Flawed climate change science and the IPCC

It's time to look at the "science" of climate change.

176
6830
The IPCC report on climate change. (ipcc.org)

WASHINGTON, May 18, 2015 – To understand climate change, we first need to look at what the past has shown us. The past will give us a look into what is happening now.

At the creation of oceans, the atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide. Nitrogen, which now accounts for almost 80 percent of our atmosphere, was a trace element of negligible power. The animal life that existed then also exists today, leading to the interpretation that the atmosphere, even with massive amounts of carbon dioxide, was still temperate. On this, most scientists agree.


2014: year of futility in the fight against climate change


We then proceeded through the Bronze Age warming, to the cold Dark Ages, to the Roman era warming followed by a cooling trend cold enough to freeze the Danube and Rhine river systems. After medieval warming, the cooling phase was pronounced enough to cause the greening of Greenland. This is once again a timeline that most scientists agree on. The computer models given today account for none of these.The movement of climate over the millennia is not accounted for in the climate models.


Today, the major culprit of global warming is carbon dioxide, yet it is unclear why the buildup of climate change started after the warming that ended the last two ice ages. It appears that the gradual warming during the ice age may been caused by ocean warming, That warmth caused more evaporation, which increased water vapor in the atmosphere. This was a positive control in the moderation of greenhouse gases. Clouds are two-sided, and even though the bottom of clouds reflect heat back to earth, the tops of those same clouds reflect new heat away, causing an overall negative impact on global warming.

In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on climate change of 2014,  it cannot be explained how there has been no appreciable change in the climate in at least 15 years, even though during that time carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen. Climate change scientists say this is a mirage, that there actually has been change, and that warmth is being stored in the oceans. Once the information hit the mainstream, it has put pressure on scientists to explain it in the new IPCC report.


Obama’s U.S.-China climate change agreement is yet another lie


Alden Meyer of the Washington D.C.-based Union of Concerned Scientists has already stated that this needs to be addressed, that the IPCC cannot ignore it and that calling it a “quirk” of the models is stunning, in essence a non-answer.

Calling those who question the science “skeptics” or “deniers” is no longer as relevant as it once was. The opposition to data that can not be duplicated is a paramount requirement when it comes to science. If a theory is proven false, you retest and see if you get the same result.

The IPCC, Democratic Party and the scientists receiving government funding have given us end-of-the-world predictions since the 1970s. Back then it was global cooling, as even the magazine covers at the time attest.

Global warming or climate change or climate disruption is not a proven science. It has been found to have been manipulated and flawed, and it has a lower than feasible reliability to form a foundation for major changes in any country. But rather than fix the science, the climate change supporters deny and try to demonize the “skeptics.” All this accomplishes is to turn the discussion to politics rather than to honest science.

Both the hockey stick graphs showing cataclysmic results to tree rings being fabricated by Michael Mann and Phil Jones of the CRU have been manipulated to reach an already agreed upon result. Climate change and the major disruption envisioned by those who support these reports are based om “may” and “could” and supported by the political aspects of the discussion rather than actual science.

One of the contributors to the report, Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, has declined to sign it because of the flaws. Even lead author Robert Stavins has stated that three quarters of the report was revised after a late-night meeting and after many of the contributors had already signed.


A rare debate on the “settled science” of climate change


Many of the IPCC’s claims were discovered to be unfounded at a House Subcommittee on Science and Technology meeting in 2011. Dr. Daniel Botkin, professor in the department of ecology, evolution and marine biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who researches global warming, is upset by what he  claims is the IPCC’s tendency to give speculative, incomplete data more weight than it deserves. These findings of climate change are not based on settled fact and instead based on an agenda that changes the basic premises of human activities.

Hardest hit will be workers and families throughout the world, but even a worldwide effort at curtailing the false premises used to push climate change will not make any discernible difference.

The IPCC report is full of uncertainty and false premises and littered with non-factual assessments. It should not be political or directed to entities that contract for government grants or stand to make money off the environmental regulations being pushed. It cannot be said that the science is settled. The science is wrong and flawed, and it needs to be looked at once again with all parties involved. We don’t need activists, we need honest science.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Thomas Lucas

    I am not surprised to hear this. Those scientists who made the false reports should be publicly shamed.

  • go2green

    This article is almost completely untrue but what can you expect from a hack writer who is not a scientist.

    • Ryan

      Exactly!

    • Sparafucile

      Like Chris Hayes? Or even Gavin Schmidt?

    • 196ski

      What specifically is untrue? You made a bold claim, can you back it up?

      • Maggnum

        There is so much that is untrue, it is hard to understand how anyone could be taken in by the material. In the very first paragraph:

        “At the creation of oceans, the atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide. Nitrogen, which now accounts for almost 80% of our atmosphere, was a trace element of negligent power. The animal life that existed then also exists today, leading to the interpretation that the atmosphere, even with massive amounts of carbon dioxide was still temperate. On this, most scientists agree.”

        The author appears to be using an argument from the creationist manifesto. There is not widespread agreement about exactly when the oceans arose, but it was probably in the first billion years, and likely arose from volcanic sources deep within the mantel. The oceans could only have started to form after the early Earth cooled enough for water to condense into a liquid. They were probably supplemented by asteroid/comet bombardment. The early atmosphere at the time they arose likely consisted of nitrogen and CO2 plus a small percentage of other gases, and there was most assuredly no life. So every single aspect of the first paragraph is already suspect. And given they way he has laid out his first paragraph, no scientist would agree with him.

        Laughingly, he then completely omits 3 billion or so years, jumping to the Bronze age.

        This article must be someone’s idea of a joke.

        • 196ski

          I agree that this statement, “The animal life that existed then also exists today,…” makes no sense. The author lists no contact information to ask for clarification. Weird.

          Most of the other points are correct.

          • Maggnum

            “Most of the other points are correct”? You’ve made a bold claim, can you back it up?

          • 196ski

            Which part?

          • Maggnum

            You know, the part in the quotation marks.

            Or are you a hypocrite? You asked the same question of the OP, and got an answer. So, back it up.

          • 196ski

            We have had cyclical warming and cooling independent of atmospheric CO2. The planet has warmed in general at a rate of 1ºC/Century since 1870 and the end of the Little Ice Age. Earth warmed thru the 30’s, cooled from the 40-70’s warmed again and now for 10+ years we have had no statistical warming (RSS, UAH).

            The IPCC has overestimated the effect of anthropogenic CO2 and any positive feedbacks it would have.

          • Nicholas Palmer

            196ski People like you need to know the “the little ice age” was not an ice age so there was no “recovery” from it. Deniers are always fallaciously attempting to explain away recent warming as a “recovery”. This is just flat out wrong and is just another example of the tidal waves of deceptive propaganda, designed to ensnare the gullible, issuing from those who want to deny the science.
            Your other points about warming and cooling show that you don’t know enough (or anything) about factors such as acid gas particulates and dust particles or cyclical movement of heat round the various earth systems. You should read more credible sources

          • 196ski

            “People like you” is one of those inflammatory statements that has no place in a discussion of any time.

            There is no deceptive propaganda, there is science. Who exactly are you to say what is credible and what is not? I have a degree and worked as an environmental engineer, there is nothing gullible about me.

            Those who are gullible accept things at face value, ignore an emerging science and the changes of concepts surrounding climate change. RSS and UAH show no statistical warming for 10+ years, something the climate models failed to predict. That is fact. It says nothing about what might happen tomorrow but neither does any of the other “science” up to this point.

            If you disagree and would like to have a discussion on a specific point, great, if your intent is to merely insult you are wasting your time and mine. Your post is more revealing about you than it is about me.

          • Nicholas Palmer

            Hi 196ski. First, there is nothing personal in this but over the decades I have rebutted hundreds, probably thousands, of people who make statements like “I have a degree and worked as an environmental engineer, there is nothing gullible about me” and then proceed to come out with pseudoscientific reasoning. We get very irritated with this because all the points you made have frequently been made before and have been shown to be misleading or downright wrong, so it gets kind of annoying when yet another person drags them up.

            Be clear, I am not calling you deceitful but the ideas you put forward above are certainly deceptive. I am not even saying that the sources you got these ideas from are knowingly deceitful but they have certainly deceived themselves and they have certainly seen clear answers to their ideas that show up the inherent misdirection yet they are seemingly incorrigible – they keep on trotting out the same discredited nonsense. Either that or they are dishonest – maybe they continue to use these ideas because they have been proven to fool people with insufficient knowledge of the science to see where the misdirection is.

            Your “cooling through the 40s” meme is easily shown to be due to the
            large scale coal pollution created from that time onwards – acid gas and
            dust particles have a powerful but temporary cooling effect. As
            industry cleaned up, the underlying global warming signal re-emerged in the 70s.

            As far as “RSS and UAH show no statistical warming for 10+ years, something the climate models failed to predict”, this is a classic example of a deceptive meme designed by person or persons unknown to mislead.

            It is primarily a strawman argument inasmuch as it asserts things about the climate models that are untrue. Climate models did not “fail to predict” because they were not designed to predict, nor could they have been, all the random, often cyclical, natural variations that can temporarily obscure the accumulating heat in planetary systems. If you actually look at the peer reviewed literature going back that far, rather than parroting some soundbite meme you got from WUWT or similar, you would have seen that right from the start the science never ever said that planetary temperature would increase in a steady way. It was always acknowledged that cyclical variations such as El Nino, the 11 year sunspot cycle, AMO and the more random phenomena such as big volcanic eruptions, have powerful, but temporary effects on the climate. But the effects of these are tricky or impossible to accurately model, so those models you refer to didn’t really include those extraneous factors – they simply modelled how much heat would accumulate in planetary systems due to increasing greenhouse gases. As a rule of thumb, it is said that one can only see statistical significance in the global warming signal over periods of 15-30 years, which averages out some of the major natural oscillations. Quoting “no statistical warming for 10+ years” is mixing up two ideas. It’s true that satellites can measure reasonably accurately (as long as they are calibrated properly – which UAH has had problems with in the past) changes in the proxies that they look at to infer temperature changes in the atmosphere (but not the surface, which is what the modelled predictions refer to). This satellite figure (naturally) includes all the variations due to the cyclical and random phenomena because it is not measuring the accumulation of heat due to global warming, it is measuring only one aspect of Earth’s heat content. That is why quoting the satellite record over too short periods to suggest that global warming has not been as much as predicted is very very wrong

          • 196ski

            “That is why quoting the satellite record over too short periods to suggest that global warming has not been as much as predicted is very very wrong”

            You make my point, for RSS the data has no warming for 18 years 5 months. We’ve only had good ocean temp records since ARGO in 2003 and yet we are supposed to believe that the planet is going into catastrophic warming. There is simply inadequate data to support such predictions and recent papers suggest that CO2 is not the strong GHG that was originally thought.

            If the cooling in the 40’s was from particulate and then when we cleaned up coal in particular the warming resumed in the 70’s only applies to OECD nations. Any cleaning was more than made up for by the enormous amount of particulate emissions by non OECD nations. And now the pause which follows no pattern at all that can be explained by CO2.

          • Maggnum

            You’re playing a game of purposeful misunderstanding now. Your definition of “catastrophic” may not be the same as mine, but to gamble that the effects will be at the lower end when the effects of the higher projections are so dangerous is a game for fools.

            “So anyone who says that we shouldn’t act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you to ride towards a brick wall at 80 km/h because it might not hurt… Are you feeling lucky? –Stephan Lewandowsky”

          • 196ski

            On the contrary, I am not playing a game.

            The science does not support the projections. We could play the “what if” game all day and accomplish nothing, worse we could end up investing time money and manpower in ventures that were ineffective while missing what may be truly important.

            Fossil fuels are a finite resource, we need to look beyond them. Nuclear is the only currently viable alternative we have. If we were serious then we would be building nuclear on a large scale, we aren’t, so we’re not.

            It was interesting that China and India just recently released a rare joint statement asking where their annual 100 Billion payment for alternative energy sources was that we (OECD) agreed to pay them and other developing nations. Ironic that to accomplish this we would have to borrow the money from them and then give it right back to them.

            China is all in on all forms of energy. Some renewables like solar and wind but all in on nuclear and coal and coal gasification. There emissions will dwarf any reductions we might ever hope to accomplish. India, just after President Obama’s visit earlier this year, announced a 60% increase in coal production in the next 5 years. Regardless of actions we take in the States the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are going to continue to rise. The World Bank made a commitment to not fund fossil projects in Africa and other non-OECD nations. So China stepped in funded them. Same with new coal plants in Pakistan. It will be no different in Africa especially with a new push by South Africa to export coal.

            What it all means besides the fact that we will soon be living with a continuing rise in CO2 emissions for the next 75 years at a minimum. It also demands unimpeachable science on the consequences of increased atmospheric CO2. No scare tactics, no politicians making ridiculous claims (ice free Arctic in 2015 for example), just pure honest science without the social agendas.

          • Nicholas Palmer

            No wonder we get so angry with people like you, who just keep regurgitating the denialist scripts not only without critical analysis but also, in this case, without understanding what I just wrote.

            You wrote “You make my point, for RSS the data has no warming for 18 years 5 months” No. No. No. This is fundamental to the way people like you seemingly wilfully misunderstand what is going on. RSS shows nothing of the kind. What RSS shows is that there has been no warming of the lower atmosphere since the lower atmosphere received a giant pulse of previously ocean buried heat around 1998 in the giant El Nino. The global warming signal is still clearly visible in the surface temperature measurements, which is what the modelled predictions are relevant to. It is nonsensical to point at something which does not measure what the predictions are all about. It’s crackpot!

            The basic RSS or UAH graphs that the fakescepticosphere fasten on are not corrected for unforced cyclical variations, such as ENSO so trying to form any conclusions about whether the planet continues to accumulate forced new heat based just on those graphs is just scientifically illiterate because it turns a blind eye to all the other evidence that would invalidate such conclusions. This fallacious reasoning has been thrashed out and debunked thousands of times over the years and yet far too many don’t seem capable of understanding where they go wrong.

            An analogy I have found that can work with some to clarify matters is that of the tide versus waves. Imagine you’re on a beach. The tide is coming in. The waves are breaking on the shore. Sometimes some bigger waves come in and the wet bit of the beach goes further up. Next some smaller waves come in and the measured “edge” of the water is further down the beach. In this analogy the tide is the global warming signal and the waves are cyclical or random variations such as El Nino, PDO etc. The fake sceptics would loudly point out where the edge is and falsely state that the tide was going out or “paused”. Imagine satellite observations of the tide’s edge, uncorrected for the variations induced by the waves. If anyone confidently asserted that the tide was going out or paused, based on just those satellite observations, you would think they were mad.

            I don’t know how familiar you are with satellite measurements but both UAH and RSS do not measure surface temperatures. They, by using proxies, infer atmospheric temperatures. It is matter of knowledge that El Nino’s disproportionately warm the atmosphere – that is why, in the satellite records, El Nino’s form a disproportionately high spike in the atmospheric temperature record – that is why the fake sceptics and propagandists use it to draw misleading trend lines to convince the scientifically naive and gullible that they are seeing something they want to see which isn’t really there.

            Just about all of the sleight of hand “magic tricks” that those behind the antiscience propaganda use are based on simple techniques of misdirection like that. They’re not too hard to debunk but they are repeatedly trotted out because the propagandists know that their apparent plausibility has great power to confuse the general public and thereby spread doubt and uncertainty.

          • Maggnum

            “We have had cyclical warming and cooling independent of atmospheric CO2.”

            No, not independent of, always combined with. When discussing long term climate change, CO2 always acts as either an initial driver or as a feedback mechanism. If you disagree, describe an instance where it has not been involved.

            “The planet has warmed in general at a rate of 1ºC/Century since 1870 and the end of the Little Ice Age.”

            True. However, according to NCAR temperature rise has accelerated since the 1970’s, with the last decade showing the highest rate of acceleration since record keeping began. You are aware that oceans form part of the climate system right? The LIA was a regional event and was not as much of a discrepancy from the norm as recent global warming in any event.

            ” Earth warmed thru the 30’s, cooled from the 40-70’s warmed again and now for 10+ years we have had no statistical warming (RSS, UAH).”

            The statistical evidence suggests that 1940 – 1970 did not see a cooling of the background temperature rise, the data actually reflects a short term noise result from the decadal ocean oscillations combined with very high atmospheric aerosol levels (remember pollution?) and volcanism. When the short term noise is removed, the temperature acceleration is shown to have risen unchecked. (There are several papers describing this, including Zhou, J & Tunk, K (2011), Lean DL & Rind, DH (2008) Wilcox et al., (2013), Stott, (2000), Maher, et al, (2012) and others)

            It is important to note that CO2 forcing is not an or nothing proposition. Internal variability is an important consideration that must be accounted for, thus the multiple papers on the 1945-1970 period.

            It should also be noted that in 1945, the way in which sea temperatures were measured changed, leading to a substantial drop in apparent temperatures. There was a switch from British to US ships, which introduced a cooling bias.

            With your comment about statistical warming for the last 10 years, you describe a single measurement method, RSS. You are prbably aware that the RSS data has a cooling bias due to the cooling of the thermosphere. When that bias is accounted for, the RSS data also shows warming.

            More importantly, however, all other measured aspects of global warming have shown continued temperature rise. Once again, one must account for the oceans when you discuss global climate.

          • Roland Riese

            The comment is most likely in reference to be bacterial
            life and these bacteria live now in your intestines as these bacteria developed at a time where the atmosphere had lots of CO2 and no Oxygen; these bacteria get usually killed by oxygen. Plants produced most of the Oxygen from the CO2 that was in the atmosphere a few billion years ago.

          • Maggnum

            There is no evidence of bacterial life when the oceans formed. The earliest evidence of life was from @ 3.4 BYA, well after the formation of the oceans.

  • tyrannyofevilmen

    At this point even Chicken Little is skeptical of the IPCC.

  • Michelle Teller

    Global Warming Scientology is State Sponsored Religion.
    FOLLOW THE MONEY – the Cult’s Priests get paid TRILLIONS to promote the LIE>

    • 0-e^(i*pi)

      You’re projecting.

    • 9.8m/ss

      The fossil fuel industry stands to lose tens of $trillions when responsible public policy on waste CO2 is enacted. Every month they can delay it is worth $billions. The typical climate researcher makes about $60K/year, and has no financial incentive to fake or distort. Follow the money indeed.

      • Sparafucile

        Scientists have to feed their families, too.

        No “crisis” = no need for so many people to study (and confirm) it. The understanding is “toe the line, or lose your livelihood.”

        • 0-e^(i*pi)

          It would appear that your sum total understanding of science emanates from Faux News.

          • Sparafucile

            It would appear that you haven’t the slightest idea about what you’re presumptuously presuming.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Okay, let’s engage in discussion and see.

            Tell me (if you can) how the earth cools itself. What’s the mechanism, and how is the mechanism used analytically?

            If you can’t do that, then you don’t understand the first thing about global warming.

          • Sparafucile

            You need to ask a better question. By “cools”, do you mean “gets rid of excess heat” (which, technically, cools nothing), or do you mean “keeps from absorbing excess heat” (which also doesn’t “cool” anything)? Or do you mean something else, entirely (which might actually be a proper use of the verb “cool”)?

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            I see. So you didn’t understand it at all (probably have no idea what Plank’s law is)(, so you thought you’d stall for time by asking a nonsensical question.

          • Sparafucile

            So I called you out on asking an imprecise question, and instead of clarifying your ambiguity, you decide to exhibit yourself to be the true scientific illiterate?

            How unsurprising.

            By the way — I hold multiple advanced degrees in the physical sciences, and decades in the field, with publications. You?

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            The question was precise. You just don’t understand science. Just to be clear about your state of scientific ignorance, let’s ask the question again:

            How does the earth cool itself? What physical mechanism is used to keep the earth from becoming the same temperature as the radiation it receives from the sun?

            If a person can’t answer that *basic* question then they are functionally illiterate regarding the basic science of Global Warming.

          • Sparafucile

            Oh — so you now admit your question was ambiguous.

            Thanks for the clarification — both of the question, and of your a-hole-ishness.

            I’ll ignore your scientifically illiterate phrasing (“the same temperature as the radiation it receives” — radiation has no temperature) to get as what you think you’re asking — which is an imprecise hodgepodge of the more-precise questions I earlier asked you to distinguish.

            The “mechanism” isn’t a single mechanism at all. It’s a combination of phenomena, with primary contributors being black-body-type radiation and EM reflection. There’s also ongoing loss of (warmed) atmosphere due to the Solar Wind, but that’s minor, in comparison. The heat the planet sheds does more than just balance the Sun’s radiation. It must also account for the thermal contribution from the giant fission reactor in our core.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Thanks for agreeing to try to answer the question. You’re mostly right:

            1) Your comment about EM reflection is nonsensical
            2) Solar wind provides net *heating,* not cooling
            3) Internal heat sources, while correct, are irrelevant to the question of cooling

            But you were right about the black body radiation. Now let’s see if you can do a simple calculation using Plank’s law.

            If 1% of the radiative power emitted by the earth (over the IR wavelengths where CO2 absorption bands lie) is blocked/absorbed in the atmosphere, by how many degrees C will the temperature of the earth go up?

          • Sparafucile

            1) EM reflection is nonsensical?

            Thanks for exposing your rank ignorance. What do you think happens to a significant amount of solar radiation that strikes ice, snow, or the tops of clouds? Good luck answering, without including EM reflection.

            2) You asked about the factors that reduce heat. Solar Wind does *both*, which means that *heat removal* is part of the phenomenon. Nice try, though.

            3) You’re just completely wrong. All planetary cooling necessary to maintain thermal equilibrium must *also* account for internally-generated heat. Yes, the core doesn’t cool anything — but it does generate heat that must be accounted for in any evaluation of Earth’s net cooling mechanisms.

            To the stupid question you’re now asking (the one I knew you’d ask), any answer I’d give would fall on scientifically-illiterate eyes — yours — demonstrated so plainly by your comments numbered 1-3 above. If you go learn something about physics, thermodynamics, and the standards for proper scientific inquiry, I’d be happy to discuss your (currently) moronic and one-dimensional presumptions.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Sparatucile wrote: “EM reflection is nonsensical?”

            The stuff that reflects never causes heating in the first place. Since it doesn’t contribute to heating, it’s reflection doesn’t “cool” anything.

            Sparatucile wrote: “Solar Wind does *both*..”

            But the net effect is to add heat, so it doesn’t “cool” anything.

            Sparatucile wrote: “All planetary … must account for internally-generated heat.”

            But the question wasn’t about “where does the energy come from that must be removed.” It was “how does the earth cool itself.” So the comment about internal heat, while true, was irrelevant to the question of cooling.

          • Sparafucile

            Do I need to remind you of the (rather stupid) question you asked? You: “What physical mechanism is used to keep the earth from becoming the same temperature as the radiation it receives from the sun?”

            You didn’t restrict your question to how the Earth sheds heat it’s already absorbed. You asked about (paraphrasing) how the Earth doesn’t get as hot as all the radiation that strikes it might otherwise make it. EM Reflection is one of those (rather essential) mechanisms. Do you deny this?

            Nor did you ask how cooling effects are balanced by warming effects (like the Solar Wind or the core) — you asked about the mechanisms that shed heat. To claim that the Solar Wind doesn’t have a cooling mechanism because it also has a warming mechanism is as stupid as claiming a car can’t go in reverse because it goes faster in its forward gears.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Reflected light is never absorbed in the first place, dummy.

          • Sparafucile

            Duh. Go reread the supposedly-clarified question you asked. See what happens when you ask such poorly-framed questions? You think you’re asking one thing, when you’re actually asking something else.

            I tried to help you.

            But you’re either too stupid to be helped, or to obstinate to let yourself be helped.

            Go peddle your idiocy to eight year olds.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Sparafucile wrote: “See what happens when you ask such poorly-framed questions?”

            I see that global warming deniers are remarkably ignorant of science in general, and atmospheric physics in particular.

            Are you going to try to answer the question about earth’s mean temperature rise if 1% of earth’s emissions at frequencies corresponding to CO2 molecular absorption is blocked?

          • Sparafucile

            No. You’re too scientifically illiterate to understand the answer, as already demonstrated.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            I see you haven’t bothered to read up on that article in ScienceDaily. Allow me to quote a short excerpt:

            “Atmospheric scientists have discovered a basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth’s magnetosphere….”

          • mikebartnz

            If you had any sense you wouldn’t try and argue with someone that obviously knows a lot more about the science than yourself.

          • Maggnum

            Good thing he’s not then. Clearly, the self-proclaimed engineer has no idea. Funny that – I see many self proclaimed engineers who seem to have no idea how the science works. Are you one too? A self proclaimed engineer I mean?

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            You seem confused. You seem to think that I’m the one who discovered the physics behind global warming.

            I wish I was that smart, but I can’t take credit for one of the most significant discoveries of planetary atmospheres in the last century.

            This is a case of nitwits who know nothing about science, who are telling the scientific community that science doesn’t know what it’s talking about.

            It’s about orons and bidiots who don’t know the basic facts about the physics involved, who are saying the scientists at NASA are wrong.

          • mikebartnz

            There is no confusion here as I know you don’t have enough between your ears to discover the physics behind global warming.
            Are you saying the only scientist of note are at NASA?

            There are plenty of reputable scientist that disagree with the CAGW BS and many of them used to be believers until the real data didn’t reflect what the models were saying so they started looking at things properly.

            The Hockey stick Mann has proved he isn’t a scientists arse hole with his stick fraud and then threatening everyone that disagrees with him with court action. When has a court been the arbiter of science. That pathetic cartoonist and the Queensland university are no better.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            mikebartnz wrote: “Are you saying the only scientists of note are at NASA?”

            No. And you’d know that if you’d read what I already posted. I’ve listed two-dozen of the world’s most prestigious scientific bodies that have come out with official statements on global warming.

            mikebartnz wrote: “There are plenty ….”

            You want to play the authority game? Okay. For every “scientist” that you name who does not believe in global warming, I’ll name 10. And mine will have better credentials than yours.

            That’s because the theory of global warming is robust and based on solid physics. Sure, you can always find crackpots and industry pimps but the science of global warming is uncontroversial in the scientific community.

          • mikebartnz

            Quote “I’ve listed two-dozen of the world’s most prestigious scientific bodies that have come out with official statements on global warming.”
            Sorry but they aren’t scientist. I know of two scientist that have handed in their resignation to one of those so called prestigious bodies because of the statements they have put out being unscientific.

            Quote “You want to play the authority game? Okay. For every “scientist” that you name who does not believe in global warming, I’ll name 10. And mine
            will have better credentials than yours”
            Once again that just shows you are a pathetic little narcissist and doesn’t prove a single thing.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            mikebartnz wrote: “Sorry but they [the scientists at the world’s most prestigious scientific bodies] aren’t scientists.”

            Okay. N’other bidiot who thinks scientits aren’t scientists.

            I notice you completely ignored my challenge to explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury, too.

            All mouth and no brains.

          • mikebartnz

            Venus and Mercury aren’t our little planet so you can stick your pathetic challenge where the sun doesn’t shine.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            You clearly haven’t any idea how the physics of atmospheres works.

            So what we have is you, a know-nothing who can’t describe even the most basic aspects of atmospheric science, telling the scientists they’re wrong about global warming.

            What was that you were saying about narcissism?

          • mikebartnz

            It is other scientists that are saying a lot of the scientists are wrong.
            Your post is just more narcissism.
            You have not shown me that you have a single clue about global warming as you just jump all over the place quoting everyone else and setting pathetic challenges which would prove nothing.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just making stuff up.

            There is nearly universal agreement among climate scientists that the mean global temperature is going up, and that people are largely responsible.

          • mikebartnz

            Your last paragraph doesn’t mention it but you probably mean that old 97% consensus lie.
            Both the Cook and Zimmerman studies have been shown to be very poorly done and the Cook study actually proves the opposite of what you think when you truly study it.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            mike wrote: “….. 97% consensus lie….”

            Actually, Mike, I was referring to the long, long list of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations, and the hundreds of thousands of scientists that they represent.

            Meanwhile, you can’t even produce a consistent explanation for why Venus is hotter than Mercury if CO2 has nothing to do with planetary temperatures.

          • mikebartnz

            As I said some scientist have been resigning from some of those prestigious scientific organizations because they have been putting out unscientific statements which shows that they don’t truly represent the scientists views.
            Venus while having a high Co2 atmosphere also has a pressure on its surface that is 92 times ours which would be the same as being one kilometre below the surface of the ocean.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            mike wrote: “As I said….”

            Yeah. You say a lot. You don’t support what you say, you just say it — as if you’re saying it makes it true, or s’mn.

            mike wrote: “… putting out unscientific statements…..”

            You’ve demonstrated time and again that you have no clue about the science involved. In your mind, an “unscientific statement” is one that doesn’t agree with you.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            mike wrote: “Venus while having a high Co2 atmosphere also has a pressure….”

            That’s an argument for the *amount* of global warming.

            But *you* say that adding more Co2 to earth’s atmosphere *cannot* raise the temperature.

            Le’ts see the math on that, Mike. Stop your hand waving and bald/naked assertions and show the math to support your crazy ideas.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            You think the laws of physics are different on other planets?

            Well, thank you, mike. Always nice when global warming deniers make it so abundantly clear that they don’t know what the heck they’re talking about.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            mikebartnz wrote:
            “… little narcissist…”

            The narcissist would be you, mike. You’re clearly think you know more than the world’s leading scientists, and that pretty much
            makes you the “little narcissist. Anyway, here are statements from a whole lot of groups representing a whole lot of scientists who are a whole lot smarter’n you:

            American Meteorological Society: “Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to
            climate change.” (February 2007)

            American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse
            gases beginning now.” (November 2007)

            American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate: “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the
            length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

            American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now,
            and it is a growing threat to society.” (December 2006)

            Geological Society of America: “The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.” (October 2006)

            American Chemical Society: “There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.” (July 2004)

            U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount
            of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)

            Joint science academies’ statement: “Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.” (2005, 11 national academies of science)

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            mike wrote: “I know of two scientist that have handed in their resignation …”

            Wow. An anecdote about a two whole unnamed “scientists.”

            Sheesh. What was that you were saying about narcissism?

            BTW, did those “scientists” happen to work for Shell oil or Exxon?

          • mikebartnz

            That last sentence just shows how pathetic you really are.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            I notice you dodged the question in that last sentence.

            Not surprised.

          • mikebartnz

            Well it was an absolutely pathetic question to start with as I indicated so I wasn’t dodging it at all.
            Ask something intelligent and you might get an answer.

            There is an old saying.
            It is better to have someone think you are a fool than open your mouth and confirm it.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Translation: Another denier who doesn’t know beans about science, telling everyone that the scientists don’t know what they’re talking about.

          • mikebartnz

            Typical comment from a CAGW true believer as there are plenty of scientist that aren’t believers and the sad fact is none of the model have been anywhere near close and the data just isn’t conforming to your agenda.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            You keep making bald-faced assertions, yet you can’t put any quantitative analysis where your mouth is.

            For example, Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. It’s hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is much closer. You can’t explain that within the context of your assertion that gases like CO2 in the atmosphere don’t affect mean global temperature.

            Typical denier — scientifically illiterate, yet thinks he knows more than the scientists.

          • mikebartnz

            Yet more narcissism.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            You’re looking in the mirror. The narcissist is the guy (you) who knows nothing about science, yet says all the scientists are wrong.

            Still waiting for you to support your assertion that adding CO2 to earth’s atmosphere, thus blocking earth’s radiation into space, will not raise earth’s temperature.

            It’s going to be a long, long wait.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Here’s a challenge, Mike. None of the deniers have been able to answer it. Perhaps you can give it a try?

            Produce a quantitative scientific theory that explains why Venus is warmer than Mercury, in spite of the fact that Mercury gets 6.5 times *more* solar energy.

            Next, using that theory, explain how a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration can have no impact on mean global temperature.

            As I see it, there are basically three classes of individuals within the denier club:
            1) Some are dumber than dirt and don’t know basic mathematics, let alone basic physics. They’re just right-wing bednecks rooting for the Republicons.
            2) Some are scientifically illiterate but still sorta smart, and are just pushing a political ideology (like the right-wing bednecks)
            3) A very few are actually scientifically illiterate but have been bought/paid for by oil/coal industries and are working for disreputable individuals like the Koch brothers (like the scientists who worked for the tobacco industry)

            Whichever group you’re in, it will quickly become evident if you try and take my challenge and produce that theory.

            I’m guessing you’re in group 1, though, and won’t even try.

          • mikebartnz

            You really are a pathetic little narcissist aren’t you?

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            You’re projecting. And you ignored the challenge.

            Not surprised.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            If you stand in front of a hot air gun it will remove some heat, and apply some heat. The heat applied will far exceed the heat removed. And only an bidiot would say the hot air gun is “cooling” anything, since the effect of the gun is to cause a net increase in temperature.

            That’s what the solar wind does. It *heats* the upper atmosphere.

            Since this seems to be a point of confusion for you, google

            “ScienceDaily September 11, 2009 Solar Wind”

            An excellent article in ScienceDaily comes up at the top of the list.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Sparafucile wrote: “To the stupid question you’re now asking (the one I knew you’d ask), any answer I’d give would fall on scientifically-illiterate eyes…”

            Yeah. I knew you couldn’t answer it.

            My 8-year-old grandson knows that the earth cools by blackbody radiation. Congratulations. You know as much as he.

          • Sparafucile

            He believes whatever his old codger says. One day, he’ll develop critical thinking skills, and realize you’re an imbecile. Don’t worry — he’ll love you anyway, despite the Alzheimers.

            I notice you’ve run away from your own called-out idiocy on #1-#3. It’s pretty funny that you seem to think anything else you say has any credibility, after the stunning display of scientific ignorance you offered in those three short subtopics.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Sparafucile wrote: “… you’re an imbecile.”

            I knew you couldn’t handle a discussion about the physics. Anti-science deniers seldom can.

            Sparafucile wrote: “I notice you’ve run away from your own called-out idiocy…”

            Already addressed. Since you apparently missed it, here it is again:

            ——————————————————————————————–

            Sparatucile wrote: “EM reflection is nonsensical?”

            The stuff that reflects never causes heating in the first place. Since it doesn’t contribute to heating, it’s reflection doesn’t “cool” anything.

            Sparatucile wrote: “Solar Wind does *both*..”

            But the net effect is to add heat, so it doesn’t “cool” anything.

            Sparatucile wrote: “All planetary … must account for internally-generated heat.”

            But the question wasn’t about “where does the energy come from that must be removed.” It was “how does the earth cool itself.” So the comment about internal heat, while true, was irrelevant to the question of cooling. You misread the question.

          • Sparafucile

            Well, azzhole, try keeping your comments in-line, and they woudn’t get lost, like the one that exhibits your running away from your own moronic question, by trying to move the goal posts. I shouldn’t be surprised — it’s what scientific illiterates always do.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            You can take online courses in reading comprehension. They might help.

            So, now that you’ve vented, shall we continue the discussion of the physics?

            Using Plank’s law, calculate the rise in earth’s temperature if 1% of the earths black body radiation over the absorption bands of CO2 is blocked.

          • Sparafucile

            I’m not answering more questions from somebody who has already demonstrated an affinity for subsequently moving the goalposts — pretending he asked something he didn’t ask, and running away from answers to the question he actually asked.

            Why don’t you just let us all know when you find a published climate model that agrees with subsequently measured empirical reality. mmmmK? When that happens, we can start believing somebody has a decent understanding of the forcings, feedbacks, and their relative interactions and influences.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Sparafucile wrote: “I’m not answering more questions….”

            Probably a good strategy to cut bait and run. It’s pretty clear you know nothing about the science of global warming. Lacking any actual knowledge of the subject, you’re just another crackpot bidiot who’s trying to tell the scientists they’re all wrong.

          • Sparafucile

            Moron: unlike you, I have a solid background in the physical sciences. It was clear from the very first question you tried to ask, that you do not.

            You’re not even particularly good at sputtering out the propaganda you think you understand….

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Woah! Now you’re calling NASA and ScienceDaily “propaganda?”

            I suppose you don’t believe in evolution, either. And you think the earth is only 6,000 years old?

          • Sparafucile

            NASA… Under propagandist and non scientist Gavin Schmidt? You’d better believe it.

            And like everything else, you “suppose” wrong. (Even ignoring your stupid phrasing about “believing in” evolution.) How unsurprising.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Got your tinfoil hat on?

          • Sparafucile

            Your powers of denial know no limits. Unlike your intelligence.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            I think you got some spittle on your shirt.

            Why don’t you try uncrossing your eyes and answering this simple question:

            If 1% of the radiative power emitted by the earth (over the IR wavelengths where CO2 absorption bands lie) is blocked/absorbed in the atmosphere, by how many degrees C will the temperature of the earth go up?

          • Sparafucile

            You don’t understand this topic well enough to discuss it intelligently.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Yeah. I knew you couldn’t answer the question.

          • Sparafucile

            Find me somebody who’s scientifically literate for your side of the discussion, and we can readily dispense with your ignorance, talking points, and propaganda.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Statement on climate
            change from 18 scientific associations

            “Observations throughout the world make
            it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research
            demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the
            primary driver.” (2009)

            ·

            American Association for the Advancement of Science

            “The scientific
            evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is
            occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)

            ·

            American Chemical Society

            “Comprehensive
            scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly
            indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from
            human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)

            ·

            American Geophysical Union

            “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action.
            Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the
            past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative
            outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

            ·

            American Medical Association

            “Our AMA …
            supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth
            assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is
            undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions
            are significant.” (2013)

            ·

            American Meteorological Society

            “It is clear from
            extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in
            climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of
            atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2),
            chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)

            ·

            American Physical Society

            “The evidence is
            incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are
            taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems,
            social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce
            emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)

            ·

            The Geological Society of America

            “The Geological
            Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of
            Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental
            Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that
            human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming
            since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)

            SCIENCE ACADEMIES

            International academies:
            Joint statement

            “Climate change is real. There will
            always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s
            climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming
            is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising
            surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena
            such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and
            changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the
            warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC
            2001).” (2005, 11 international science academies)

            ·

            U.S. National Academy of Sciences

            “The scientific
            understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking
            steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)

          • Sparafucile

            Got your cut & paste talking points at-the-ready, eh, propagandist troll?

            Is that where you run when you encounter a real scientist? Why don’t you go impress somebody who doesn’t know the difference — like your 8-yo grandson.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            I just posted statements from half-a-dozen of the worlds most prestigious scientific organizations — at your request.

            You call that “trolling”
            You call that “cut and paste”

            And when you do that, you remove any/all question about your anti-science, pro-kook agenda.

          • Sparafucile

            You’re a scientifically illiterate talking point dispenser, on display for all to laugh.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            You’re on the outside looking in. The scientific community says the deniers are wrong. And the scientific community is right.

          • Sparafucile

            You seem to have difficulty telling scientists from propagandists. Most scientific illiterates do.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            For me, scientists = guys/gals in universities and NASA doing research.

            For deniers, “scientist” = guys in dirty underwear sitting at a computer writing nonsense.

          • Sparafucile

            More stupid presumptions. You’ve been wrong with every one so far … why stop now?

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Says the quack.

            But go ahead and humor. If the scientists are all wrong about global warming, then how about explaining your theory for why Venus (second planet from the sun) is hotter than Mercury (closest planet to the sun), and why the earth is warmer than the moon?

          • Sparafucile

            Moron trolls are always reduced, when they have nothing left to bleat, to offering IKYABWAI, as though they were seven. Congrats.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Still dodging, I see.

            Y’know, for scientists it’s really easy to explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Clearly not so for the anti-science GW deniers.

          • Maggnum

            Whoa there big fella!! You’re giving him WAY more credit than he deserves. Not even Koch and the Heartland pleebs would let this pretend, illiterate, gibberish spouting contrarian speak for them!

            He does more damage to the denial of science than any scientist could. No one wants him.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Sparafucile wrote: “…non scientist Gavin Schmidt?”

            Folks who want to see Dr. Schmidt’s credentials (which are truly remarkable) should google the following:

            “Gavin Schmidt biograhy NASA”

          • Sparafucile

            Apparently you didn’t notice that he’s a mathematician, not somebody with any credential in any physical science. To believe him to be a “scientist” is like believing an Italian translator is automatically a Roman History expert.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            If only the kooks who deny climate change had credentials like Gavin Schmidt.

            Speaking of math, you having trouble integrating the earth’s IR signature over the CO2 absorption bands? Do you even know what I’m talking about? How do you crazy bass deniers expect to be taken seriously when you demonstrate such a profound ignorance of the science you bash?

          • Sparafucile

            Awww…. poor propagandist troll — you demonstrate increasing levels of scientific ignorance with everything you write.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            That’s what the evolution deniers say, too. And the young-earth crackpots. The think they’ve got it all figured out and that the scientists are the ones who don’t know what they’re talking about.

          • Sparafucile

            It’s funny you should want to go in that perilous direction — since rejecting empirical evidence, moving the goalposts, relying on pronouncements of those with other agendas, finding that every direction and every smidgen of data magically supports their pre-emptive conclusions (drawn before any evidence was gathered), and Gish Galloping to other lines of argument, are the hallmarks of you CAGW henny pennys.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            It’s interesting that you seem quite sympathetic to your intellectual bedfellows; the anti-evolutionists and young-earth anti-science crackpots.

            As for global warming, how can you possibly deny that it happens? The physics of black body radiation and IR absorption in the atmosphere make global warming inevitable. Denying global warming takes the same level of scientific ignorance as saying the earth is 6,000 years old.

          • Sparafucile

            I’m not denying that over the past couple centuries, we’ve had a warming planet. That’s just yet another of your stupid, and wrong, presumptions.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            But you do deny that the addition of billions of tones of CO2 by humans is the cause, or even part of the cause.

            Right?

          • Sparafucile

            I’ll accept the premise when the data is there to support it. Your putting the cart before the horse is typical for scientific illiterates.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            So you deny that there’s any evidence that putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere will raise the planet’s temperature.

            Typical denier –

          • Sparafucile

            It might. Do you know how much? The IPCC admits it doesn’t. Only propagandists, like Schmidt, claim they know. And their claims have been repeatedly falsified. You are a fool to follow them.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Nice dodge. Afraid to answer the question?

            Do you deny that putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere will raise the planet’s temperature?

            Can you explain why Venus (second planet from the sun) is hotter than Mercury (closest planet to the sun)?

            Can you explain why the earth is warmer than the moon?

          • Sparafucile

            1. I did answer, moron — “it might”.

            2. Venus — what role do you think its atmospheric density plays. Please quantify.

            3. The moon — same answer.

            Why do you think mars is so cold, despite having a 95% CO2 atmosphere?

            Eh, Mr talking point dispenser?

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Why the dodge?

          • Sparafucile

            So you’re broadly, not just scientifically, illiterate? You’re clearly not interested in challenging your mass of stupid presumptions. How unsurprising. We’re done now troll. Write what you like… Nobody cares.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Feeling frustrated? I can understand why.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Sparafucile wrote: “Why do you think mars is so cold, despite having a 95% CO2 atmosphere?”

            Mars is 2.5 times further from the sun, so solar irradiance is 15 times less. And, although the atmosphere is 95% CO2 there’s hardly any there. Less CO2 and 15 times less solar energy.

            Now it’s your turn. Stop stalling and see if you can explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury (in spite of being so much further away) and why the moon is colder than the earth. See if you can do it without invoking global warming.

          • Sparafucile

            Tell us about mercury’s atmospheric density, why don’t you.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Still dodging?

          • Maggnum

            “By the way — I hold multiple advanced degrees in the physical sciences, and decades in the field, with publications. You?”

            cough cough***bullshite**cough

          • Sparafucile

            So then you deny more than the last couple decades of measurements…

          • Maggnum

            No, I fully endorse the last couple of decades of measurements:

            Highest average temperature in a year ever measured was 2104 (MOHC, WMO, NASA, NOAA)
            15 of the last 17 highest average yearly temperatures occurred since 1998 (NOAA, AMS, UCAR)
            There have been 362 straight months where the average temperature is higher than the 20th century average (NOAA, UKMET, JAXA)
            Global ice volume has been falling at a measured rate of ~192Trillion tonnes per year (ESA, NASA, NSIDC, NOAA)
            Global ocean levels are measured to be rising: (NOAA, UofCol, EPA, ESA, JAXA)

            There are many more.

            That’s one of the problems that people trying to deny the science have. Every scientific organization that does measurements of any aspect of global warming finds empirical, measured, evidence of it. Every single one.

            Same as every single university in the world that studies the issue of human caused global warming arising from CO2 loading of the atmosphere has measured that it is happening. Every single one.

            That’s also why 97% of climate scientists agree it is happening.

          • Sparafucile

            Every single one of your talking points is as anti-scientific as you deniers get.

            Thanks for playing, moron.

          • Maggnum

            A 2 year old`s argument: No it`s not, nananana, you`re a poopie head!

            And you claim to have a science degree. Laughable. Hysterical in fact.

          • Sparafucile

            When you want to discuss the science, just demonstrate that you can. Thus far, you’ve shown no such capability.

          • Maggnum

            Why would I? Not only would you not understand it, you would stomp your feet and shout abuse and insult. Just like you did above. Just like you have elsewhere.

            You do more harm to the denier argument than any scientist ever could. You’re just too caught up in your ideological denialism to realize it.

          • Sparafucile

            You’re too wrapped up in your adherence to propaganda to demonstrate any understanding of science, even if you wanted to, it seems.

            At least I have the credentials to back up my expertise. You — not so much.

          • Maggnum

            And, again, like arguing with a 2 year old. “No I’m not, you are! You smell!”

            You have no better credentials than James Taylor (the singer, not the lawyer), with a non-existent platform to spout it. Just about as effectual as Nancy Leder, but with less style.

          • Sparafucile

            You seem to deny every provable fact you’re presented. How unsurprising.

          • Maggnum

            How would you know? You’ve never provided any.

          • Sparafucile

            QED

          • Maggnum

            Lol, quad erat demonstrandum you say! You don’t even get the meaning of that right.

            Hey, ever seen a moon rock? How’s Hoagland doing these days?

    • Maggnum

      AH, Michelle of the “it’s the SUN”! school of global warming denial.

  • Bill Gradwohl

    Funneling money to the UN or to other gov’t agencies is not the answer, as any money they get they largely waste. New taxes on carbon at a time when the US and European economies are very weak is plain stupid, so, of course, that’s why the pols want to go there.

    Getting rid of the machines that consume fossil fuels is obviously a goal since they ALWAYS emit at least some form of pollution. Electrics emit nothing but heat and could be charged by renewables or Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR).

    The push should be toward putting solar panels on everyone’s roof to localize power generation where it also get used, with any excess either required or available taken from or sent to the grid. LFTR’s were invented in the US and abandoned because they wouldn’t produce plutonium, which at the time was a desirable product for the military’s bombs.

    But these suggestions won’t empower the political class with more of our money, so that’s really not being seriously discussed. Call me a cynic, but I don’t trust any gov’t to do the right thing. I trust them to always and everywhere enhance their perks and power, and that won’t solve the problem. The Climate Scientists are on the gov’t side of this debate and so I paint them with the same cynical brush.

    We live in an age where fraudulent professions abound. The “experts” on the climate, aka “Climate Scientists” are frauds.

    There is absolutely no way for anyone to know what the temperature was 1000 years ago, much less, millions of years ago. Yet, these climate scientists claim they know it and can produce graphs of it. They get their bogus numbers by using proxies for temperature. Their facts are guesses and approximations. They use inference and declare it as proof.

    When they drill into ice cores and extract trapped air, they do have a real sample of the air when that ice was laid down. Their ASSUMPTION that every layer they see is 1 year, however is bogus. They can’t possibly know this.

    Climate scientists take one assumption and pile it atop another assumption and then another to get any set of numbers they want. This is not science. This is guessing. Educated guessing, but guessing nonetheless.

    I propose that all these Climate Scientists have their degrees declared null and void for fraud. If this can be accomplished, then we do the same for Economists and Psychiatrists, to name a few, as these folks also KNOW next to nothing, can prove next to nothing, and are a negative influence on society.

    • 0-e^(i*pi)

      Bill Gradwohl wrote: “… is plain stupid….”

      What’s stupid, Bill, is engaging in a planet-wide experiment that is practically irreversible and has scientifically predicted consequences that are dire, including (among other things) turning America’s breadbasket into a desert and flooding much of Florida.

      You want to talk stupid? What could be more stupid than assuming the enormous risks of unchecked global warming just so the big oil/coal industries don’t take a financial hit?

      Bill Gradwohol wrote: “Call me a cynic, but I don’t trust any gov’t to do the right thing.”

      The alternative to government is anarchy. And you’d have to be really, really stupid to count on anarchy over a coordinated effort that involves the gov’t.

      • Bill Gradwohl

        I’m an engineer. Asking me to believe that 4 one hundredths of 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to turn the earth into venus is something I can’t buy. There is no empirical evidence that on global scales, CO2 is as powerful as the climatologists claim. They are trying to extrapolate a lab experiment onto something so large and with so many variables that the progression makes little sense. As has been said, ‘The map is not the territory’. The lab experiment is not what happens in an actual atmosphere.
        So, your chicken little claim has no real basis. It is fear mongering. Climate scientists are political animals who want to further the UN’s agenda.
        I’m all for getting rid of fossil fuel use, but I see absolutely no push for LFTR or other molten salt reactor technology to take up the load that fossil fuels represent. And make no mistake about it, renewables as currently available are a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things. We need nuclear and need it now to tell the middle eastern nations to go eat their oil. The instability associated by our reliance on fossil fuels is orders of magnitude more deadly that the amount of CO2 in the air.
        My political philosophy is anarchism. Gov’t screws up everything it touches. If we must have gov’t for the weak minded, then make it local and small. End the Fed Gov. Up with 50 new small countries that compete with each other for residents and industry. Let market forces reign in the excesses of gov’t monopoly.

        • 0-e^(i*pi)

          Bill Gandwohl wrote: “I’m an engineer….”

          You must be a pretty rotten one, then, since obviously you’re unaware of Plank’s Law for black body radiation. Plank’s law is one of the seminal achievements of modern physics and is *the* description of how the earth cools itself.

          As an “engineer” you should know that space is a vacuum and so there’s no convective cooling. Without convective cooling the only way for the planet to avoid heating up to the radiation temperature of the sun is by radiative cooling. Plank’s law describes this radiative cooling, and any kid in his freshman year of college can show (using Plank’s Law) that the earth’s temperature would drop significantly (tens of degrees) if the sun’s output dropped several percent (which the nuclear equations for stellar evolution show). And that same kid can easily show that 4,000 – 6000 ppm CO2 concentration is about what’s required to keep the earth from freezing over.

          • Bill Gradwohl

            I was wondering when you would go for the ad hominem. Typical of your kind.

            Everything you rely on as absolute fact is theory. My guess is that you’re area of expertise is in one of those opinionated sciences like climate change, astronomy, cosmology, and even branches of physics. These aren’t sciences at all, as they can’t prove their assertions as you can’t stuff an atmosphere or a planet into a lab.

            Your mathematical models and intuition as to how things work are obviously flawed when viewed from the climate science angle. Those folks have a dismal track record of predicting the future and their entire approach of using proxy’s for nearly everything means that they must, by definition, make assumptions and inferences in their work. If those assumptions and inferences are wrong, then their “science” is wrong.

            “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” – Richard Feynman

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Bill wrote: “Everything you rely on as absolute fact is theory.”

            You apparently have no idea what a “theory” is.

            Bill wrote: “….these aren’t sciences at all….”

            Thanks for making my point that the global warming deniers are scientifically illiterate and don’t understand even basic concepts of climatology.

            Funny how you quote Richard Feynman. He made several important contributions to the Big Bang theory and quantum physics. In fact, his contributions to quantum physics are important components in understanding the physics of nuclear fusion, which is essential to understanding solar evolution.

        • 0-e^(i*pi)

          Bill Gandwohl wrote: “My political philosophy is anarchism. Gov’t screws up everything it touches. If we must have gov’t for the weak minded, then make it local and small. End the Fed Gov. ”

          Ooookayyy.

          You don’t understand the first thing about the science of global warming *and* you hate America.

          Got it.

          • Bill Gradwohl

            I don’t put words into your mouth, so please refrain from putting words into mine. Again, typical of your kind.
            BTW – I’m an expat. I left when I saw the US turning into a police state.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            I didn’t put words in your mouth, Bill, I quoted you.

            The problem is, you’re as ignorant of politics as you are of science. The Constitution was written for the express purpose of establishing the Federal Government. That’s what it does. You can’t abolish the Federal Government without abolishing the Constitution.

            And you can’t abolish the Constitution without destroying America.

  • badboymoviestar

    This article is extremely flawed, and only incites more questions about the climate changing.
    The mystery is over. We now know with 97% certainty in the scientific community that climate change is happening, and is driven my man.

    Michelle Teller said it best: Follow the money.

    Who could possibly stand to gain from lying to the entire world, and falsifying data about climate change?

    Really: Think about it.

    We’re at a tipping point where we the people are going to have to choose between fighting for our health and well being, or laying down, and tanning to death in the new Exxon/Mobil driven climate.

    • 196ski

      Science is not about consensus, the “97% of scientists” has been debunked countless times.

      They thought they were correct in their predictions, their predictions did not become reality, we now know less than we think we did. Science moves forward.

      • John Samuel

        The 97% has never been debunked. It’s so called debunkings have been.

        97% of scientists.
        99.98% of papers.
        100% of scientific bodies.

      • Maggnum

        No, science is not about consensus, but you have things backwards.

        The science doesn’t depend on the consensus, the consensus arose because the science is so strong. In other words, the science came first.

        • 196ski

          Sigh, this “consensus” has been debunked more times than you can imagine.

          Google “97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” on Power Technology and read for yourself. This site doesn’t allow links or I would post them for you.

          At one time the the theories made sense, the science has evolved to the point that the theory no longer holds. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and it is not driving our current or future climate.

          • Maggnum

            Have you actually read that article? Have you read any of the links in that article? Richard Tol’s argument is listed. 16 times. Judith Curry’s comments have been added. 9 times. Do you realize that pretty much every single article and blog site bases their arguments regarding the consensus on Tol’s review? DO you understand that Tol, himself, has agreed that the number is “in the high ninties”? (Richard Tol June 14, 2013: “Tom:That’s an issue of scale.The consensus rate is 98% for the abstracts. It is 97% for the papers, and 96% for the bias-corrected papers.The dissensus rate is therefore 2% for the abstracts, 3% for papers, and 4% for the bias-corrected papers.”

            Richard Tol, June 14, 2013: “The consensus is of course in the high nineties. No one ever said it was not. We don’t need Cook’s survey to tell us that.
            Cook’s paper tries to put a precise number on something everyone knows. They failed. Their number is not very precise”)

            So, here’s a challenge for you. Go through that list you posted (sighing again, of course) and show where, exactly, the paper by Cook et al was debunked. Not blog posts claiming someone else said it was. Not opinion pieces claiming someone else said it was. Not arguments from incredulity. Not stated opinions that they don’t like his wording, or claims that a paper not professing an opinion should somehow be included in the “reject global warming” pile. Show where, exactly, the paper by Cook et al was debunked in a scientific manner that is supported by actual scientists.

            Might want to check out the paper by Orekes too. Or the one by James Powell.

            Finally, I wonder what you think “debunked” actually means. The moon hoax was debunked. Do you agree?

          • 196ski

            Is that the same Richard Tol who refused to sign the last IPCC report because of the midnight changes that were made without the contributing authors consent? The same Richard Tol who trashed the 97% consensus in an article he authored in the Guardian? If you want to see what Richard Tol thinks of the 97% consensus go to HIS BLOG and read his exact words. His March 25th headline is:

            “Global warming consensus claim does not stand up”.

            Or

            In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52 per cent said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly manmade (the IPCC position). The remaining 48 per cent either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53 per cent agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

            Or

            The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66 per cent agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97 per cent consensus behind the IPCC.

            But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature. Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents – nearly half – believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.

            Or lead IPCC author Peter Thorne who now says we need to fully investigate the 10+ year hiatus in warming before making any further predictions?

            The data, the only thing that really matters, does not support catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. 1ºC/Century is what the data suggests. The models failed. There is no “hockey stick” and billions are being made playing on peoples fears. That’s not science it’s brainwashing.

            No science, no consensus, just agendas.

          • Maggnum

            You are dodging. Yes that same Richard Tol, and I have been to his blog and conversed with him directly. I am quoting him, in his words, directly in my last post. Hard to spin what he, himself, said.

            First, most AMS members are not scientists, and the bulk of those who are, are not researchers. So, they do not make up any of the publishing climate scientists the Cook paper speaks to. You are attempting to use a red herring. So whatever their survey may have determined, it has nothing to do with the 97% of climate scientists, and does not debunk the Cook et al paper.

            As an aside, the head of the AMS, who is also a co-author of the paper you cite, has written a reply to those who misrepresent his organization. Google him: Keith L. Seitter, AMS Executive Director. You can also read the actual paper, for free, from a link on his site.

            I wonder if you actually read what you copied and pasted from the Netherlands study. You have actually provided pretty strong evidence to support the notion that their survey does not debunk the 97% figure in the Cook et al papers. To quote your own cite: “Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature.” So, again, they do not contradict, and certainly do not debunk, the Cook et al paper.

            As for your sloganeering, I guess it’s really all you have left isn’t it? You can’t dispute the 97%, you can’t find a single paper to support your position the Cook et al paper was debunked, and you are left trying to toss strawmen about the models, the degree of warming, and the “hockey stick”.

            Well it was fun. You can go back to your preprogrammed denial now.

          • 196ski

            The “97% consensus” was DOA same as “settled science”. You can ignore Tol’s rebuke or any of the other 100 or so articles that also rebuke Cook’s work. It was a flawed study and meaningless as it relates to science of any kind. If you know science as you claim to then you know it had no value even if it had been accurate, it wasn’t and it isn’t.

            When this is the defense of anthropogenic global climate change you know the end of this nonsense can’t be too far off.

          • Maggnum

            You are right about one part. The end of this nonsense is already upon us, and you are riding in the wrong car.

            I already said that the “100 or so articles” almost universally use Tol’s critique to support their opinions. You know what an opinion is, right? It is a thing that does not debunk a scientific study. They’re also like assholes – we all have one.

    • mikebartnz

      Quote “We now know with 97% certainty in the scientific community that climate change is happening, and is driven my man.”
      That 97% has been thoroughly disproved and I am surprised there are still people dishonest enough to use it.

      • Amadaun

        Yep. Additionally, any “consensus” has been seriously gamed anyway. Young up and coming researchers who want university rank and tenure won’t dare think of research in opposition to the professors who have declared global warming so, based on their perpetually manipulated datasets. Opposing this is a career wrecker, so they go along to get along. Worse, the climatistas control all the climate science related journals and for decades, have made sure no opposition studies are ever printed. And if you can’t publish in academia, well, you perish. Further, the one or two times a journal editor has published perfectly valid papers refuting the “majority” theory, the climatistas have ganged up on that editor and have gotten him fired. Successive editors learn the lesson and there is no further trouble from them. And no further papers published that offer opposing research. It’s the old Marxist game. Don’t debate people who oppose you. Simply deny them a platform and no one will know that either they or their arguments, or their scientific proof, exists.

    • odin2

      Both of the satellite datasets show that there has been no global warming in the past 18+ years despite increasing CO2 emissions during this period. If CO2 emissions were a direct and significant cause of global warming, we would have experienced global warming during the 18+ year pause. We did not.

      No one disputes that the climate is changing. The earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old and the climate has been changing the entire time. The question is how much , if any of, global warming is caused by human activities (primarily CO2 emissions)?

      There is no empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are or ever have been a MAJOR cause of global warming. The hypothesis that catastrophic global warming ( CAGW) is caused by CO2 emissions is based on an unproven hypothesis and computers which overemphasize CO2’s role in climate change and de-emphasize the role of clouds, solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural causes of climate change. These computers have been notoriously wrong almost all of the time (when compared to real world data) and have been compared to a sports team that played the entire season without winning a game. Computers that model an imaginary planet and are programmed with guesses of a few of the many variables affecting climate are not data or empirical evidence. Ninety-eight percent of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC failed to predict the 18+ year pause and their projections of future temperatures during the last 20 years substantially exceeded the observed temperatures during this period.

      The outside atmospheric levels of CO2 are currently around 400 ppm. During the last ice age CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm and plants started to shut down. If CO2 levels had reached 150 ppm or lower, plants would have died off and all plant and animal life on the planet would have died. Green houses regularly keep CO2 concentrations at 1000-1200 ppm because the plants grow better. In the past, CO2 levels have been at several thousand parts per million and plants and animals thrived. US submarines try to keep CO2 levels below 8,000 ppm. Federal OSHA standards set CO2 maximums at 5,000 ppm. When you exhale, your breath contains more than 40,000 ppm CO2. The most predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor and increased CO2 levels are greening the planet.

      We are much closer to being CO2 deprived than we are being threatened by too much atmospheric CO2. Plants thrive on more CO2- that is a good thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a weak greenhouse gas that is colorless and odorless which comprises only .04% of the atmosphere (naturally occurring CO2 + CO2 emissions). A 2007 IPCC report estimated that CO2 emissions were only .03% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. So, CO2 emissions make up only .0012% of the atmosphere. That is why blaming global warming on CO2 emissions is like having “the flea wag the dog”.

      Climate change is natural and has been occurring since the formation of the planet. The 18+ year pause just proves that the skeptics were right all along-natural causes of climate change are more powerful than the insubstantial effects that human generated CO2 has on the world’s climate.

      CAGW is about power, politics and greed. Every time the facts change, the Believers move the goal posts . They have at least 66 excuses for the 18+ year pause in global warming and the failure of the computer climate models to predict it. The Believers blame any unusual (but normal) climate event on global warming with no scientific proof. This is often done with a scary picture or one that pulls on the heart strings, and the text of the article will say “could be caused”, “is consistent with”, or “may be caused by” global warming. This is code for we have no scientific evidence but we want to scare you so we can tax CO2 and promote our political agenda.

      As for blaming the skeptical science on a Big Oil conspiracy, get a new tinfoil hat. Yours is leaking.

      • badboymoviestar

        The Co2 issue is not about BREATHING, and neither is the article. I could tell you why you’ll soon be paying 18.00/gallon for fresh water because of the trends, but you seem more interested in numbers. Like the industry you (more than likely) work for… either that, or your TV is stuck on FAUX News

        • odin2

          Ironically, I just read an article about you (a Bellwether follower or a rational ignorant) this morning:

          On bellwether follower:
          Obama and the Pope are examples of bellwethers; the sheep with the bell that the other sheep follow. Bellwether is not a derogatory term, it’s a descriptive term. The job of a political bellwether is to indicate the position that their followers should take in their everyday conversations. Obama and the Pope’s latest speeches function as position papers for the delegates of all right thinking people. You meet these people at work, church, school, at the coffee house, etc. The delegates will mirror the words that the President or the Pope used to identify other in-group members, normalize beliefs and mock out-group members. One of the main themes of both speeches was shame. Shame on those who aren’t right thinking people. Shame that they aren’t as intelligent and capable as “us.”

          On rational ignorant:

          http://wattsupwiththat[dot]com/201

          Keep posting. Your posts do so much to promote the Church of Climate Scientology.

    • Amadaun

      Horse hockey. There is zero proof that the activities of mankind have more than a fractional to 4% influence on climate at all. Human activities do not influence 100% of climate moves one way or the other. Furthermore, the issue is still “global warming,” not that clever substitute term “climate change.” Climate change has always happened on this planet, it happens today and it will happen tomorrow. That term was adopted to cover up the fact that a treasure trove of climatista professors’ emails were uncovered, proving consistent data manipulation and fraudulent science. This entire issue remains simply a vast, worldwide effort to redistribute wealth and nothing more. Climatistas are “science deniers.”

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Someone needs to tell Jack about the science of stellar evolution. See, hundreds of millions of years ago (back in the Ordovician), when CO2 levels were much higher, the sun (being younger) wasn’t as bright as today. That’s why more CO2 then didn’t have the effect that more CO2 would have today. In fact, if you go back 600 million years (or so) the sun’s output was several percent lower than today and levels of CO2 *much* higher than today were necessary just to keep the planet from becoming frozen.

    • Bill Gradwohl

      You state things as though they are facts. How do you or anyone else KNOW what the suns output was like millions of years ago? No one can possibly KNOW this.

      • 0-e^(i*pi)

        That’s a fair question, Bill. Before answering it, though, I should point out that someone who understands the science of global warming (the physics and all that) wouldn’t need to ask the question. So the fact you’re asking the question illustrates that your are functionally illiterate regarding the science.

        Anyway, with regard to your question, we understand from a multitude of evidences (including neutrino flux and flavor measurements) the sorts of nuclear reactions that take place inside stars. And we can write down equations regarding those nuclear reactions that tell us, among other things, how long a star will shine (it’s a function primarily of mass) and what the total output will be over the lifetime of the star. These equations can be (and have been) verified by testing them against measurements on earth as well as thousands of stars in our galaxy. They’re quite accurate and represent one of the most important advances in nuclear physics of the last century.

        Any kid who’s majoring in physics knows about this their freshman year. In fact, your typical high school physics student knows this.

        • Bill Gradwohl

          Astronomy took a wrong turn when a Belgian priest came up with the Big Bang theory. Then they came up with Black holes, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, etc. All without a shred of proof. Now you ask me to rely on that BS to explain the climate “scientists” approach to analyzing their evidence. LOL.
          The IEEE disputes the bulk of what the astronomical community holds as gospel truth. The universe is full of plasma and its energy levels are 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity. Climate Science and modern Astronomy are proof positive that a university can preach BS and get away with it.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Bill Gradwohl wrote: “Astronomy took a wrong turn when a Belgian priest came up with the Big Bang theory.”

            The “Big Bang theory” has nothing to do with stellar evolution, the output of the sun during the Ordovician, or global warming. I’m hardly surprised you don’t “believe” in it, or that you’s say anything as stupid as “… without a shred of proof.”

          • Bill Gradwohl

            Big Bang and red shift have everything to do with how the universe is interpreted. Halton Arp cataloged hundreds of galaxies that clearly demonstrate that the THEORY of red shift is flawed, but the astronomical community ignores the evidence. ANd you want me to trust their religion for truth. No thank you.
            Astronomers put out diagrams of what the universe looked like at fractions of a second after the big bang, an event that has no empirical proof. The arrogance and hubris of that branch of research is mind boggling.

          • 0-e^(i*pi)

            Bill wrote: “Big Bang and red shift have….”

            They have nothing to do with the nuclear equations for stellar evolution. The equations that describe how the sun’s output varies over its lifetime are unrelated to those describing the “Big Bang.” They’re from the same scientific theory used to design nuclear bombs.

            Bill wrote: “…. the THEORY of red shift…”

            You have no idea what a “THEORY” is, and you are clearly ignorant of how red shifts are measrued.

          • Maggnum

            Oh my gawd, you’re an electric universe nutter.

            No wonder you don’t understand the physics.

  • ge556

    This article is full of nonsense. One that is particularly striking is the claim that the same animal life that existed when the atmosphere was mostly CO2 exists now. Ridiculously false!

  • Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb

    Never trust anyone who uses the grammatically flawed and historically pejorative term “Democrat Party”. John Velisek has exposed himself as a petty amateur propagandist with that little snide remark, not someone who is genuinely interested in scientific research or serious open political debate. Case in point: nobody who self identifies as a Democrat would ever call it the Democrat Party [sic]. The noun-as-adjective term is used exclusively by critics of the Democratic Party.

  • 196ski

    The era of catastrophic global warming is drawing to a close.
    Satellite data, the best we have, shows a pause in statistical warming for 10+ years despite increases in atmospheric CO2.
    The oceans have not warmed anything like what was predicted.
    The Global Mean Sea Level which has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age, has actually slowed down. We are looking at rates of around 7″ per century.
    Glaciers have been melting since long before anthropogenic CO2 was introduced.
    The Arctic did lose ice, but now that ice is back to 06 levels, again, not what you would expect with CGW.
    The Antarctic is setting record sea ice levels and the area that is melting, around Pine Island, is sitting on top of an active undersea volcano.

    We are learning more every day, and what we are learning does not support the well intended predictions of 10 years ago.

  • John Samuel

    Follow the money.

    Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

    • Bob

      How did they define subsidies? Subsidies to make consumer prices lower as done in many countries? Tax breaks that all industry gets? In the US, according to EIA wind and solar subsidies are 5 times all fossil fuel subsidies. The wind subsidy is $280/MWh, the subsidy for coal is $0.69/MWh. So, let’s follow the money and get rid of all subsidies.

  • Philip Haddad

    Many of the discrepancies can be explained. The IPCC based their conclusions on the Kyoto correlations of CO2 with air temperature rise instead of correlating temperature with the amount of heat being emitted from our energy consumption. It should have been noted at the outset that the heat being emitted was more than four times the amount needed to cause the rise in air temperature. They subsequently failed to take into account the cooling effect of the massive amounts of glacial melting that is taking place, both above and below the water line. It should be clear that the rise in CO2 is a result of the increased burning of fossil fuel, but it is the heat from these fuels, as well as the waste heat from nuclear power plants, that is the driving force for “climate change”. (nuclear plants emit twice as much waste heat from their reactors as they convert to electricity.) The focus on CO2 is extreme. A small amount of additional heat may be absorbed from the increase in this greenhouse gas but the major problem is the 20-fold increase in annual heat emissions beneath this greenhouse gas. Nowhere in the gradual rise from 300 to 400 ppm, can a concentration of CO2 be identified as the point where CO2 became THE CAUSE, yet there is a clamor to capture and store CO2 as though it might permit the continued burning of fossil fuels. To reduce the CO2 by 1 ppm would require the removal of 9 billion tons and some people are setting a “target” of 350 ppm. The whole concept of CCS is expensive and totally without merit and it is simply stunning that governments, (like the U.S. A., China, and others) are giving this serious support. The only real solution, as difficult as it will be to achieve, is the replacement of fossil and nuclear energy with renewables such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and bio-fuels.

  • Roland Riese

    Well written article. Most likely a bit hard to follow for some people specifically the ones that are environmentally challenged.