to see any real proof. I have seen hypotheses, speculation and correlation but none of these prove anything.

    The point I make is that it is not settled.

    7000 people contacted for the survey did not respond.

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      Maybe you should read that again. It says that 97% of scientists INVOLVED IN RESEARCH agree. Other scientists involved in other areas are lower on the scale. Other scientists involved in other areas are lower on the scale.

      SAV
      Let’s re-read together:

      The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments “found that [b]climatologists[/b] who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role”.

      I asked you about active [b]climatologists[/b] — you know, the people who actually study the climate, the people most qualified to draw conclusions about climate change. 97% of active [b]climatologists[/b] agree.

      DOG
      I have often stated that those in research are more likely to follow the GW trail because if they keep finding it then the government will keep funding it.

      SAV
      Unsupported assertion, and one of conspiracy. Doubly weak.

      DOG
      I don’t know what percentage but I have yet to see any real proof.

      SAV
      Two things:
      1. Then your question about how many agree was a dishonest distraction, wasn’t it? If you really don’t care what the percentage is because you haven’t been shown proof, then stop pretending.
      2. That’s why we trust people who specialize in areas that we do not, be they medicine, electronics, microbiology, or climatology. You don’t ask your doctor for “real proof” when he says that those pills will make you better. You selectively pull the “I haven’t seen proof” to reject those things you don’t want to accept, like evolutionary theory and global warming. You and I both know that an honest application of skepticism — you know, absent double standards — eliminates this nonsense. If you’re going to keep this crap up, let me know now.

  14. Big Dog says:

    Wrong again, it says 97% of climatologists active in research. That is not all climatologists. You are making the claim that 97% of climatologists agree when the survey says that 97% of the climatologists who are involved in research agree. Those are different things.

  15. Big Dog says:

    And the assertion is not weak. This survey shows I was correct. A large part of climatologists involved in research agree. Not double weak because this survey shows that.

  16. Big Dog says:

    Once again you presume to know me. When I am prescribed medication I ask what it is for and how successful it has been in treating people with the same condition. I ask about side effects and the likelihood of them occurring. I read the package insert and determine the risk/benefit of the drug.

    This is particularly true if I am unfamiliar with the drug. I am familiar with quite a few and already know the information but if not I ask and I check a PDR.

    See, I determine if the the medication is more effective than doing nothing or if a better medication is available.

    I would not EVER take a medication based solely on a doctor telling me it will help. People who blindly follow like that are more apt to believe in things like global warming.

    I trust experts in their fields but also realize that many experts disagree. There are many who are not convinced and there are those who say even if it is so, we can make no measurable difference that would justify the cost.

    Like I said though, if CO2 is a problem for you and the liberals then you can all commit suicide and reduce the CO2 output.

    Or are you not that committed?

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      Wrong again, it says 97% of climatologists active in research.

      SAV
      Which is precisely what I asked for! I said, “What percentage of climatologists do not agree, Dog? (And by “climatologist,” I mean a person with an appropriate degree and working in an appropriate field.)

      DOG
      And the assertion is not weak. This survey shows I was correct.

      SAV
      The survey says nothing about such an assertion. Your interpretation is that they agree only because of conspiracy. Do I need to explain that your position requires two assumptions — that 97% don’t agree and that there’s a conspiracy (neither of which has any evidence!) — while mine requires only one non-assumption — that 97% agree?

      DOG
      When I am prescribed medication I ask what it is for and how successful it has been in treating people with the same condition. I ask about side effects and the likelihood of them occurring. I read the package insert and determine the risk/benefit of the drug.

      SAV
      I never said you didn’t. I said that you don’t ask for “real proof” that the drug works. And you don’t.

      DOG
      I would not EVER take a medication based solely on a doctor telling me it will help.

      SAV
      This is rich. Sit down for just a moment, Dog.
      You get the info about the drugs from the doctor who already has decided that it will help you and from the package insert produced by the drug company who sells the drug in the first place. Do you see the irony of this? The doctor has a vested interest to keep you happy and therefore a repeat customer, and the drug company has a clear goal of making money by producing drugs, but you don’t accuse them of conspiracy here. It is easy to make the case that these sources of information are less reliable than scientists like climatologists, but you don’t.
      And that’s because you shouldn’t. They flood you with good information, and you accept it, do a probability consideration, and make your decision. You are NOT presented with “real proof.” That’s my point, regardless of credibility. You act upon this information without “real proof.”
      You have been inundated with information supporting anthropogenic global warming from qualified scientists. All contrary “evidence” has been thoroughly debunked. But you won’t accept their conclusions because you haven’t seen “real proof.” That’s a double standard. Telling me that it’s not is selective intellectual dishonesty.

      DOG
      There are many who are not convinced and there are those who say even if it is so, we can make no measurable difference that would justify the cost.

      SAV
      But, O Great Inspector O’ the Evidence Who Demands “Real Proof,” what does the evidence say? The evidence says that there’s an effect, that we’ve had an effect, and that we can change our effect. We have such evidence in spades.

      DOG
      Or are you not that committed?

      SAV
      I built an electric vehicle. I sometimes ride a bike to work. I educate hard-headed, anti-science people how not to be stupid. Clearly, Dog, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
      And this after you’re condescending to me because you (wrongly) think that I wrongly presume to know you? What a joke.

      • Big Dog says:

        It says that 97% of climatologists involved in research. That is not 97% of all climatologists, just of those involved in research. And that is based on 3000 responses to 10,000 inquiries. Perhaps the other 7000 did not want to answer and have their careers ruined.

        I have often discussed the doctors who are linked to the drug companies and how they work each other. I have also advocated for less expensive drugs of the same class rather than newer drugs that cost more for my patients. Why spend more on the latest and greatest proton pump inhibitor if the older PPIs will do the job? They should be tried first.

        I decide whether to take the medication based on my knowledge of drugs and researching them as well as knowing what they do. Obviously, if a drug is proven through use then I do not need to research. Morphine has done exactly what it was supposed to do each time I gave it whether I was giving it for a heart attack or pain. I don’t need to look it up or be reassured that it works if it is being given for what it was designed.

        You say that all contrary evidence has been debunked but that is not true. You say it is settled but there are a lot of dissenters so it is not settled.

        We have evidence of an effect? Why is it that 450 million years ago the CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today and they were in an ice age? There are theories and there are many possible outcomes. You are assuming causation.

        • Savonarola says:

          DOG
          It says that 97% of climatologists involved in research. That is not 97% of all climatologists, just of those involved in research.

          SAV
          Once again for the reading impaired, that’s precisely what I asked for. And there’s a reason for that. It’s one thing to call yourself a climatologist. It’s another thing to actually have an appropriate education in climatology. It’s still another thing to actually be active in researching climatology. These are people who pay attention to the latest information, ongoing research, etc., not people who got a degree and now flip burgers or have retired and distanced themselves from the topic.

          DOG
          And that is based on 3000 responses to 10,000 inquiries.

          SAV
          10000 inquiries to all in that database, which included people ill-equipped to answer the question (e.g. vulcanologists). No doubt many of them didn’t respond because they didn’t feel qualified to represent a climate authority.

          DOG
          Perhaps the other 7000 did not want to answer and have their careers ruined.

          SAV
          The 3% who went the other way had their careers ruined? Really? More conspiracy theory bullshit. How pathetic.

          DOG
          Obviously, if a drug is proven through use then I do not need to research.

          SAV
          That doesn’t address my point. Do you get “real proof” that the latest PPI works? Do you get “real proof” that the difference in effect between the latest and the last generation isn’t worth the price difference? Do you get “real proof” that the PPIs bind to proton pumps at all? Do you get “real proof” that the binding is irreversible? You don’t. You have different standards of acceptance; i.e., you’re employing a double standard.

          DOG
          You say that all contrary evidence has been debunked but that is not true. You say it is settled but there are a lot of dissenters so it is not settled.

          SAV
          I’ve heard the same exact thing when discussing an old earth, evolution, etc. You’ve been inundated with information from real climatologists but continue to cling to the fabrications of people who are completely unqualified. My trying to tackle your selective ignorance of the facts coupled with your double standards is futile. You’re not going to find a refutation in your transverse colon, so I don’t understand why you continue to push your head farther and farther up your rectum to get a closer look. I’ll take a small bit of refuge in the fact that you already acknowledge that our emissions should be controlled responsibly.

          • Big Dog says:

            The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

            The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

            WSJ

            • Savonarola says:

              Why do you persist with this charade? If you want to know about the climate, you want to ask… physicists? Let’s see, my areas of expertise are in the sciences, so we should consider me an authority figure in economics, right?

              Pathetic, Dog. You got the number, it’s really high, and you don’t like it. Now you’re fabricating conspiracy theories and appealing to false authority. Get real.

  17. Big Dog says:

    Sorry Sav, I don’t see this as an absolute and I don’t see one poll as an answer to a question. I am certain that 97% of the climatologists in the world would not fit this but not all the ones in the world were asked.

    I bet at one time all the scientists believed the world was flat.

    I bet at one time all the scientists believed that the sun rotated around the Earth.

    Did that consensus make them right?

    • Savonarola says:

      These are different beasts, Dog, and you know it. (Or at least you should, if you can manage not to let your predisposition cloud your reasoning.) Modern science is a pretty recent invention; in fact, we had figured out that the world was spherical long before modern science was developed. The same goes for heliocentricity.

      Consensus alone never makes something right, and I didn’t argue that it did. But when 97% of polled people who study the climate using modern equipment and modern methodology — which, let’s face it, work great in all sorts of areas, even to the extent that you accept the findings — consider the verdict in, it’s asinine for you and the rest of the denialists to try to make the case that we just don’t have enough information to conclude anything.

      First you deny that there’s a consensus, then you accuse me of cherry-picking data, then you float the idea of conspiracy with no evidence, then you lie about having evidence, then you deny having a double standard, then you appeal to false authorities, then you hand-wave away poll results merely because the results don’t serve your purpose, and now you’re comparing medieval problem-solving to modern science and misrepresenting my argument in one fell swoop. You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.

      I don’t have a problem with you “not seeing it as an absolute.” All science is tentative. But the poll tells you where qualified scientists stand on the issue, and it’s not even close. And you know as well as I do that they’re immeasurably more fit to make a determination than are you. or physicists. or the WSJ, whose writers apparently can’t read a simple chart and think straight. (“Flatlined since 2001?” Both factually wrong and irrelevant; see the George Brett analogy below.) Yeesh. How many times do we have to refute the same dumbass arguments in the same thread?

  18. Big Dog says:

    Sav,
    To be clear, I am not one to allow polls to run things for me so when I refute polling it has little to do with what the results say. Most times when I refer to a poll it is to show that different results can be obtained with different polls.

    Some polls are pretty accurate but when a poll says that x percent of a group thinks this I want to know what the questions were, who was asked and what their associations are.

    You see, if I quote some climatologist who is a denier you and Darrel say he is discredited or some other thing or you claim that he is associated with a group that disqualifies his opinion. I want to know who these people are associated with and what their motivations are.

    I certainly believe there is a consensus among certain groups of people but my claim was that there is not a consensus among all of the members of a larger group in general.

    Sure, there are groups of people who signed on and groups that have not. You discount one group in favor of the other by using methods that you will not accept for your own group.

    The reality for me is that the science is not settled and that it needs to be looked at carefully by a variety of professionals before we commit to things that might have little effect but will cost a ton of money.

    I don’t think that is too much to ask.

    There are no conspiracy theories with me (in regard to this). I simply can read that a certain group of people from a larger group are in agreement. Those involved in research. What about the rest?

    It is not too much to ask.

    And, I am skeptical of having things rammed through without proper debate. Simply declaring that the science is settled is not effective when it is anything but.

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      I want to know who these people are associated with and what their motivations are.

      SAV
      That’s perfectly fair. But the information is out there. I find it hilarious that you’re concocting conspiracy theories regarding funding while swallowing the lies propogated by Tim Ball and the “Friends of Science,” whose funding is well-exposed. This information is available, but you seem to have no interest in actually checking it out. It’s one thing to want the info; it’s another thing to actually make the effort to find it.

      DOG
      my claim was that there is not a consensus among all of the members of a larger group in general.

      SAV
      And my entire point, which you somehow — amazingly — fail to grasp, is that a “general” group is not qualified to answer the question. Active physicists, while qualifying as “scientists” and “educated,” do not qualify as “climatologists” or “having a thorough knowledge base of climate observation.” Period.

      DOG
      The reality for me is that the science is not settled and that it needs to be looked at carefully by a variety of professionals

      SAV
      You also tell the auto mechanic that you would like a doctor, a burger flipper, and an economist to give their two cents about why your car isn’t working correctly before you’ll allow the mechanic to take any action at all, right? No? What a shock. You can’t even recognize that you have an asinine double standard.

      DOG
      There are no conspiracy theories with me (in regard to this).

      SAV
      Bullshit. You argued that people didn’t respond (or respond “no”) because they were afraid of losing their jobs and/or funding. Then you argued that the high percentage was evidence of that claim. That’s a conspiracy theory. Telling me that you don’t subscribe to any conspiracy theory makes you a bald-faced liar.

      DOG
      Those involved in research. What about the rest?

      SAV
      If you want to be an idiot, I clearly can’t stop you. I gave you a damn good set of reasons why those are the people who are best qualified to answer the question. There’s a reason you don’t ask a physicist to diagnose your abdominal pain. You haven’t rebutted those reasons or explained why unqualified people’s opinions should matter.

      DOG
      And, I am skeptical of having things rammed through without proper debate.

      SAV
      But your definition of “proper debate” includes asking burger flippers and dishwashers. That’s not “proper,” that’s just plain stupid. Within the scientific community, the “debate” has been settled, just like it has been with heliocentricity and evolution.

  19. Big Dog says:

    I ask a lot of questions of everyone when it comes to me and my stuff. As for my car, since I taught auto maintenance for the Army I have a good idea of what is wrong and if I am being sold a bill of goods.

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      As for my car…

      SAV
      Now you’re just being deliberately obtuse. You’re not so dumb as not to know an analogy when you see it… I suspect that’s why you didn’t address my actual points.