Book of the Month

Liberal Climate Hoax Ratchets Up in March

Republicans aren't believing it, they know the real reason thousands of temperature records were broken in March, 2012, it's a liberal big government conspiracy. In The Greatest Hoax, How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) explains how those perpetuating the Hoax of global warming want to benefit, and why the temperature records over the last month, last year, or any scientific baloney or measurements can be anything but blatant and categorical lies.

..."Across the nation, over 7,500 daily record high temperatures were set in March 2012," Weather Channel meteorologist Chris Dolce reported....

Read the full article at

I wish people on "our" side of the climate-change debate would stop arguing like this. It's bogus and it cedes the field of battle to the deniers. Individual events like Katrina, or a string of Katrinas, or a heavy tornado season are irrelevant. Individual record-breaking months in one particular country are irrelevant. Otherwise, there would be some merit to the argument that "It's snowing right now in D.C., therefore global warming is a myth." And there isn't.

The data that demonstrate global warming and that link it to manmade activity are long-range and not anecdotal. That's the evidence we should be citing, not how hot it was across the U.S. last month because of some chance variation in the jet stream.

Such as one year can be affected by a big solar flare or El Nino condition. A decade or more typically isn't, or such is our contention.

[Interesting fact I ran across is that the Ozone Hole helps heat leak out, protecting the ice cap - bad news is we've been healing the hole by banning CFC's et al.]

What's a big problem is that earth climatology is a complex subject, and while we can point out an extreme amount of b.s. in counter-arguments, the claims for man-made global warming aren't completely settled - which is fine for science, bad for hotly-contested [sorry] public policy.

E.g. “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

With the "Climategate 1" release of IPCC, our side's retort was that climate skeptics had cherry-picked emails to cast doubt. How will we frame it now that it's obvious climate scientists really can have some extreme doubts about the models and conclusions?

Is the solution to implement trillions of dollars in energy changes, or try to harness improved analytics to understand the situation better, or pour money into new energy sources that we'll need in any case or some other approach that handles the doubt?

And if we are proved wrong, how are we going to handle the defeat in our public arena? The ramifications and repercussions would be quite significant.

They have you buffaloed just by your saying there is an 'argument'.

There is refusal to believe science which is rising to unprecedented levels on the right in America, for which I recently posted a link, not only on climate, but on evolution. You would be a fool to waste your time 'arguing' with the likes of Imhofe, who represents the mentality of the right wing in this country anyway.

There is in fact no argument on the effect of rising CO2 levels.  It is a greenhouse gas. The only question is how much and how fast we are changing the climate.  The list of 'anecdotes' is getting awfully long, they may no longer be anecdotes at all.

There is an argument, and my father is one of those people on the right who is constantly swayed by things he reads in his investor newsletters. I'm glad that my father and I can have discussions about it, because he respects my opinion on the matter. My dad has training in the sciences (he has degrees in agricultural engineering and in computer science), but it's amazing to me how he still gets swayed by the things these people publish. It's also sobering, and a reminder that I need to be careful not to assume things are true just because they agree with my preconceived opinions. I agree with acanuck that we have to be careful not to say that any single month (or even year, as PP points out) proves anthropogenic climate change is real, because next month (or next year) might be abnormally cold (due to seasonal fluctuations) and then those who you can convince might not respect your opinions any more.

That said, I wasn't sure that was the argument you were making initially, but merely pointing out how some of those on the right see a conspiracy in the highs.

And the IPCC debunks this very issue, that we're experiencing more extreme events or that CO2 or whatever is causing our funny weather.


If he reads investor newsletters, he understands acturiarial bottom lines.

Surely he will not dismiss the flight of casualty insurers from coastline risks as some kind of left wing hoo-doo.

Insurers will analyze the data to understand if it says anything new or not.

The study of hurricanes shows no increase in energy over the period - which indicates weather conditions are not getting crazier.

Some details are relevant, others can be misleading no matter how impressive looking.

Babe Ruth is still averaging 10 home runs a year even though he's been dead quite a long time.

That one's strange, seeing as the area hasn't been hit by a hurricane in 50 years. Likely they're gambling that one's likely in the next 20, and if they cancel now, they can avoid significant payouts. They might then open up their business after the next hurricane hits. (yes, in theory a followon hurricane has the same probability once the next one hits, but 2 Delaware or New York hurricanes in quick succession are exceedingly rare).

Of course there's the question of whether hurricane premiums cover their profits the way other home insurance premiums do, and that's less about the hurricanes and more about the premium vs. payout statistics as homes get more valuable.

There is argument whether a small change in CO2 causes such out-of-control global warming, such as the fairly liberal TheRegister.

Now there may come a time where we have to curb any causes if global warming is drastic, but again, we've a complicated system, and just because CO2 rise tracks temperature rise for more than a decade still doesn't prove causation, and if there's an example of decades-long temperature rise without CO2, we have to balance our theories to figure out what's happening.

Science is a bad place to push political dogmatism, whatever one's political affiliation.

7,500 temperature records isn't political dogmatism, sorry if facts muddy your argument.

If you measure 7499 places you used to not measure, you're likely to get 7499 new records.

Sorry you didn't read the link. It was an IPCC release. It didn't refute anthropogenic global warming - it refuted that more measurements = proof of anthropogenic global warming. Instead, they'll get their proof from controlled measurements and models, as always.

Here, I'll paste the pertinent part in order to muddy your dogmatism, though I doubt I'll succeed:

Comment Allegations of a "surge" in "extreme" weather events has been quashed by a surprising source - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change," writes the IPCC in its new Special Report on Extremes (SREX) published today.

"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados," the authors conclude, adding for good measure that "absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses".

Roger Pielke Jr, a professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder, and a blogger who aligns himself with the "debate is over" camp, welcomed the IPCC report.

"Anytime that you read claims that invoke disasters loss trends as an indication of human-caused climate change… you can simply call 'bullshit' and point to the IPCC SREX report," said Prof Pielke. He adds: "Kudos to the IPCC - they have gotten the issue just about right, where 'right' means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic."

One "surge" that is not disputed is the recent rapid increase in reports attempting to link extreme weather to a human influence. Coumou and Rahmstorf produced one attempt last week; Lubchenco and Karl another. And with remarkable coincidence, the BBC chipped in with a Horizon documentary on "strange patterns of severe weather".

Whether there is an increase in extreme weather is disputed; more hurricanes are recorded, including many that would never have been recorded before. Hurricane energy is a good proxy for increased energy in the climate, but this shows no increase for 15 years.

Yeah, like NCD, I'm not sure where you're going here. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation; that's a fact. We're now at concentrations of CO2 higher than the highest it's been in the last 800,000 years by so much that it's the difference between the low and the high over those 800,000 years (not including the last hundred). I.e., the current CO2 levels are twice as much over the lows as previous highs were. Since 1980, we've seen a rise of approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit in global temperatures. We have a predictive means (first described well over a hundred years ago, well before any warming was evident), we have a measurable increase in CO2, and no doubt about where it's coming from, and a corresponding rise in temperature.

Sure, there is room for argument in some of the details, but the broad picture is pretty damn obvious by now.

I took the Valdez to Whittier Alaska cruise in the 80's, I took it again the same month, June, in the 2000's, I had no preconceived notions, but the last cruise was like a Med cruise, the ice was gone, on land the Portage Glacier was no longer visible along the road, freezing you as soon as you stepped out of your car, it was retreating out of sight into the hills. The old timers, and natives, whom I knew and met and worked with, said things are not the same as their childhoods. The ice is melting in the polar sea. The seas are acidifying, I have read and believe Hansen at NASA is accurate in his assessments and predictions, he was the veteran investigator muzzled on climate by a political appointee of GWB. Waiting for anecdotes to turn into unalterable reality is where we seem to be headed, and the Bible thumpers, the flat earthers, and the quibblers will never admit they were wrong in denying what is happening, or endlessly 'arguing' this topic.

[for VA] Again, read the link. You're just doing knee-jerk "something seems to counter my position, I'll just deny it". But the article doesn't counter global warming - it just reaffirms a basic of scientific study - and a flaw that the public often uses in debating global warming.

"I took the Valdez to Whittier Alaska" is an anecdote, not a proof. Anecdotes can be important - canary in coal-mine, or leading us to take a problem seriously and research it more, to take action where needed- but they are not proof.

E.g. Alaska could have a decades long warming spell while the rest of the world is cooling. Or if you're a conservative, you can note that Fiji has cooler temperatures this decade even though 7500 spots around the world showed warming. Neither argument is proof of global warming.

[for NCD] "Waiting for anecdotes to turn into unalterable reality is where we seem to be headed" - uh, no, the anecdotes have led to studies and new models. While we have quite a bit of alarming data, as is usual for complex systems we have some contradictory or counter-indicationg information as well. Decisions have to be made within uncertainty. Whether our uncertainty leads us to delivering a $5 billion or a $1 trillion reaction is part of our public policy, though should take actual scientific opinion and thought into account, no?

Now I get the Peracles part.

This guy thinks he's in Athens and the electorate is full of plato and socrates, let alone aristotle.


I will say this shows what we are up against...Nobody will do shit until the shit hits the fan.

Did you read the link? It's typical scientific "reporting". As I said, there's some room for disagreement, and it's even possible that the medieval ice age wasn't limited to just Europe, but I won't assume that's true because a few scientists disagree with the majority (who still think it was primarily limited to Europe). If you want to convince me, link to journal articles, not puff pieces that don't know what they're talking about.

If anyone's jerking knees around here, I'd say it's you.

I think it is a perfect example of the problem faced by the scientific community and by extension the world, because it seems that the general public (at least in the United States) will believe a newspaper article over peer reviewed scientific journal articles.  It makes no real sense, but it is what it is.

The larger impact is that people won't trust the actual facts anymore. We've certainly seen that, particularly in the recent studies done about conservatives and even moderates who don't trust science anymore. It's been deliberately politicized by folks who don't know what they are talking about, (hey James Inhoffe) yet people believe them anyway. No proof require just conjecture and politicization. It's weird, no doubt, but I think in part it is what the internet gives us, everyone believes they are an expert in everything. (cause they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express or read it on the Internet or something).

Shame neither of you two actually read the link, or you wouldn't say "believe a newspaper article over peer reviewed scientific journal articles":

Lu et al's work is published in the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

whereas the IPCC's special report referred to can be downloaded here:

So if you don't trust peer-reviewed articles or the IPCC, what do you believe?

Now that I've been called a "knuckle-dragger" for referring to the top climate change body in the world, I'm simply dumbfounded.

You're not reading what I wrote. I acknowledged that a few scientists (and I think it was implied that I was not questioning the motives of those scientists) questioned the locality of the Medieval Ice Age. However, that puff piece you linked to is over-stating the significance of that work, in my opinion. As I said, it's entirely possible they're right, but I'm not willing to bet on it yet. When one group of scientists disagree with most others, usually they're wrong (faster-than-light neutrinos anyone?), even though sometimes they're right (that's how progress is made, after all). That doesn't change the validity of anything I wrote.

As I said, I feel like you're looking for an argument. I think you prefer the term "shit stirrer" for some reason.

You call the referenced article a "puff piece", someone else calls me a "knuckle dragger" and I'm the "shit stirrer"?

Lu et al. came up with a new method of determining centuries-old temperature - that should be helpful, no?

They came up with peer-reviewed evidence for Antarctic temperature rise during 2 eras previously thought uncorrelated.

Why is that "puff"? The research and paper were provided by people from respected sources:

  • a Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA
  • b Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3AN, UK
  • c School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, LL59 5AB, UK
  • d The Organic Geochemistry Unit, Bristol Biogeochemistry Research Centre, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TS, UK
  • e School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, LS2 9JTddd, UK
  • f Diamond Light Source, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, UK
  • g Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
  • h Department of Earth Science, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

Please note that "faster-than-light neutrinos" were never published as a paper, and it was a single experiment anomaly (read: mistake) that certainly didn't pass peer review.

The Lu et al. paper is not the puff piece, it's the review of it that you initially linked to. The Lu paper is well written and quite believable.

As for the faster-than-light neutrinos (something that's more in my wheelhouse than climate science), it was at least two experimental anomalies, it was published at arXiv here, and the only reason it didn't pass peer review (arXiv is not peer-reviewed, although there is a lot of good stuff there) was because it would've upended so much of what we assumed we knew to be true that it was held to a much higher scrutiny than any typical research. It took quite some time to find the flaw in their research, and scientists wouldn't have been looking so hard if there wasn't so much at stake (scientifically, that is).

If there's a flaw in the Lu et al. research (if), and if it's of the same subtlety as the flaw in the Adam et al. research (or should I call it the Ereditato et al. research, since he seems to be the one being blamed), then I don't expect it to be found for a much longer time, because their results are far more believable than the Adam/Ereditato results. (That's a totally different kind of bias than you mostly hear complained about, but a reasonable bias.)

I'm also reminded of the cold fusion research (again, closer to my areas of expertise) of Pons and Fleischmann (and Hawkins) that was published in a peer-reviewed paper before being widely discredited. Again (again!) that's not an attempt to discredit Lu et al., but merely my reason for not assuming they're right just because of one peer-reviewed paper, even if it does seem well done. (Just to remind you, I'm also not assuming they're wrong.)

The neutrino thing was supect all along, as this Register article noted before attempt #2, including "systematic errors" and referrals to the same arXiv piece you note. (such as they didn't measure round-trip time, only one way)

Peer-review doesn't necessarily prove or disprove, but it does often find glaring and less-glaring mistakes.

So I still don't understand why you call the review a "puff piece" - their job of course is to make science exciting, which journals don't always do, but I don't see where they distorted the facts or the significance.

And in any case, by calling it a "puff piece", you invite others to ignore the actual journal article (which of course is only available for purchase). Did you not like them calling Mann & Jones "alarmist"?

No, I did not like them calling Mann & Jones alarmist. That's one thing that makes it a puff piece. Nothing that they linked to made a similar claim. They made that up. So, if calling a misleading newspaper article a puff piece gets less people to read it, then I'm happy. I've said (repeatedly!) that the journal article is worthwhile, but I'm sorry if I have to march in lock-step with you in order for you to consider my reactions not "knee jerk".

Edit to add: also, how in the hell does one measure round-trip times of neutrinos?!? These are particles that pass through the Earth.

So mostly you object that their attitude towards grandiose climate alarmism doesn't meet your standards, not that their interpretation of the peer-reviewed journal article is flawed.

Do you agree with The Register's view that the mainstream opinion as espoused by IPCC has been that there was no correlation in the southern hemisphere with the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age? And that this research provides (non-definitive) evidence against that position, that they would have been global warming and cooling, i.e. an example of pre-industrial global warming?

From Nature (hopefully not a puff magazine?):

Going deep

Because two clocks are needed to time the neutrinos' journey — one at the beginning, and one at the end — they must be synchronized to within nanoseconds to get an accurate measurement, explains Toby Wiseman, a theoretical physicist also at Imperial College London. Measuring the speed of light on this journey would be much easier, because the beam can be reflected back to its origin, and the round trip timed with just one clock. "Whether they have or haven't synchronized their clocks correctly is the crucial question," says Wiseman.

So mostly you object that their attitude towards grandiose climate alarmism doesn't meet your standards, not that their interpretation of the peer-reviewed journal article is flawed.

Exactly. Where my standards are "not making shit up".

Do you agree with The Register's view that the mainstream opinion as espoused by IPCC has been that there was no correlation in the southern hemisphere with the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age? And that this research provides (non-definitive) evidence against that position, that they would have been global warming and cooling, i.e. an example of pre-industrial global warming?

I agree with that view, but I would not credit it to The Register. Perhaps you read a different article than the one I read. In all seriousness, if that's what you got out of it, you were definitely inferring stuff that I did not infer that they intended to convey.

It's good to know that the round trip you were talking about was with the speed of light, but that still leaves unanswered how you would perform a similar measurement with neutrinos, since you cannot reflect them. They did make a mistake, but it took a lot of research time before that mistake was discovered. With the Pons-Fleischmann(-Hawkins) experiment, it wasn't discovered until after publication by a peer-reviewed journal. (I keep mentioning Hawkins, because there's a funny story there.)

A proper temperature record for Antarctica is particularly interesting, as it illuminates one of the main debates in global-warming/climate-change: namely, were the so-called Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age merely regional, or were they global events?...

...If it was worldwide in extent that would strongly suggest [PP - i.e. not "prove"] that global warming may just be something that happens from time to time, not something caused by miniscule concentrations of CO2... [PP - does not directly address the effect of CO2]

...The IPCC consensus is that the medieval warming – and the "Little Ice Age" which followed it – only happened in Europe and maybe some other northern areas. They were local events only, and globally the world was cooler than it is now. The temperature increase seen in the latter half of the 20th century is a new thing caused by humanity's carbon emissions...

.... Lu and his colleagues' new work, however, indicates [PP - i.e. not "prove"] that in fact the medieval warm period and little ice age were both felt right down to Antarctica.

You're definitely reading what you want to read there.

I found this part you quoted especially salient:

...If it was worldwide in extent that would strongly suggest [PP - i.e. not "prove"] that global warming may just be something that happens from time to time, not something caused by miniscule concentrations of CO2...

Your aside was interesting as well. Where did they get that assertion from? It does not follow from the article, nor does it follow logically. It's not science reporting, it's political opinion, pretending to be science reporting (I'm okay with political opinion, but I don't want it dressed up like science reporting). It's like saying that because cancer kills people, guns don't. It's a non-sequitur, and a very telling one.

I strongly suspect that the authors of the piece they linked to would not approve of that interpretation of their work.

Oh come on - just click on the guy's name and look at his other articles.

He gives * and ** paragraphs for references on why he uses "alarmism" and other terms.

And notes that both sides have well-paid advocates raking in the bucks (e.g. Eric Schmidt of Google funds 1 global warming warning group)

So he cites support for his opinions, that doesn't make them any less his opinions (as opposed to the author of the journal article you seem to think I'm discouraging people from reading). The excerpt you quoted (and I later quoted) was also a logical fallacy, as I pointed out. You seem to be ignoring that.

No one is claiming that CO2 is the only reason for global warming. No one is claiming that all global warming is anthropocentric. There are two logical fallacies, the straw man and the non-sequitur.

They claim CO2 is the main & most significant culprit.

And you claim by giving his sarcastic professional opinion - tied to journal articles -  it's a puff piece. Unlike Rachel Maddow, whose sarcastic professional opinion is "news".

Different strokes, different standards.




















I swear before Jesus, NCD, I have been the victim of Poe's law.

I thought you were flogging the deadest horse in town, but, Lo!

Here amongst us, without the branded forehead of the knuckle draggers, DoubleP, a denier...

He's not a denier, he's a contrarian.


I'm sure he knows that anthropogenic global warming is real. He might not be convinced as to how alarmed we should be about it, but I think mainly he just likes to argue. Since everyone is saying "X", he's looking for a way to say "not X". It's his modus operandi. Sometimes I think it's helpful. (Sometimes I do it, too.)

As the IPCC and Lu papers just came out, I'm actually just posting up-to-date info.

Most obviously, anthropogenic global warming is real - whether heat from cars and factories or greenhouse gases.

The questions that have followed include "how bad is the problem?", "what are the largest contributors to global warming?", "what measures can contain or moderate the problem?", "how much do which measures cost?", etc.

One peer-reviewed paper noting temperature info trapped in ikaite crystals in and around Antarctica does not prove conclusively Antarctic warming during the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period- though it might provide the strongest evidence yet of previous centuries-long global temperature change - and seems ingenious in any case.

“We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” Lu says. “More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.”

Which doesn't refute anthropogenic global warming; however previous IPCC position was that there was no earlier record of extended coordinated global warming, so that the current period had to have only human causes.

What I personally hope is scientists figure out more important causes and cost-efficient cures for global warming - whatever the causes - and save us trillions of dollars we can spend instead on education, poverty, health care, clean water supplies, renewable energy, or our prime mandate, blowing ourselves to smithereens in the quest for greater military superiority.

But since most folks seem invested in just fighting parties of the other tribe, I guess I"m just the turd in the punchbowl.

The 'other tribe' says climate change is a conspiracy to steal the future (see above), and they also say the Bible tells us God created hydrocarbon fossil fuels in The Great Deluge 6,000 years ago, so we could burn as much of it, as fast as we feel like. They are OK with spending trillions on illegal wars or tax cuts for rich people, they are not giving an inch or a thin dime, no matter how many IPCC reports come out, on big government global UN anti-freedom commie Al Gore liberal conspiracies that threaten our oil consumption.

There you go - I didn't say any of those things, so should I be labeled a knuckle-dragging denier?

Imhofe and Co. are the knuckle dragging deniers, ridicule is increasingly all we have left in 'arguing' with them.

however previous IPCC position was that there was no earlier record of extended coordinated global warming, so that the current period had to have only human causes.

Neither of those clauses is true. It was never the IPCC position that there was no earlier record of extended coordinated global warming (unless you mean exclusively during the Medieval Ice Age), and it was never an IPCC conclusion (or a logical one of any sort) that the lack of such a coordinated global warming is necessary or sufficient proof that the current period must have only human causes.

Specifically over the last 11000 years, yes, that is their position:

It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes....

....Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin (see FAQ 6.1), whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities......

....Before 2,000 years ago, temperature variations have not been systematically compiled into large-scale ave ages, but they do not provide evidence for warmer-than-present global annual mean temperatures going back through the Holocene (the last 11,600 years; see Section 6.4).....

....Second, local changes must not be confused with global changes. Local climate changes are often much larger than global ones, since local factors (e.g., changes in oceanic or atmospheric circulation) can shift the delivery of heat or moisture from one place to another and local feedbacks operate (e.g., sea ice feedback). Large changes in global mean temperature, in contrast, require some global forcing (such as a change in greenhouse gas concentration or solar activity).....

...It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes.....

[more detail at: ]


Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of �Little Ice Age� and �Medieval Warm Period� appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. With the more widespread proxy data and multi-proxy reconstructions of temperature change now available, the spatial and temporal character of these putative climate epochs can be reassessed.


During the last ice age, over 20 abrupt and dramatic climate shifts occurred that are particularly prominent in records around the northern Atlantic (see Section 6.4). These differ from the glacial-interglacial cycles in that they probably do not involve large changes in global mean temperature: changes are not synchronous in Greenland and Antarctica, and they are in the opposite direction in the South and North Atlantic. This means that a major change in global radiation balance would not have been needed to cause these shifts; a redistribution of heat within the climate system would have sufficed.

However, some good/bad news released today - a Dutch group's 30-year-old temperature predictions (before global warming was an issue) based on CO2 emissions seems to be spot on, supporting the contention of CO2 as the main cause in global temperature change: for a non-dogmatic scientific climate site


I can't believe I'm butting into this circle jerk...what is your point, exactly?  That some portion of the "reasoning section" of an IPCC report drew or  purported to draw, a logically indefensible inference, so your panties are permanently wedged up your crack?

As you cogently (!) point out in the end, it's getting hotter along just the dismal predictive curve.

Look, cut out the insulting ad hominems, a****** or I'll wedge something else up your crack.

The IPCC has a number of dogmatic claims made despite lack of real or proxy indicators of temperature over the last 11000 years.

The lack is understandable - mankind is new to this. The dogmatism is understandable - people like Roy Spencer and non-scientists like Rush Limbaugh are attacking just because it's what they do, ignore real facts and arguments.

Nevertheless, our understanding of the situation is evolving, and this new understanding may hopefully help us provide cheaper, more timely and more appropriate reactions.

So realizing that global climate change happened in the past without glacier conditions would change our understanding. It doesn't however disprove anthropogenic warming this century. (and 1 study is not conclusive)

A relatively accurate 30-year-old temperature prediction based on CO2 before global warming was the rage helps confirm our CO2 models and assumptions as correct.

Thirdly, bad public science doesn't help anyone. Just because there are 7500 bad weather events doesn't by itself confirm or refute CO2-caused human-caused global warming - they have to be correlated properly to draw conclusions.

A decrease in global temperature doesn't refute human CO2-caused global warming if the temperature drop is a short period offset e.g. due to lower solar activity (where the temperature rise could be calamitous at the end of this period)

Fourthly, ideally we should all be overjoyed if there were a factual reason why global warming is not so dangerous, as it would save us trillions in spending that could be used elsewhere. Sticking heads in the sand is not the same as accurately assessing risks and containment. Even if all warming denialists went away tomorrow, there would be public debate on how much we should spend, which are the most effective actions to take, etc.

Fifth, I'm not writing all this and adding references just so people can glibly accept the points that seem to confirm made up opinion, and ignore the parts they deem denialist. It's an exciting time for climate science, and as more studies come in, we get a better picture - some confirming, some refuting, some refining or giving better precision. Where it's real science, it's all good. Of course science includes hypotheses that we work with in absence of better models, and until struck down or revised be better info.

If all denialists disappeared it would make no difference.

We are not wired, it would seem, to respond in a timely fashion.

I am taking up kayaking.  It seems the prudent thing to do.

Another example of assumptions: do current climate models accurately predict ocean rise over 100 years?

Another interesting study showed that heatwaves and droughts only drastically affected grass growth during a couple weeks of their yearly growth - making that aspect of global warming less scary.

Not all assumptions play out.

Nevertheless, if we develop electric cars and then replace coal plants with lower emission energy sources, much of our CO2 output can be handled, and problem goes away in the century you're learning kayaking.

The electric car part seems well on its way. The energy plant part involves either getting much more elegant with nuclear production or coming up with a new idea that makes sense for large quantities.

Let me put this in macro terms.

Gasoline has a real cost (including military adventures in search of cheap fuel) around 11.00/gal.

Americans vote en bloc as "give me $2.50/gal. gas or give me death" Patriots.

Cheap carbon is the devil's own instrument, and he has us by the short and curly.

OK, with the caveat of within the last 11,000 years, I'll accept the first of the two clauses I currently challenged. The second clause is simply not valid, but that's because of the word "so". Nowhere do they claim that because there has been no "globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe" that "most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities". It is seen as supporting evidence, but no one thinks of it is as primary or even secondary evidence of such. Going back to my handgun analogy, it's like saying that we've seen a rise in handguns being fired at people and people dying, and we know how these two are related. Furthermore, we've never seen such a large scale increase (or decrease) in people dying since guns have been invented. If someone found evidence that the last sentence was not 100% true, it would not have little impact on the original assertion, although it would weaken the supporting evidence.

I'm glad to see you're a fan of RealClimate. They are an excellent resource.

Part of their hard conclusion that the last century is man-made is because they have no non-glacial examples of natural global change from the last 11,000 years.

There's an implied 'so' in their chain of argument.

Provide them 2 prior examples of natural global, and they then have to take natural effects more seriously as a partial cause of current global warming.

They're already aware of dozens of natural global temperature variations (if not more), so I reject your inference of an "implied 'so'".

I do want to thank you, however, for bringing the Lu et al. article to my attention. It's definitely worth knowing about, and despite any implied reservations, I suspect no flaws in their methodology.

Latest Comments