You cite a poll that asks whether people would be willing to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming even if it leads to higher utility bills.

That survey should read would you be willing to reduce greenhouse gases if doing so did nothing to reduce global temperatures but increased your electricity bills.

I am pretty sure Americans wouldn't sign onto a plan that is all cost and no benefit.

Since we are supposed to reduce greenhouse gases in order to reduce temps, where are the calculations of how reducing US emissions will affect global temperatures(the actual goal is to reduce temps)? It turns out that the inconvenient truth is that cap and trade in the US and reducing emissions in the US will not have any discernable influence on the global thermostat whatsoever and this is using IPCC sensitivities!

An analysis has been done on the "adjusting the global thermostat" effect of the Waxman markey cap and trade bill. Reducing greenhouse gases 83% below 1990 levls will only lead an avoidance of a 0.05C increase in global average surface temperature by 2050…hardly worth the trillions we will spend on it.

But maybe it isn’t about climate or temperatures at all, maybe it is about using the guise of supposedly saving the planet to increase taxation to fund government programs…..hmmmmmm.....

If we want to talk about poll results we might want to discuss the recent rasmussen poll.

Americans are no longer even convinced that climate change is man-made, according to a recent Rasmussen Report survey of 1,000 likely voters.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

It is hard to advocate for overbearing regulations that attempt to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions when global temperatures have been stable or declining. In fact, in at least the last seven years global temperatures have declined despite increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg

It is obvious that there are more factors that affect global temperatures than just the small amount of human emitted greenhouse gases. Thus, a policy geared towards reducing human emitted GHGs in the United states to lower global temperatures is a low leverage policy at best.

I don't believe global warming is the number one issue this country is facing. For me it's health care; however, I'm confident renewable energy will absolutely be one of the sectors that helps to lead this nation out of a recession, based on the continued growth that sector has seen even during our current recession.

Here in Crook County we have a wind power project that will likely start construction next spring. The opportunities to attract future educational opportunities, and attract ancillary businesses like suppliers and/or manufacturers of wind turbine parts is endless. It's a win, win when a community can provide family-wage jobs that are good for the environment.

For those who are working tirelessly to bring these kinds of green companies to Oregon, I only hope the democratic leadership in Salem doesn't diminish the BETC tax credits as is being proposed. This unique program is one of the reasons Oregon is in the spotlight for renewable energy. Other states are quickly catching up and will soon offer similar programs. If Oregon lawmakers think we can compete on a national level to attract green jobs to Oregon by reducing funding to BETC and other incentive programs, they have their heads in the sand.

I don't believe global warming is the number one issue this country is facing. For me it's health care; however, I'm confident renewable energy will absolutely be one of the sectors that helps to lead this nation out of a recession, based on the continued growth that sector has seen even during our current recession.

Here in Crook County we have a wind power project that will likely start construction next spring. The opportunities to attract future educational opportunities, and attract ancillary businesses like suppliers and/or manufacturers of wind turbine parts is endless. It's a win, win when a community can provide family-wage jobs that are good for the environment.

For those who are working tirelessly to bring these kinds of green companies to Oregon, I only hope the democratic leadership in Salem doesn't diminish the BETC tax credits as is being proposed. This unique program is one of the reasons Oregon is in the spotlight for renewable energy. Other states are quickly catching up and will soon offer similar programs. If Oregon lawmakers think we can compete on a national level to attract green jobs to Oregon by reducing funding to BETC and other incentive programs, they have their heads in the sand.

A description and the findings of the analysis can be found here: http://masterresource.org/?p=2355

The analysis uses MAGICC which stands for Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change. MAGICC is sort of a climate model simulator. It was developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (primarily by Dr. Tom Wigley) under funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other organizations.

Luckily, Oregon has a perfect case study to determine whether green jobs will reverse our unemployment trend.

Spain is considered one of the leaders in expanding the renewable industry and promoting a green job agenda. Last month, a Spanish economic study was released that assessed the impact of government spending on job creation-more specifically, green job creation. Using two different economic methods, the authors found that for every green job that the government manages to finance, 2.2 jobs will be destroyed. Thus, pursuing green job creation may very well be counterproductive.

Economic analysis is found here: http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

Evan,

Ok even assuming these drastic scare scenarios you cite are correct, there is no indication that reducing GHGs through a cap and trade in the US will do anything measurable to reduce global temps.

If you want to charge ahead towards the cliff like a lemming chanting "we must save the world" even though you have no idea how to do it then fine. Just do not force others into your ridiculous doomsday scenarios and irrational policy objectives.

Contrary to what's stated in the article ALL Democrats should be concerned about cap and trade. The premise of cap and trade--that CO2 drives global warming--is based on United Nations' climate reports that are tainted by politics and agenda. The reports don't pass the smell test -- see www.energyplanusa.com . Plus, there's been a lot of new climate discoveries since the UN's Kyoto Protocol that are largely omitted from the reports.

America needs our own scientific assessment of global warming. I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. But now after reading the UN reports I suspect the fix was in. The UN reports contain much good science, but in the end, the UN is a political organization where politics trump science. We need our own objective climate commission to think through global warming and determine whether it's driven by CO2. ...before we burden our economy with CO2 taxes.

rmoen,

Good thought process and makes complete sense.

Before charging ahead we need to assess whether these policies actually accomplish the objective of reducing global temperatures and the costs of the policies do not outweigh the benefits.

An economic study, “Oregon Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies: The Economic and Fiscal Impact Challenges,” was written by two leading economists in the state.The study assessed the measurable and quantifiable costs of implementing a cap-and-trade program, or any other wide-ranging greenhouse gas reduction strategy to meet Oregon's greenhouse gas reduction goals, and found the costs to be tremendous.

The study predicts that Oregon’s economic growth to 2020 would be cut approximately in half. Under greenhouse gas reductions the Oregon economy would grow to only $58.9 billion, compared to the baseline of $107.2 billion.

Greenhouse gas reductions would result in 90,000 fewer Oregon jobs than would have existed in the absence of reductions; and 2020 state and local revenues would be $4.4 billion dollars lower.

Beacon Hill Institute in their report, The Economic Analysis of the Western Climate Initiative’s Regional Cap-and-Trade Program, found that cap-and-trade “would have substantial negative effects” on the economies of its member states. BHI determined that, by 2020, Oregon would find total personal income diminish by $320.6 million to $2,419.17 million per year.

Karla,

Quite a bad job attempting to throw cold water on a debate.

BHI is not a 'denying' organization. It would be ignorant to say anyone denies climate change outright. Also, it is ignorant and arrogant to think that humans are the main climate driver, that we know everything about the complex interactions on earth, and that we know a way to 'fix' climate change....if it even needs 'fixing' in the first place.

I also do not see much wrong with limited government(not taking away freedoms), fiscal responsibility (not wasting money), nor free markets(allowing optimal economic equilibriums) so your argument is off base there.

The science on global climate change is not conclusive. Even the last IPCC report (900 pages) has the word uncertain or uncertainty over 1300 times meaning (for non math wizards) more than once per page!

To say that the science is conclusive is more than a bit off.

Take a look at an equally long report that refutes your uninformed conjectures: http://www.nipccreport.org/

The Bend Bulletin was a right wing pro-growth screw-everyone-but-our-advertisers', antiunion, antifairhousing when I lived there in 1989.

Go broke bastards, go broke. Then try and sell your piece of shit in this market. I hope the banks eat your overpriced mortgages too.

I lived there in 1974 before the shits moved in and ruined it. Coulda been another Taos, but greed and Oregon go together like a horse and carriage.

Kevin,

You say , "Doubters of CO2 as a factor should read that quote."

This quote shows nothing about the relationship between human activity and climate change.

Evidence of ice melting, polar bears crying, storms increasing in frequency/intensity is not a sign that human emitted carbon dioxide is causing it.

Carla,

Interesting that you discounted the report saying that it has debunked. I didnt know that 880 some pages could be debunked so quickly when it was released this month...hmmmm....maybe you didn't do anything but claim that it was wrong because of some apparent money influence that you think skews it. A common tactic when one knows they are outgunned.

You have to realize the numerous influences that motivate alarmists and companies/industries that make money off of alarmism.

I went to a carbon trading conference in D.C. a few months back. At a conference lunch, I talked with a few people at my table. They admitted to me(voluntarily) that they didnt care about the climate or whether humans cause or dont cause anything...they were looking to make money in carbon trading.

Billions, not millions, of dollars spent by renewable industries, carbon offset companies, and hedge fund investors looking to cash in on this ridiculousness and you are providing free advertising for them. Before you claim money influencing the direction of science, you should look at the influences affecting the alarmist doomsday movement that vastly outweigh any money influences on the other side. IPCC is not OBJECTIVE.

Besides, science or not, the reality of the issue is that reducing emissions in Oregon or the US will not have any discernable influence on global emission levels. China adds the entire US coal capacity to its energy generation every 3 years. They open up 2 new coal power plants a week.

India has a population over three times the US. An indian delegate at the last climate conference in Europe admitted that it is "morally wrong for them to reduce when 40% of inidans do not have access to electricity."

Our emissions reductions here in Oregon (if we wiped oregon off the map, zero emissions immediately and into the future) would be replaced by foreign growth in 16 days. Our emission reductions in the US (if we wiped the US off the map, zero emissions immediately and into the future) would be replaced by foreign growth in less than 6 years.

Any policy to merely reduce emissions not event to stop them completely would be replaced in a fraction of that time.

Kevin,

I am embarassed for you.

You have made a poor argument. You attempted to relate melting sea ice to human emitted greenhouse gases with a quote that doesn't say anything about the relationship between human activity and global temperatures. Then you have the audacity to reply and say you are embarassed for me.

How long do global temperatures have to decline while co2 concentrations increase to understand there is not a clear and easy relationship as you assume?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg

I suppose it is not about that for you. It is about lying to yourself to sleep well at night. Lying to yourself that driving a hybrid, eating organic, and telling other people to be ashamed when they use energy actually accomplishes something.

If that makes you feel better, I can cede the argument and know that what you do is more about emotions and feelings than reality.

Carla, Evan and Kari,

Your declarations that the science is conclusive demonstrates that you haven't looked at the objective science. And you never will. Instead you'll pretend that it's all fossil fuel industry funded and unworthy of review. Essentially all of skeptic scientists have nothing to do with fossil fuel interest. Their abundant and growing science and expertise, is not funded by the fossil fuel industries and represents a very persuasive refutation of AGW assumptions, conclusions and projections.

Yet you want your readers to falsely believe otherwise.

You also offer you opinions with the inference that you have already studied the opposing science when you obviously haven't. What you have done is follow the ushers of global warming and avoided the very clear and plentiful debunking of IPCC science.

As for the latest MIT predictions.

Here's a good rundown of that special brand of silly fabrication.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/how-not-to-make-a-climate-photo-op/

There's not a shred of benefit to come from the battle to reduce CO2 emissions. The cost will be enormous and effect the poor the most. It will be a huge net loss.

The cost of not trying to reduce CO2 emissions is nothing. Contrary to your misguided faith in the concocted AGW there is no impending "pay at the back end--with huge damage to our economy (not to mention our planet and our species) from the results of catastrophic change to the globe"

There is only paying. Not adopting cap and trade/carbon tax policies etc. will save damage to our economy and allow those massive resources to be better spent on real help for our planet and species.

You are stunningly naive and wrong.

There are many, but here is a prime example of the misrepresentation behind what you call conclusive?

OSU Professor (now head of NOAA) Jane Lubchenco fabricated the link between global warming and ocean dead zones. She ignored her own OSU researchers who "cautioned that at this point it is unclear what — if any — link the dead zone has to climate change " and allowed her baseless speculation to be distributed as an established link. Now she wants to spend untold millions establishing a National Climate Service. Again she is fabricating and distorting as she claims climate models are robust enough to predict wind patterns 100 years out. She says that can help municipalities decide where to put wind farms? Think about that. This new tax funded bureaucracy is going to tell policy makers where wind will be and they'll put wind farms there based on their predictions? This is beyond stupid. Again it represents the spending of countless billions on completely worthless nonsense. This is what you are advocating.

You obviously did not red my last comment.

It is amazing how alarmists assume that there is no influences guiding or pushing research towards doomsday predictions.

I have obviously already wasted too much time arguing with someone that will never get the point.

Whether you think humans cause GW or not doesn't really matter anyhow. It is about whether you are unrealistic/irrational and believe that the entire world will sign onto drastic emission reductions and actually achieve those reductions.

Carla, Evan and Keri: The "science" surrounding climate is not settled. That is an arrogant, condiscending statement made by politicians like Algore and those who want to use AGW to tax and regulate us into oblivion.

As a meteorologist who studied IR radiation from "greenhouse gases" I defy you to demonstrate to me that CO2 is driving climate or is responsible for ANY of the past or present weather patterns or global temperatures. The founding physics NEVER supported this contention. It was supplanted with worthless "climate models" that any theoretician ( honest ones ) would have to admit CANNOT make any reliable statement about the earths future climate. This is scientific misconduct and fraud. If you want more convincing discussion from theoretical physicists, ask Richard Lindzen about this. He is from MIT and THEE most respected and "published" scientist in meteorology ever. Someone who taught atmospheric science honestly when money and funding were not the objects in climate science like they are now. I am absolutely sickened by all the BS about this and outright lying to shove "green politics" and its pop culture fad on our society.

Evan Manvel: Oh for f--ks sake. MIT just did the most comprehensive modeling of climate change and found it is likely to be twice as bad as previous projections - 9 degrees average increase by 2100. B: So what? They are just groveling for funding.

Evan Manvel: Lord Stern previously found it would cost 5-20% of world GDP. B: Does the FACT that Stern runs a carbon credit rating agency that WILL profit from climate action bother you?

Evan Manvel: It harms the world's poor the most. B: You mean the ones that live in poverty and would have their life spans increased dramatically by electricity which you want to deny them?

Or do you mean that a longer growing season will harm them? Or do you mean that less freezing weather will harm them?

Evan Manvel: Can we just start acting on this? B: Why not start now? Do your part. Quit heating your home. No more electricity, no computer, cell phone. Quit traveling, except barefoot. Eat only what you can gather in the neighborhood park - heated only by gathered wood. Live in a cave.

Rmoen :We need our own objective climate commission to think through global warming and determine whether it's driven by CO2. ...before we burden our economy with CO2 taxes. B: Yeah, like the Oregon Global Warming Commisssion, headed by a guy that has a company that sells carbon offsets.

Carla Axtman: The science on global climate change and carbon emissions is conclusive. B: Is it? Then why do thousands of PhDs disagree? Then why are the peer reviewed journals publishing contrary papers? See Debunking Climate dot com Why are you still using CO2 producing power, food and transport, instead of moving to a cave and living barefoot?

Keven: . . .Discover Magazine has an article. B: My favorite Discover quote is where famous climate alarmist Stephen Schneider, said it is OK to lie to the public about climate to scare people into action.

Carla Axtman : The scientific evidence on man-made contributions to global climate change and our significant impact are well documented and reviewed. That scientific debate is over. B: Better tell that to the peer reviewed journals, because they are still publishing contrary papers. You might also want to tell it to the many thousand PhDs who disagree with you.

Carla Axtman : Sourcewatch has already worked on "International Conference on Climate Change", here and it's sponsor, the Heartland Institute here. B: Carla, that is just the usual ad hominem. I’ll bet you don’t even know what gas is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect

I’ll bet you don’t even know what percentage of annual CO2 emission is due to man. I’ll bet you don’t even know which came first in those ice core charts that Al Gore showed - temperature rise or CO2 rise.

BTW, you told a guy (Chuck Weise) with a degree in atmospheric science, whose daily survival depends on accurate weather knowledge, that you know more than he does.

Carla: No, science does not win! Deception, lying, scientific misconduct and incompetence win temporarily.

The discussiion is not over, contrary to what you think. There are many in the Oregon Legislature who are plenty interested in what others and myself have to say, infact, once one listens to the correct science and empericle evidence, we are exrtremely convincing and have changed the minds of many.We have been asked to give presentations to many groups and the list keeps growing.

You are operating on a falsely constructed theory and are already beginning to look silly because the climate did not cooperate with modeling. Back peddling is the name of the game you have to engage in to explain yourself today. The 90's are over!

Chuck Wiese

Your arrogance is showing.

Right beside your lack of scientific knowledge.

Les be precise: Carla, Your arrogance is showing.

Right beside your lack of scientific knowledge.

Hey Carla, here are a few people who haven’t gotten your message that the debate is over:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Carla: So....You and your "believers" are moving on. To what? Where is this "overwhelming evidence" to which you refer? Temperature and CO2 are no longer tracking, infact the correlations are now negative, which ABSOLUTELY disproves causation.

I'm still waiting for people like you to explain how CO2 could cause the earth to warm when it takes up IR radiation at the far end of the IR spectrum near 15 microns, and is totally dominated by water vapor and cloud, the only GHG and liqiud that establishes a convective temperature for the atmosphere.

Statements like this are typical from believers in AGW.The theory and modeling have completely collapsed so its time now to end the discussion and do what we always wanted to do which is tax and regulate carbon ( before its too late ! )

BTW, interesting that you try and pin my opinions to a brand of politics. This is completely hypocritical. AGW research funding is primarily all from government and to the tune of 4 billion dollars a year. That keeps alot of green scientists employed that don't deserve to be from their misconduct. I don't get a penny for what I do. My time comes from a sense of moral outrage against this nonsense.My politics have absolutely nothing to do with my opinion on this matter. The public does not deserve to be lied to or bilked any longer by this scam.

The debate is over, Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and all of the governments support this statement.

Sure am glad we ended that debate. How much money has been wasted on that one?

not to mention lives lost.

And I don't get paid either.

I created, manage and host Debunking Climate (com) entirely at my own expense.

BTW, Carla, you should at least look at some of the links to the newspaper articles about who is getting rich from the scare. And the actual admissions of people saying it is OK to lie. The actual CO2 cycle from NASA. The scientists threatened or fired for dissenting. The conflict of interest Partial list of peer reviewed papers pointing to the sun as climate driver. Partial list of peer reviewed papers debunking Al Gore’s temperature chart. Partial list of peer reviewed papers debunking sea level rise Partial list of peer reviewed papers on arctic/antarctic temperatures being normal. Link to the peer reviewed paper that found forests below the ice in Greenland. Link to the 9 errors found by a British court in Al’s flick. Link to Obama saying he will make electricity rates skyrocket.

Do you somehow think that all those journals are merely publishing oil company propaganda?

Carla, you can no longer claim the science is settled in view of Nature and Science publishing the articles linked above.

And you must admit that you are following admitted liars.

And you must admit that Al Gore’s flick has major lies in it.

And you must admit that important PROPONENTS of warming are setting themselves up to get rich off of the scare.

So, why do you believe, proven wrong things, from admitted liars who stand to make a lot of money?

They want these policies enacted and they're willing to pay for it.

In the abstract, people are likely to agree with statements like this--if for no other reason then to please a pollster signaling that he/she favors the concept. The rub comes when people have to plunk down real dollars, trading away their ability to purchase other goods in favor of "greenhouse gas reductions." Even then, the margin in favor wasn't that large.

A few years ago, when electric bills rose substantially during the Enron/energy trading debacle, people quickly became less predisposed toward environmentalism and more supportive of nuclear power and other (supposedly) less environmentally-friendly technologies that would reduce electric costs.

I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that they want these policies enacted as long as OTHER people are paying for it.

How rich! You haven't answered or responded to any of my comments. And who might these "real climate" scientists be you would refer me to? The Real Climate group? Home of Michael Mann and James Hansen, who have been caught manipulating climatic data to try and "prove" AGW is real?

And Jamie, speaking of all the scientists you claim are not "trained" in climate or meteorology, how about James Hansen? A degree in astronomy substitutes for meteorology? It doesn't make much difference any how, what matters is that what is stated about AGW be scientifically valid and disprove the founding physics of IR absorption by GHG's. This was never done by people like Mann, Hansen, et al.Instead, climate modeling supplanted the correct physics.

Jamie: that comment was for Carla, not you. A typo. Sorry. We are on the same page.

Where to interpret this jumbo of comments in reactions to a criticism from Carla Axtman on the Bend Bulletin's editorial board.

Time for me to interpret this thread in hopes to clarify it. Over-generalizations will ensue.

The global climate change skeptics are bringing forth their evidence that many "thousands" of PhDs are now doubting the whole global warming movement in peer reviewed journals.

The global climate true believers are pointing to MIT, the UN report on climate change with thousands of PhDs signing off on it, and other "thousands" of PhDs who believe that the world as we know it is coming to an end for us.

Both sides are arguing science while the progenitor of this current debate here on BlueOregon is using such language as "the debate is over", "science has won", "we have good leaders acting..." Carla, I apologize in the blog biting of your argument, but I need to do it for brevity's sake.

In essence, Carla is making another implicit argument:

Those who deny global warming (Mostly Republican and conservative ideologues) have lost the political battle. You can argue science and bring up all the articles you want, but that is irrelevant because your side is in no position to affect political action on global climate change policy.

You may deny that global climate change is man-made or be so brave as to deny global climate change's very existence, but who are you as one single, ineffectual commentator on a blog to do anything to influence the public policy surrounding it?

Deny it all you want, while iconic American brands such as Hummer are sold to the Chinese, Chrysler is sold to the Italians, and on, but your side (Republicans and conservatives) is in no power to do a damn thing to influence political action on it.

In yo face! In yo face!

This is what Carla is implicitly arguing. Forgive me for the exaggerations.

This is how I read Carla and more or less the whole debate.

It all comes down to raw politics. Science and PhDs are just tools to be wielded, while our political leaders are the knights on the battlefield.

Chuck Wiese: how about James Hansen? A degree in astronomy substitutes for meteorology? B: That doesn’t matter - he says the right things.

Chuck Wiese: It doesn't make much difference any how, what matters is that what is stated about AGW be scientifically valid B: The average believer didn’t pay attention in science or logic classes. It is truly pathetic to see people that don’t know the first thing about physics and have no knowledge of the most basic facts of climate be so convinced of their positions.

I am still waiting to see if Carla even knows what gas causes most of the greenhouse effect. Or what percentage of the total annual CO2 emission is from man.

One guy I was arguing with explained how heat evaporates H2O and causes more clouds which turn into rain WITHOUT having a clue that he was describing one of the earth’s natural temperature regulators. Sad.

Even stranger, is that Al Gore says he is lying and they still believe. Hansen says he used to lie and they still believe. Schneider said it is OK to lie and they still believe. Then it comes out that Gore is getting rich. It doesn’t matter. We learn that Hansen got $300,000 - it doesn’t matter.

But if a skeptic got a $10 rebate from Exxon, he is called a lying scum sell out.

Ryan: What you say right now is true. With Obama in power and liberal democrats to compliment him, we cannot stop what may happen. But I will not stand by without continuing to point out the deception, lying and special interests driving this. This business to promote the rot of AGW was well funded, primarily by government which is what makes it the outrage it is. This money is being used by government to expand and increase the scope of their power with a lie which is totaly inapropriate and amounts to taxing and regulating without representation. The public will get nothing in return for the claims we are causing climate change and the absurd suggestions that reducing carbon emissions will change anything.

Jamie: Spot on! Couldn't have said it better!

Carla Axtman: ...if you're going to cut and paste from Republican Senate Minority Reports, the least you can do is be up front about it. JK: Do you ever bother to look at the facts instead of just the source?

Carla Axtman: ... climate science resume is limited to serving on a climate change discussion panel at the 51st convention of Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine. B: Right out of desmogblog (com)

Carla Axtman: Joanne Simpson is not trained in climate science....." B: Right out of desmogblog (com)

Carla Axtman: Dr. Kiminori Itoh .... According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University B: Right out of desmogblog (com)

Carla Axtman: I can keep going, but you get the idea. JK: We do – you cut and past your attacks.

We also get it that you refuse to look at evidence, preferring to rely on leftey web sites to do your thinking for you.

Carla Axtman: ...if you're going to cut and paste from Republican Senate Minority Reports, the least you can do is be up front about it. JK: Do you ever bother to look at the facts instead of just the source?

Carla Axtman: ... climate science resume is limited to serving on a climate change discussion panel at the 51st convention of Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine. B: if you're going to cut and paste from desmogblog, the least you can do is be up front about it.

Carla Axtman: Joanne Simpson is not trained in climate science....." B: Right out of desmogblog

Carla Axtman: Dr. Kiminori Itoh .... According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University B: Right out of desmogblog

Carla Axtman: I can keep going, but you get the idea. JK: We do – you cut and past your attacks.

We also get it that you refuse to look at evidence, preferring to rely on leftey web sites to do your thinking for you.

It's LOL funny reading some of the denier's comments. In another 10 or 15 years the evidence will be so strong that the percentage of deniers in the population will be lower than Dick Cheney's popularity :]

It was reported the other day that Southern Ocean conditions are pointing to a return of El Niño this summer so the next couple of years are likely to be on the hot side. Of course the deniers will say the heat is all because of El Niño or maybe they'll say it's because the sun is coming out of a solar minimum ignoring the fact that they are cyclical phenomenon and there's no evidence either is a significant factor in the general upward trend of global temperature.

Or they may say it's been cooling since 2002 ignoring the fact that there have been many episodes where it cools a bit for 5 or 10 years but the general trend is still upward. 2008 was still the 9th hottest year on record.

For those who say we can't do enough to stop it on our own it's going to be a 30-50 year process to get our civilization near carbon neutral and the longest journey starts with the first step. Once we start getting serious we have more weight to add to the pressure on China, India and others to do something.

As far as the cost, most estimates I've seen are surprisingly low, like 5% of GDP. And it's not like we're throwing the money in the fireplace. The costs go to pay peoples wages and to buy things that pay other people and they all spend it on things that pay still more people. The health of an economy depends more on the rate money is circulating in it than it does on how much any individual has.

riverat As far as the cost, most estimates I've seen are surprisingly low, like 5% of GDP. B: OK, then no problem. The average family won’t have any problem coming up with an extra 5% (after tax) to feed to Al Gore and his Wall Street buddies.

At a average family income of $50,233.00 (per wikipedia) that is only $2500. That should be no problem for most people.

Hey David, how do you feel about adding $2500 to your annual energy bill? YFI

riverat The costs go to pay peoples wages and to buy things that B: Like Al Gore’s mansion and bonuses for all those Wall Street carbon traders. Not to mention Oregon’s very own carbon offset salesman who just happens to be on the governor’s global warming commission.

riverat pay other people and they all spend it on things that pay still more people. B: You get more for you money if you spend it on someting useful instead of just paying people to waste their effort.

For the record, as I read the evidence as a scientist, climate change is real and human-caused.

That said, this thread is outright hilarious. People like Carla, Evan, Kevin and the rest who clearly are not remotely capable of scientific thought, doing their best to harm the the case for global climate change argument because they are too ignorant to even know any better. Is there even an undergraduate science degree amongst the lot of these fools, much less a graduate experimental science degree or a defended dissertation? The structure of their arguments, including incomplete references to poorly understood,inaccurately popularized scientific results is a dead giveaway.

Of course, most of the deniers here are as scientifically clueless as the unknowledgeable believers. But because of the stakes, Blue Oregon egotists definitely are the "friend" no competent advocate for progressive causes in Oregon, in this case raising awareness of the reality of climate change, ever needs on their side.

Sadly, RyanLeo couldn't be more wrong: The science is solid and climate change is real. But the political battle will continue until we either go extinct or change course in our last attempt to avoid starving to death because of scientifically illiterate fools on both sides.

Well Jamie, the cost of not doing something about it will be far higher in the end so we can pay now or pay more later when things get worse.

Jamais Vu, of course you're right that the effects will vary over the surface of the planet and in time but as a whole the heat energy retained on the planet is increasing due largely to GHG's. So it's not that inaccurate to call it global warming when you average the effect over the whole planet and take into account land and ocean temperatures as well as atmospheric temperatures.

WATCHING THE SCIENTIFIC ILLITERATES :Of course, most of the deniers here are as scientifically clueless as the unknowledgeable believers.

CHUCK WIESE: So who are you? If you are so knowlegeable perhaps you could tell us your real name. How am I "clueless?" It seeems to me like this is the other way around. You use the ID watching the scientific illiterates but have said nothing to demonstrate that you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about!

WATCHING THE SCIENTIFIC ILLITERATES:Sadly, RyanLeo couldn't be more wrong: The science is solid and climate change is real.

CHUCK WIESE: No, the science is as full of holes as a piece of swiss cheese. It completely contradicts the founding physics without a provable refutation.

WATCHING THE SCIENTIFIC ILLITERATES: But the political battle will continue until we either go extinct or change course in our last attempt to avoid starving to death because of scientifically illiterate fools on both sides.

CHUCK WIESE: This statement is about as idiotic as any that a person could make.Whoever you are, you have zero credibility as a "knowlegeable scientist", and if you do have a degree in science of some sort but not in meteorology, you have alot of studying to do. You write sheer nonsense here!

Of course, most of the deniers here are as scientifically clueless as the unknowledgeable believers. There is at least one degree in atmospheric science among the deniers here. He also depends on his knowledge of weather for his daily well being in his profession.

Perhaps you would like to discus atmospheric science with him.

May I ask the moderator(s) a point of order question?

I thought that this was supposed to be a blog for progressive Democrats and democrats . . . generally a place for the left.

But over the past week or so, with the murder of Dr. Tillman and on this issue of climate change, it seems like the blog has been swamped with the most egregious kinds of talking points from boring Republican conservative right wing media and veering sometimes into outright hate speech. This has been so true that there hasn't been any dialogue at all that I could see about, for example, what should be the economic mix of energy conservation vs. new energy generation; what can we do to maximize public benefit and minimize corporate greed and corporate influence in the political process in the bills that will be coming down the pike to deal with the climate emergency; etc. etc. etc.

The point is, I can go to Free Republic or Town Hall or Red State or any number of places for ignorant screeds against "baby killers" or people that are convinced that human-caused climate change is a big misunderstanding. Is this really the place where we have to put up with these guys?

It's your blog, so if you say it is, fine by me. I just thought that that you had something different in mind.

Joe Hill: for example, what should be the economic mix of energy conservation vs. new energy generation; B: As a realist, I ask what new energy generation? I know of no “new energy generation” options that are economical except nuke which is “off the table” in liberal land.

Do you know of any viable replacement for our current electric generation? Realities: We need energy 24/7, so wind & solar need backup. What is the backup? It needs to actually work, IE: be proven to capable of utility scale generation. Cost is important, because higher energy costs = less clothing or food for the kids, or less prescriptions for granny. Many energy saving proposals are just plan unworkable. A few are good.

Joe Hill: minimize corporate greed and corporate influence in the political process B: It is the corporate influence that points out that many of the proposed plans simple won’t work. The other option is to go ahead and find out that they don’t work after our power grid fails. Which would you prefer?

As to corporate greed: don’t confuse greed with profit. Profit is the reward for figuring out a better/cheaper way to do something. If you have a problem with that, please study innovation in Stalin’s Russia or Castro’s Cuba and get back to us. You might just look at advances in standard of living in those countries free of corporate exploitation (N. Korea, Cuba) compared to the countries rampant with corporate greed.

Examples of destructive corporate greed include those who stir up false scares to get congress to pass laws benefitting them. The 1930s suppression of hemp is a prime example. A more recent example is the Wall Street gang joining with politicians to force people to purchase their products. A good example is Kleiner Perkins, Silicon Valley's preeminent venture firm, Generations Mutual Fund, IDEAGlobal Group and Chicago Climate Exchange. All have a relationship with famous warming promoters and all expect to make a big profit.

Joe Hill: in the bills that will be coming down the pike to deal with the climate emergency; etc. etc. etc. B: Of course step on in any problem solving exercise it to determine if there is really a problem. That step has been short circuited by clever marketing and manipulation of an ignorant press and public. Fortunately many scientists are now starting to take a closer look and join the skeptics. The ignorant press will be the last to wise up - right before the politicians.

Joe Hill: Is this really the place where we have to put up with these guys? B: Your contempt for open discussion and free speech is showing.

Gee this is really interesting and getting more hysterical by the minute. I got cyberassaulted for my comments to another post "Storm" being called stupid and things like that Let me be clear in my other comment I wasn't trying to "blame" the freak storm on climate change, but I guess it sounded like it. Other people were bringing in God & Satan as a cause/reason -after smoking their doobies- who knows? That could be possible. Maybe we should post more on the topic of Global Warming/Climate Change. Sounds like we need to. Also sounds like we need to learn a lot more science. The Pew Institute did a study on science education in this country and it wasn't very complimentary. But let's get it together and not turn this blog into a name calling contest.

The Senator may have a point about global warming. If so then he should be looking at changing many of the government's own policies that contribute to global warming. We need to open the urban transit market to competition. One group has suggested that wide spread use of jitneys could reduce auto emmission by 50% or more. The U.S. military needs to reduce its worldwide forces. Our military is one of the globe's largest consumer of fossil fuels. The forest service and other land management agencies need to change their policies to reduce the intensity of forest fires which release sigificant amount of pollutants into the atmosphere. And as mentioned by the Secretary of Energy paint all the roofs of government buildings white when it comes time to repair those same roofs. Along the way maybe find a lighter colored material for roads instead of the black asphalt now used. Do ya think it might be possible to get the government to change, or even to get the Senator to pay attention to the government's role in the problem? Whaddya think Carla?

And of course there's no response or interest in Lubchenco's fabrications.

Tell me Carla, is Lubchenco's fabricated science also settled?

You may chose to blindly believe her ridiculous claims, as evidenced by the two BO threads on her ocean dead zone science, but you'd be foolish to do so.

Likewise in assuming her fabrications are an isolated case in the greater AGW movement. Not so, there are many "scientific" manipulations just like Lubchenco's within the AGW movement. Especially where observations today are attributed, with zero science, to global warming.

This is why there are so many skeptics and intense scrutiny by many qualified experts who have concluded the AGW hypothosis is without merit.

It's riddled with fatal flaws and weighted with political motivations driving it forward.

It is, however, becoming well established that this is a very Blue and Green, liberal democrat political movement. Something which will be front and center as the judgement days of future elections approach.

So have at it with your cap and trade/carbon tax agenda.

Claiming they'll save us money and calamity is fraud.

Thanks Carla Now you understand what we have to put up with on the east side of the Cascades. It's bad enough that the editorial board is a bunch of right wing whackos, the problem is compounded by the fact that we're fed a constant supply of the likes of Victor David Hansen, Charles Krauthammer, and David Brooks, but just to be fair and balanced once a month or so they will slip in a Ellen Goodman piece.

For all of you Global Warming, Climate Change deniers: Follow the Money!

CHUCK WIESE: So who are you? If you are so knowlegeable perhaps you could tell us your real name. How am I "clueless?" It seeems to me like this is the other way around. You use the ID watching the scientific illiterates but have said nothing to demonstrate that you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about!

This may come as a real surprise to Charles and his type, just like it might to Carla and Evan and their type, but I personally don't have any interest in wasting my time trying to convince (or support) the fools with heads like rocks on either side. As I noted, nature will take care of that, and us, in due time if we continue on our current path and those kind of pompous idiots continue to dominate the political debate. My only interest is suggesting to more thoughtful readers they ignore the silliness on both sides such as we see here, and instead work to develop any ability they can to read and understand the science (and the exquisite nuances involved) for themselves.

Thanks, Richard. Well said. I see " Watching The Scientific Illiterates" doesn't want to identify him/herself and can't make any point except to say he/she is a "scientist" and looked at the arguments and AGW is real.

This is so typical of any AGW site. None of the participants can discuss science because they are illiterate themselves and have to hide in anonymity and make ad hominem attacks against their opponents. They have no other amunition. I coined a phrase that well explains why this has become a religion. Posts on this site demonstrate well that believers of this nonsense cannot and will not listen to any scientific evidence or real physics. ( I would bet most do not even understand it ) I believe that most who have posted here, especially Carla et al believe in big government and that the government should tax and regulate carbon. If we were facing an ice age, this group would still be convinced AGW is real. Money, not science drives this. Unreachable individuals are either employed by or would benefit somehow by this farce causing huge government growth. That is at the crux of the matter. But then you and I have to help pay for it all which I am adamately opposed to. We get nothing in return for the investment except higher taxes and less freedom. Those employed directly or indirectly by this fraudulent 4 billion a year gravy train are desperately trying to stay employed at taxpayer expense because the argument and ideas of AGW and green technology in its present form could not stand the scutiny of the free market place. None of these AGW types could justify employment when the stink test is employed. Some are trying to amass power. Look at Algore! Hence the continued lies and distortions to promote the rot. I call these types zombies and the walking dead. Other peoples money buys their conscience and motives. And again, the desperation to link me politically to a sick individual who killed an abortion doctor or someone like Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building demonstrates the shallowness of the AGW argument.

I have spoken to many groups and I find the most willing to listen are the young college students who have not been corrupted by or participate in the special interests that drive this. There is still hope it can all be shut down.

"I created, manage and host Debunking Climate (com) entirely at my own expense."

So $70 and a website makes you an expert? BWWWAAAAHHHHHHHH.

I just knew everything you deniers cut-n-paste was true!

In the meantime, GM just went bankrupt with their Hummers while Toyota and Honda keep selling hybrids at a nice clip while gas gets close to $3.00 a gallon.

But hey, don't let me piss all over your denier's parade. Keep those cut-n-paste oil company funded post coming!

I struggled with science all through college, and have no real scientific background, so I feel as qualified as most others to weigh in here. It all reminds me of the "scientific" evidence proving to us that God is real or not. If the frickin science was so damn convincing, then why is there such a divide between ordinarily bright people. I don't think the "science" about warming proves shit either way. It is responsible to take care of the planet, but remedies such as cap and trade or ignoring it all together is a joke. The "follow the money" argument can work for either side. At least if we go down that road a lot more can actually be proved. So go ahead and blast me for not being as smart as y'all. It seems to help when convincing others of your point of view.

... and to get back on topic:

"Shame on them for worrying about their imperiled livelihoods when they ought to be worrying about the supposedly imperiled polar bear."

Substitute "polar bear" with "salmon" and let's talk about lost jobs.

As if Bend is doing so well in the unemployment department. It's like taking foreign policy advise from Dick Cheney.

I have spoken to many groups and I find the most willing to listen are the young college students who have not been corrupted by or participate in the special interests that drive this. There is still hope it can all be shut down.

What we see here is an argument about the absurdity of deniers: There is of course an alternative hypothesis that in fact is easily checked and overwhelmingly is more in accordance with reality than Chuck's ravings: The deniers have the most luck with those who haven't yet developed mature critical thinking skills. Chuck, Carla, Evan, Kevin, Kari etc. actually are on the same side of ignorance in that regard, since they show how developing genuine mature critical thinking skills is hard work and beyond the reach of people like them. They don't present the science accurately, if at all, they mainly base their comments on insisting the credentials of those who say what they want. They are simply desperate to influence debate because they want to get what they want, as determined by the political side of the debate they happy to be on.

At least Roy McAvoy has a certain level of moral integrity to admit s/he (with the exception of the proprietors, no one knows if anybody using a name here is actually that person), found developing those skills to be a struggle. Prime evidence of a lazy thinker (which Roy actually seems not to be) is believing, and insisting, that achieving a deep understanding of reality should be easy. And Roy, there is no divide between people with those critical thinking skills, only between people with verbal skills they have learned to use to deceive people into misinterpreting as "bright" or having critical thinking skills. Poor presentations of the science doesn't make it less a faithful explanation of reality that has verifiable predictive power.

I can't believe I just wasted ten minutes of my life reading these.

Can we all agree on one thing? The Bend Bulletin sucks, always has sucked, always will suck, until the finally shutter the doors of that eyesore of a building.

I'm going outside now.

Can we all agree on one thing? The Bend Bulletin sucks, always has sucked, always will suck, until the finally shutter the doors of that eyesore of a building.

NO!

The Bend Bulletin, really the topic here, does indeed SUCK TEABAGS!

They endorsed Bush the first time, wanted to the second time, but didn't have the cajones to do it and endorsed NOBODY, and they charge more for their online content than the NYTimes ever did, when it used to charge.

I agree with whoever above said, go broke, go broke Bulletin, then try and sell your POS on the free market, which they love so much.

Did I mention the size of the paper has shrunk by almost half since I moved here in 2002? Looks like they are well on the way!

I subscribed for three months when I moved here, but with the constant Editorial BS and 90% of letters to the Editor published by people like Todd, my blood pressure couldn't handle it.

Buh-bye.

PS: I will miss the very-good local coverage that they provide. But that was only 10% of the paper, and I couldn't justify bankrolling their lies.

But I have no intention of allowing equivocation of scientific data on this matter.

Carla illustrates again why she and Blue Oregon are the allies no progressive or even constructive cause needs. There are many, many people who are far more knowledge than me on the topic of climate change and for whom I have immense respect. People like her, Evan and a few of the other believers with other self-focused agendas are most assuredly not even close to being in that class.

So Carla, don't be so dumb as to think you can play a transparent game of trying to dupe readers into aligning you with that class of talented, intelligent, capable people with a comment "I get that you think EVERYONE is stupid except for you" unnoticed. You've demonstrated you only have a flawed understanding of what the theories and data on climate change actually say. So whatever you're doing for your own self-promoting reasons here is not remotely helpful towards "stop(ping) equivocation of scientific data". It's more than clear that you and your fellow scientifically illiterate believers commented on the statements by the Bend paper largely as a matter of your own politics and ego.

People like Carla, Evan, Kevin, and Kari harm intelligent attempts to constructively honestly educate the American public into doing the right thing to slow down climate change (even though we may be too late to reverse it).

Carla: Sorry but your statement is wrong. The fact that I am a meteorologist makes me fully in tune with "climate science" because EVERYTHING that this area of study entails borrows directly from atmospheric science. Greenhouse gas radiation is a prime example. EVERY radiation law in atmospheric science borrows and was derived from applied physics and climatology borrows from the same arena. Except I see that climate modeling incorrectly and unscrupulously uses these equations to get the absurd answers that climate change occurs from CO2 emissions. Another discontinuity in your statement comes from the fact that "weather" is simply an extension to climate change through time. Other than that there is no difference.They are not separate disciplines. This is warming gobblygook to try and drive a false wedge between meteorologists and the "climate scientists" promoting the AGW rot that they claim that falsely distinguishes them from the rest of the science. Pure BS. This makes ANY meteorologist more than qualified to comment and understand climate.

To " Watching The Scientific Illiterates": You still claim to be a scientist who understands the physics of radiative transfer. So instead of your vacant ranting why don't you tell us who you really are and tell us why and how CO2's radiation affects the earth and troposphere to supposedly cause warming if concentration is increased from the present levels? To be as convinced that we are destroying the earth from CO2 emissions as you are you surely must have some sound physics to back you up. So tell us about it! If you can't or won't then you are nothing more than a quack with no credentials that I would guess is either riding or wanting to ride the federal gravy train of cash.

Why do they call it "global" warming? No matter what all those scientists might think, the world is flat 'cause the bible and Rush Limpbaugh say so.

The biggest threat to the environment and sustainability is the over population of the human race. Yet no light bulbs have gone off with the political heavyweights in Salem or Portland or just about any place else in Oregon. Instead of discouraging population growth and talking about it, land use planning goals continue to move forward to accommodate growth with social engineering policies that will have local government endeavoring to dictate the lifestyle, housing and transportation choices of the people. Adopting such policies not only places handcuffs on the economy by only promoting specific types of jobs while ignoring all the existing jobs that are likely to be eliminated and disappear, but it also throws out the democracy this country was founded on and turns Oregon into a socialist nanny state where elected officials become totalitarian dictators utilizing fear to control life’s day to day activities. How is it with Oregon’s manipulative effort and emphasis on a so called green economy that Oregon has the second highest unemployment rate in the Nation?

Moreover, if “we're all going to be "paying" for these policies”, then instead of having bicyclists freeload, siphoning off and poaching roadway dollars to pay for specialized bicycle infrastructure; lets start by directly taxing the deadbeat bicyclists to pay for the exclusive infrastructure they use and continually rant for more.

Finally, The Bend Bulletin’s edict may just be outstandingly comparable that to that unknown lone man standing in front of and halting the People's Liberation Army advancing tanks near Tiananmen Square in China 30 years ago. I think all those troops that fought for freedom and democracy, were injured and died in the Battle of Normandy 65 years ago today would be wholeheartedly enlightened by what appeared in the Bend Bulletin.

CARLA: Chuck: the fact that you are a meterologist makes you a weatherman, like the people on the local TV station that tell me what they think the weather will be tomorrow. That's fine, but it hardly qualifies you to give any indepth scientific analysis of global climate change.

No Carla! Wrong again! TV "weathermen" are all not degreed in atmospheric science. You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. None! You are speaking absolutely nonsensical gibberish and reveal that you know nothing about this profession or what it takes to become educated in it and what that education enables you to do. Meteorologists are absolutely qualified and knowlegeable about climate because of what I already stated. Some TV weathercasters are degreed in this discipline and others not. Because there is no licensing agency that distinguishes us, some TV types call themeselves "meteorologists" without any formal education in this profession. This is wrong but there is no law that prohibits it.There are stark differences here, but you are completely wrong about what a meteorologist is and what they are capable of doing.

@carla

How do you determine whose evidence is 'right?' I assume it is based on more than who agrees with you. Your so quick to dismiss those that don't, I am curious as to your basis for that.

Try this out

CARLA: I'm sorry if this offends your sensibilities, but you're really out of your element.

Ahh yes...spoken elegantly from a woman who knows nothing about climate or meteorology and claims anyone who disagrees with her is unqualified to speak as she openly admits no knowledge herself but accepts AGW diatribe without a question. So much so that she claims the scientific discussion is over and science has won. So who is really out of their element??

You are either incredibly naive and ignorant or part of the special interest groups that are pimping for tax dollars that will permanently fund this junk science through carbon taxes and legislation.

TORRIDJOE:The point was badly made, but still stands: being a meterologist in this case is almost the definition of knowledge being a dangerous thing.

And who are you, torridjoe, and from what premise do you make such a statement? Please read my posts on this thread before you answer as I already explained to Carla why this statement is wrong and spoken from ignorance of the science.

BTW neither of you seem able to even spell meteorologist correctly.Are you both confusing it with something else?

JK: Carla, How do you choose which scientists to follow - which are correct? How do you know that Hansen is correct and Spenser wrong? How do you, with NO literacy in basic science, make that decision?

BTW this is the problem with the leaders of many companies and governments - they have no knowledge in the field in which they are making decisions and choose to take the easy way out and pick an expert (instead of actually learning something). They end up listening to the best bull shit artist instead of the best expert.

This got millions killed when Stalin listened to Lysenko. It has bankrupted companies. We are just trying to keep it from bankrupting Oregon’s citizens and the rest of the USA.

You criticized the list I gave you. Please tell which of these people your would trust:

1. Vocal climate spokesman - no science degree.

2. Published climate related papers in peer reviewed journals - University department of Meteorology.

3.Published climate related papers in peer reviewed journals - Ph.D. in Physics, NASA

1. Speaks on climate - Ph.D. in meteorology, research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies,

2. Published climate related papers in peer reviewed journals - Ph.D. in Atmospheric sciences

3. Popular speaker on climate - Ph.D. in ecological climatology.

mp97303,

I looked at that link. "Science is not, I repeat not, done by consensus, even though politics is."

Here is how this thread went:

1. Carla makes a thoughtful post criticizing the Bend Bulletin editorial board based in large part on politics and minor part on the global climate change.

2. Deniers come in question the "science" of global climate change.

3. A milieu of responses ensues with neither side compromising.

4. A few sane individuals interject and think this whole debate is: 1. Utter nonsense, 2. A big waste of time, 3. A letting off of steam from disenfranchised Republicans who feel that the "core" of America is threatened by the Democratic regime that they perceive as taking us down the road to socialism, 4. etc.

5. The healthy debate continues with a few fallacies and a few character attacks here and there.

6. The debate runs its course and both sides walk away saving face and having their views on global climate change reinforced.

Science in many ways is and will always be political because it is a tool that men and women with an ideology use to make their vision of the world a reality.

Why does everybody feed trolls here?

And yet none of those experts on climate change are posting here. Their science is simply being linked to by Evan and me and others like us

Carla: Most thoughtful people would take the fact that no experts are posting here as a hint at the credibility of the forum and people like yourself. Second, the problem is precisely that you are linking haphazardly to science you don't understand for your own gratification. In the process you most definitely are NOT helping the cause of increasing the appreciation of the science in the lay population that we need..

I've never proffered a theory here on climate change--so it's impossible for me to demonstrate a lack of understanding on something I haven't articulated.

No Carla, what you are demonstrating a lack of knowledge about is the science you are linking to, in the form of the unknowledgeable comments you are making about that science.

Additionally, you have consistently failed to address the topic at hand. Which says even more about your motives. Your casual dismissal of basic perspective doesn't bode well either.

Your last sentence is rhetorical idiocy from some someone who clearly has nothing to offer except elementary rhetorical skills. As I noted at the outset, the science is clear and persuasive human-contributions to climate change are real and that it is probable as a result we are facing huge climate problem, and perhaps outright disaster. The issue being addressed to readers who are genuinely concerned about our future is that they should understand that people like Carla, Evan, Kari and the Blue Oregon are not particularly informed about the science and are not regarded as particularly helpful advocates because their advocacy about climate change because of their other more self-centered personal agendas.

Now Chucky: You really need to stop making an ass of yourself. For you and the rest of the deniers here, yes you are correct Carla, Evan and the believers are idiots. Discrediting idiots, however, does not establish the credibility of your idiotic position. They cite random bits of scientific results they don't understand and they actually believe, like the idiots are on your side, that just citing the credentials of the sources of those results (what is called the "fallacy of authority) is really what an argument is about. Of course both of you are wrong about that, and neither of you understand the science.

So Chuck here is the reality in your face and a little harder edged the torridjoe wants to make it since you fancy yourself to be such a critical thinker: The history of meteorology is not as a science, but as a trade and art. To the credit of meteorologists, in modern times some in the discipline have tried to gain more legitimacy by trying to use more scientific methods. As is the game in the politics of academia, that sometimes is out of genuine scientific curiosity and sometimes out of more banal career and financial motivations.

That's all well and good and more power to those who are interested in meteorology and who are trying to make meteorology more of a science out of genuine scientific curiosity. It does not change the fact, however, that meteorology is the practice of predicting the weather in the short term (with increasing inaccuracy for predictions further out in time) and the discipline as a whole has not established it is a a science which has anything valid to say about climate change. As I've read the literature, I've often noticed one statistic we don't have is whether those trying to make meteorology a more a credible scientific discipline, rather than an art, are uniformly distributed between the deniers and those that recognize that the science that humans are driving climate change in pathological directions is valid. The non-scientific arguments I see from the deniers clearly suggest the hypothesis that this most decidedly is not the case.

A Democrat actually spoke at a "LIBERAL" conference! Be still my heart....As if we're all supposed to quake in our boots that Merkley galavants with the "liberals"...we dirty hippies. What a bunch of elitist crap.

Are you kidding? They're still recieving treatment for the rupture sustained when Ben Westlund went independent!

For those who really care about the substance: A brief refresher what science is.

Science is the approaching to knowledge in which one forms hypothesis with predictive power, makes predictions based on that hypothesis, and then runs experiments to confirm the predictive power of the hypothesis.

Those hypotheses frequently take the form of models, in this case for climate (not weather). One little trick deniers play on the unknowledgeable is to imply that climate models can't be validated because, "Hey, the predictions are for 100 years in the future, and we aren't there yet to know." The reality is that models (theory) are validated to be a better representation of reality than any competing theory. This is done in part by validating key aspects of a model and in part by showing there are other inescapable conclusions and consequences given those validated aspects.

The other trick that deniers play is true pseudo-science: They look at data sets and simply pick out pieces that seem to support their views (well people like Carla, Evan, Kari, and other Blue Oregonians do that too and that's why they aren't credible) and which contradict the well validated climate-change theory. They never quite get around to proposing and validating a competing comprehensive theory which explains the overall data even close to as well as the well validated theories they are trying to deny. Every once and while they do come up with a dataset that exposes a genuine, but minor hole in the theory. In fact, however, they actually indirectly help establish the legitimacy and validity of the climate change science by doing this. The climate change community recognizes truly contrary data must be addressed (although there admittedly are obnoxious egotistical individual scientists who are exceptions like in any discipline). The community on the whole does this by examining the data and either explaining how it is not actually contradictory to the theory, or by adjusting the theory to correct the flaw. And in fact, on balance the community is grateful for such data being brought to light because it provides guidance on how to improve the theory.

This process of refining climate change theory has being going on as deniers have become more shrill. So far the result has only been to improve the theory and strengthen its validity to confirm that we do face the probability of catastrophe from human-driven climate change. The debate really has moved on to the question of how much we can reverse what we've done to avert some of the more dire consequences or whether it is too late.

To "Watching the Scientific Illiterates":

My resposnse to your last two posts: Meteorology and atmospheric science are NOT restricted to the art form of weather forecasting. The knowledge base can be and is used daily in scientific forensic analysis, weather analysis, numerical computation of atmospheric parameters and computer modeling that is used in short and medium range forecasting of SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC PARAMETERS, such as a time projection of a certain pressure field at a specified height,wind vectors, ect. Those parameters are defined by the laws of physics. The art form is the interpretation of these results which lead to a decisive conclusion that produces a weather forecast. You are wrong in your assertion and speak from sheer ignorance.

As to your last post: If scientific standards are applied to climate models to form your described "hypothesis" the results are as follows: The models were incorporated, and BORROWED from ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE and METEOROLOGY to form specific physical and mathematical desription and code, some of which has to be parameterized into ART FORM, such as summations and truncations of various parameters that take up too much computing power to follow the idea of a true mathematical limit.The limitations are then applied knowing full well that they are even more restrictive, heuristic and non scientific than modeling used in weather forecasting because of the truncations of the differential equations needed to reduce the total iteration schemes through large time intervals that conform to the relaxation programs incorporated and needed for computational stability.The result is a completely unsatisfactory model that leaks energy like a siive and could not possibly tell you what you could expect to happen at any time in the future.

Your ignorance and stupidity really show when you say:

" The reality is that models (theory) are validated to be a better representation of reality than any competing theory. This is done in part by validating key aspects of a model and in part by showing there are other inescapable conclusions and consequences given those validated aspects."

There are no "key aspects" of a numerical model that attempts to predict the future state of any one parameter that describes the atmosphere and its components because they are ALL COUPLED and physically LINKED to one another to get an answer you moron! You can't isolate one from the other, run them through time and then "get an answer or validation"

Speaking of validations, we have taken a composite of all of the various numerical climate models, ran them through a twenty five year time integration, ramped CO2 up as the historical record shows and compared the results to measured global temperature composites off the satellite MSU.The result was an utter and complete failure of ALL the modeling to properly project global temperature response to the CO2 levels. The modeling predicted a huge warm anomoly that emerges over the equator and spreads north and south to 30 degrees of latitude to either side with a center between 10-12KM or ~250mb of pressure altitude. This is the finger print of global temperature change expected by your claimed validated "hypothesis" from climate modeling. The acual measured temperature response to the projections was COOLING where the "hypothesis" said it would warm substantially > 1.2 degC. Climate modeling in its present form is an objective failure in every aspect and REAL DATA proves it!

So I would suggest that YOU are the one that needs to quit making an ass out of yourself. You did a good job of this in your last two posts because everything of substance you discuss is wrong and mistated. Your posts reveal a lack of understanding of ANY of the basics of atmospheric science and meteorology which are NEEDED AND BORROWED FROM TO DESCRIBE ANYTHING IN CLIMATOLOGY contrary to your claims as well as torridjoes and Carla's. You are not a credible scientist bcause you refuse to identify yourself by your real name or state your area of expertise and degrees held and rant the gibberish here of your counterparts. I suspect that you are also a political hack who runs around liberal websites like this and attempts to put out fires with your dumbed down diatribe that you try and foist as "knowledge" of a subject that you demonstrate here you know nothing about. You call me "Chucky" which is the same contempt displayed towards me on the Gazzette Times website and there was used the ID "Pippi" who also refused to identify him/herself and claimed scientific credentails and wisdom without offering anything of substance. How is that for reality in your face?

Here's James Lovelock's comments on the issue. Since he originated the idea of Gaia thought y'all might be interested. Not that I'm a believer, but then he doesn't have the right kind of degree from university. Then I've always felt we were over degreed and under educated

" Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html

The Libertarian Guy Writes: "Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning."

Libertarian Guy: This is correct except there is no day of reckoning if you mean that we are not addressing climate change. Please understand this is as big of a lie that is needed to perpetrate the scam itself.

I am astounded at how scientifically illiterate our culture has become to believe human activity is able to change the global climate system once the founding physics were derived that enable us to understand the earth atmospheric system. This founding work NEVER alluded to any conclusion that carbon dioxide was able to cause climate change. The problem was looked at 55 years ago because chemists saw that CO2 levels were rising in the atmosphere, wondered how much was from humans, and asked meteorologists then if this was a concern. The answer was a resounding no! The reasons were clear based upon where the gas under earth atmospheric pressure absorbs infrared radiation. It is at the far end of the IR spectrum, the main bands near 15 microns of wave length. If you understand the relevance of that, you realize immediately that the quantum energy from absorption is exceeding low compared to water vapor and clouds which restrict IR loss from the troposphere at much higher temperatures. It is impossible for this gas to have anything but miniscule and unmeasurable effects in the earth atmosphere system based upon where the current concentration is ( which saturates the main bands of absorption near 15 microns )and what extra absorption from the wing lines would produce and actually means at any conceivable concentration that human activity could ramp it up to. Climate models are heaps of junk which should have never been created given the problems meteorology faces in short term modeling now. They have become a political tool to exaggerate and outright lie to the public about the true effects of doubling CO2 atmospheric concentration to attempt to force carbon tax and regulation on the US economy. Nature has already proven the modeling is wrong and that the founding work is correct. Omission of facts by silence is the way in which academic types are prospering from this farce and continue gainfull employment. This is a moral outrage and everyone ought to be upset about it.

Chuck I did not write that or say it. That was and is a quote from James Lovelock. I hope that you read his comments.

I take no position one way or another on the issue. I think there are far too many variables that we do not have an understanding of to make a call one way or another. That just my opinion.

There are no "key aspects" of a numerical model that attempts to predict the future state of any one parameter that describes the atmosphere and its components because they are ALL COUPLED and physically LINKED to one another to get an answer you moron! You can't isolate one from the other, run them through time and then "get an answer or validation"

One point since the rest of Chuck's comments are essentially propagandistic and turn on red herring arguments refuting things that weren't said. That's par for the course for the deniers have because many of them are just pseudo-scientists or technicians who "borrow" science, and models, they don't fully understand. Chuck's specific criticism cited above in fact is representative of the desperate handwaving typical of the deniers. In this case it turns on the device of defining the meaning out of the phrase "key aspects" to make an argument that sounds important but and ultimately is irrelevant to the truth of the point supposedly being refuted.

And here's another example of the fraudulent argumentation by the deniers. (Of course it's of a piece with the arguments made by the scientific illiterate believers here and that's the real point):

You are not a credible scientist BECAUSE you refuse to identify yourself by your real name or state your area of expertise and degrees held and rant the gibberish here of your counterparts.

Of course, whether one is a credible scientist is a matter of actual accomplishment, degrees earned, etc., etc. That has nothing to do with Chuck's false assertion that one couldn't possibly be credible "BECAUSE" one egotistically engage in irrelevant self-identification or assertions about personal credibility.

And of course, I'm not engaging in a settled debate here anyway. My point has been that most of the comments made here on both sides reflect no understanding of the actual science. It remains encouraging readers to go to the literature themselves and develop their own understanding of how science works, who are credible scientists and why, and finally the real nature and dangers to humanity we face from human-driven climate change. That's the beauty and power of genuine science: Scientific theories are put out there in the literature for everyone to assess for plausibility for themselves, and to work to validate or refute if they chose and have the talent and knowledge to do that. It's not easy work, but it's the only way in this propaganda filled environment with charlatans and scientific illiterates on both sides taking all the air out of the room to come to a meaningful understanding of reality.

Global warming is a fraud, a conspiracy cooked up by Elvis and JFK at their secret base on the dark side of the moon.

Chuck: In what way has nature proved the climate modeling wrong? The reports about it I've seen say conditions have been within the projected ranges for most models.

Your comment about problems with short term modeling makes me think you misunderstand the nature of climate modeling.

As you know it close to impossible to forecast weather with any accuracy more than a week or 10 days in advance. This is because of the chaotic nature of the atmosphere and the impossibility of measuring every little effect that influences weather. On a longer time scale you have things like ENSO (El Nino/La Nina), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the 22 year solar cycle that occur regularly but can't be predicted in a strictly mechanical fashion They all have an effect on weather.

Climate models (at least some of them) are based on weather models but they don't try to predict weather in the future because they can't. Instead they simulate weather given the various expected inputs (including the thermodynamic effects of greenhouse gases). Some of the inputs are simulations as well. For instance a realistic ENSO cycle can be one of the inputs. From the simulated weather they calculate a projected range for climate in the future. As far as I'm aware not much has happened that's outside the projected ranges.

I find it impossible to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists around the world are engaged in a conspiracy to lie about their work in order to safeguard their jobs and income. Anyone who could show the error of their ways in a scientifically rational manner would make their career.

Dave

riverat Chuck: In what way has nature proved the climate modeling wrong? The reports about it I've seen say conditions have been within the projected ranges for most models. B: David, you know better.

Here is Hansen’s 1988 prediction vs what actually happened: Hansen wrong

And climate model ocean temperature predications vs actual: oceanheat.

riverat As far as I'm aware not much has happened that's outside the projected ranges. B: See above.

riverat I find it impossible to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists around the world are engaged in a conspiracy to lie about their work in order to safeguard their jobs and income. B: They aren’t. Only a tiny minority of climate scientists believe the alarmist line that you and Al Gore peddle. (Naomi lied, just like Mann. In the spirt of Al Gore.)

Hey David, we are still waiting (its been months now) for you to show us evidence of your previous claims:

1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.” 2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming” 3. “if you're going to damage the climate by burning carbon " 4. “today's CO2 is different – manmade (there's irrefutable proof of this).” 5. “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt”

Congratulations Ms. Axtman. Your piece generated one of the most spirited debates I’ve read on BO in a long time. Been very interesting to see the Global Warming Alarmists and Deniers go at it.

Also interesting to read in today’s NY Times how China and India are demanding huge sums of $$ from the West as a condition for signing the new Global Warming Treaty to reduce greenhouse gasses.

Like a previous poster wrote, follow the money.

To "Watching the Scientific Illiterates:

If you can't use your real name and tell us your area of expertise and degrees I am not going to debate you any further. You are a political hack and a fraud. A charlottan with a big mouth that has written a bunch of gobblygook that makes no sense.

If you were a real scientist, you would have never made the mistakes you have in describing climate models and climate science, claiming they are not a part of applied meteorology and atmospheric science or that you can isolate atmospheric components to run models to get them to produce satifactory results. You know little or next to nothing about which you have spoken here, and you claim that carbon dioxide produces catastrophic warming of the earth is so far removed from anything scientific it is fodder for the looney bin.

To "Riverat" : I was going to answer you but "jamie" has done most of it for me.

I understand the concept of a climate model well enough to know it cannot do what propoents of it that waste taxpayer money want to continue to assert that it can do.

I agree wholeheartedly with the statement made by Professor of mathematical and theoretical physics, Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, who pointed out in his paper, "Falsification of the Greenhouse Theory Within The Frame of Physics" that climate modeling violates many of the laws of physics in its construction, an further points out that the many body fluid equations cannot be solved for and integrated through time to give any meaningful statement about the far future, such as in many days or years. This theoretical physicist estimates it will be over 1000 years to the future before enough improvements inmathematics and computing power can be made to even begin to accomplish this objective.

Carla, In case you missed this earlier:

How do you choose which scientists to follow - which are correct? How do you know that Hansen is correct and Spenser wrong? How do you, with NO literacy in basic science, make that decision?

BTW this is the problem with the leaders of many companies and governments - they have no knowledge in the field in which they are making decisions and choose to take the easy way out and pick an expert (instead of actually learning something). They end up listening to the best bull shit artist instead of the best expert.

This got millions killed when Stalin listened to Lysenko. It has bankrupted companies. We are just trying to keep it from bankrupting Oregon’s citizens and the rest of the USA.

You criticized the list I gave you. Please tell which of these people your would trust:

1. Vocal climate spokesman - no science degree.

2. Published climate related papers in peer reviewed journals - University department of Meteorology.

3.Published climate related papers in peer reviewed journals - Ph.D. in Physics, NASA

1. Speaks on climate - Ph.D. in meteorology, research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies,

2. Published climate related papers in peer reviewed journals - Ph.D. in Atmospheric sciences

3. Popular speaker on climate - Ph.D. in ecological climatology.

Anyone else want to tell us how you pick the person to do your climate thinking for you?

jamie,

I'm talking about current model projections, not the ones James Hanson made 20+ years ago. The models in use today are more sophisticated than they were in 1988. But I guess you'd just say they've just been tweaked to support Hanson's political view. I guess because one climate scientist was wrong once (in your opinion) then climate scientists are wrong all of the time.

Your ocean heat graph is pretty simplistic implying a 5 year trend line is going to continue into the future. I call that cherry picking. If you look at a graph of ocean heat content for the past 50 years you see plenty of instances of 5 or 10 years of cooling but there's still a long term upward trend. If ocean cooling continues as your graph implies for another 10 or 15 years then maybe you have a argument.

Scientists use a 30 year baseline to define climate. That's long enough to smooth out the effects of short term periodic events such as El Nino/La Nina, the PDO and solar cycles. 5 or 10 year trends are not useful in the context of climate.

Naomi Oreskes paper has not been shown to be inaccurate in any meaniful way. If you're relying on Bennie Peisner's study he has retracted his criticism of Oreskes. If you think Monckton rebuts it don't make me laugh.

I don't have time to address all of your points but regarding #5 that's my opinion, not a scientific conclusion and I never said otherwise. Regarding #4, CO2 is CO2, but the measured increase in the atmospheric level of CO2 is less than the total CO2 released by human activities leading me to the inescapable conclusion that the increase in CO2 is largely due to humans.

David Appell (riverrat): . . . leading me to the inescapable conclusion that the increase in CO2 is largely due to humans. B: That is only logically valid if you know ALL of the other CO2 sources AND sinks to an accuracy such that the total errors are less than man's CO2.

That is NOT THE CASE and YOUR KNOW IT.

Your conclusion is unsupported by the facts, since we do not know all of the CO2 sources and sinks, let alone their magnitude to sufficient accuracy.

David: I'm talking about current model projections, not the ones James Hanson made 20+ years ago. The models in use today are more sophisticated than they were in 1988. B: You miss a key point: testing.

His model, used to testify to congress, turned out to be wrong. How do we know that today’s “more sophisticated” models wont suffer the same fate in 20 years. Especially since flaws are already showing.

David: But I guess you'd just say they've just been tweaked to support Hanson's political view. B: They have. It is their only choice in the absence of complete knowledge. You keep forgetting that one left out variable will make the whole model crap.

David: I guess because one climate scientist was wrong once (in your opinion) then climate scientists are wrong all of the time. B: He has the biggest mouth. And he one of the leaders of the whole “shut down modern society to save the earth” movement, along with Gore the profiteer.

BTW, David do you want to tell us what Hansen’s PhD is in? I only ask because you criticize people for being meteorologists, instead of climate scientist.

David: Naomi Oreskes paper has not been shown to be inaccurate in any meaniful way. B: Give us a break from your spin. I ran her criteria on my personal library of papers and found non that met her criteria.

I did find MANY that any sane person would judge as opposing her (and your) irrational hysteria. They just didn't happen to specifically mention disagreement. They just made their case and that case meant that alarmist AGW was crap.

Thanks JK

What sort of person are we looking for? Well, a blogger. Someone whose idea of fun is reading newspapers and blogs and telling their friends about cool stories they found. Someone whose idea of fun is digging into the details and finding the salient fact or quote. Someone who is conversant in Oregon politics, but is dying to learn more.

You know, when I read that, "hey, you douch-bag", and "GAAAAWD, they're dumb", didn't exactly come to mind. Wish I'd applied, but, then, I'm not on the Corvallis City Council mailing list. Not much age bias in BO's choice of where to post it.

Your thought is as progressive as setting your feet in concrete to save on shoes. Why can't you pick the "wrong" position to support? This ain't exactly helping progressives.

Who's David Appell?

The carbon cycle has been going on for billions of years. The natural sources and sinks are roughly in balance. I don't see what knowing exactly the level of those various sources/sinks has to do with it. We know human activities are releasing roughly 27 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. We know CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by roughly 12-14 gigatonnes per year. Is some (magical) process capturing all human CO2 emissions (instead of just half of them) while some natural process has drastically changed to cause the increase in atmospheric CO2. That doesn't pass the smell test.

For at least the last 800,000 years (and probably for several million) the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied between 180 & 280 ppm, in the last 200 years it's risen to over 380 ppm. Our species, Homo Sapiens only evolved around 200,000 years ago (the genus Homo between 2 & 3 million YAG so this is a level of CO2 never experienced before by humans. Those natural variations between 180 & 280 ppm occurred over thousands if not tens of thousands of years, not 200 years like the current situation.

Testing?!? How do you think they refine the models. They test the results against reality, try to figure out what's missing or wrong and refine (tweak) the model. Wash, rinse, repeat. No model is ever exactly right except by coincidence. It's not a question of is the model right or wrong (they're always wrong) but how closely does it model reality? Complete knowledge is a goal to aspire to, not a reality that will ever be achieved. You do what you can with what you've got and try to improve it. That's how science works.

James Hansen has a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction, an M.S. in Astronomy and a Ph.D. in Physics. His early work in the late 60s and early 70s was on the planet Venus, in particular radiative transfer models and trying to understand the Venusian atmosphere. This led naturally to modifying the models to help understand the earths atmosphere. A large part of climatology is thermodynamics which is right up his alley. I don't believe I've ever criticized anyone for being a meteorologist. Others on BO have.

Naomi Oreskes source for her survey was the ISI Web of Knowledge database from which she chose only peer reviewed, scientific articles. I don't know the source of your personal library but I wonder how much of it was published in peer reviewed journals and I don't doubt it has a slant toward your viewpoint.

Breath, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls (JK) but sometimes I just can't help myself. Sorry.

Please don't apologize for passion! I think s(he) agrees, and wishes constructive editing left more to debate.

For a little humorous relief, sci-fi fans should check out "The Ice Warriors" , with the second Dr. Who, Patrick Troughton, produced in the mid-1960s. It's hilarious, vis a vis the climate debate. They argue incessantly about what's happening to earth, what the Martians are doing, etc., but, it's so odd...they never question the fact that CO2 is related to global temperature! The funniest part is when the Dr. is put to a test of his science knowledge, a trial designed to see if he can realize that the Martians are freezing the earth by removing atmospheric CO2. With all the things those writers questioned about time and space, how odd that they never thought to question that.

Deniers, cite me ONE parallel. Something that was well understood by scientists, then that esoteric knowledge became very consequential for monied interests, but instead of leveraging it, we decided that we really hadn't known it. Knowing it is critical, we update the research for 20 years, and....are sure of even less! The first time ever in science. This IS weird business.

At least hold them to science and don't debate their social views, which is what they've posted. Scientific hypotheses are falsifiable. Climate change theory is stated in a falsifiable way. Indeed, it has been refined as provisions where falsified. Not one claim from the deniers is falsifiable. They are working backwards from a conclusion. That is rationalization, not reasoning. I don't expect them to know the difference, but the rest should.

If you must respond, then just yell shit at them. It's all they're doing. Do not cheapen your facts by using them as a retort to bloody minded opinion. You're throwing your pearls before true swine.

Cricket/sci-fi trivia: Patrick Troughton's grandson, James , plays first class cricket for Warwickshire.

I see the subtle death threats are coming out again.

Typical progressive reaction to having no counter argument.

Riverat Writes: For at least the last 800,000 years (and probably for several million) the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied between 180 & 280 ppm, in the last 200 years it's risen to over 380 ppm. Our species, Homo Sapiens only evolved around 200,000 years ago (the genus Homo between 2 & 3 million YAG so this is a level of CO2 never experienced before by humans. Those natural variations between 180 & 280 ppm occurred over thousands if not tens of thousands of years, not 200 years like the current situation.

The reconstructed record does not have any demonstrable cause and effect relationship between Co2 and temperature. There were times in the record that Co2 concentration was up to 5000 ppmv with colder temperatures than now, and during times of positive correlation, temperature LEADS Co2 by ~ 800 years. For the last 5 years,global temperatures have been in a stasis and declining while Co2 continues upward, completely contardicting the claims of a cause and effect relationship of Co2 to temperature. More importantly, the founding physics supports no such contention of CO2 being capable of causing the earths climate to change. It is overwhelmed by water vapor and clouds absoerbing shorter wavelengths as well as abundance. Water vapor and clouds are the only primary greenhouse gas constituents of the troposphere and are the only constituents that control the nocturnal and lonwave flux from the earths surface at all the temperature ranges of mid latitude and tropical regimes. Co2's role is primarily to prevent precipitous temperature decline during the arctic and antarctic winters. Under no circumstance does this give this gas the absorbing quantum energy to radiate the earth to a higher temperature, and it is patently false to claim this gas can radiate into the arctic or antarctic ice pack and melt it.

Testing?!? How do you think they refine the models. They test the results against reality, try to figure out what's missing or wrong and refine (tweak) the model. Wash, rinse, repeat. No model is ever exactly right except by coincidence. It's not a question of is the model right or wrong (they're always wrong) but how closely does it model reality? Complete knowledge is a goal to aspire to, not a reality that will ever be achieved. You do what you can with what you've got and try to improve it. That's how science works.

There are no climate models in existence that can predict the future climate of the earth with any accuracy and it is patently false to claim any of these models can operate with less detailed physics than short or medium range models used in weather forecasting, just like it is patently false to say atmospheric science and climatology are two separate entities that derive their knowledge base used in modeling by different means. The partial differential equations used are from the Navier Stokes family just as in short term models and cannot be solved adequately to give any solution beyond but very short time spans. Simplification is traded for quality in climate models comapred to short and medium range models because of the need for computational stability with large time integrations in cliamte models which essentialy reduce the predictive quality of a climate model to a heap of junk in terms of its value to society minus the scientific curiosity value. The models are "tweaked" to try and get them to conform to real temperature trends, all of which have been a glaring failure. Any meteorologist and honest physicist has to admit there is no intrinsic value to these models at present other than being unproven, begining stage R&D that is many years away from being a real tool, yet they are being fradulently used and shamefully claimed to be accurate forecast tools.

James Hansen has a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction, an M.S. in Astronomy and a Ph.D. in Physics. His early work in the late 60s and early 70s was on the planet Venus, in particular radiative transfer models and trying to understand the Venusian atmosphere. This led naturally to modifying the models to help understand the earths atmosphere. A large part of climatology is thermodynamics which is right up his alley. I don't believe I've ever criticized anyone for being a meteorologist. Others on BO have.

And for someone that is as supposedly as astute as Hansen, he has made numerous mistakes, amoung the most agregious,ignoring the founding work in atmospheric radiation and supplanting it with unworkable climate models, and making the unprovable claim that the modeling is satisfactory and supersedes the founding radiation laws with respect to Co2, and that Co2 is causing dangerous climate change based solely upon modeling. NONE of these claims can be supported with the correct physics that is not integrated into modeling technique.

David: James Hansen has a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction, an M.S. in Astronomy and a Ph.D. in Physics. JK: What!!! — no degree in climatology???? Why do you consider his credible?

Thanks JK

Well jamie, climatology is an interdisciplinary science with roots in physics, chemistry, meteorology, oceanography, geology and other sciences. You couldn't even get a degree in climatology as a stand alone degree until pretty recently. Physics, in particular thermodynamics and radiative transfer are fundamental to the study of the atmosphere, as I said, right up Dr. Hansen's alley. Being a climatologist is more related to the research you do after you get a degree than specifically what your degree is in. Dr. Hansen has been studying the earths atmosphere and climate since the 1970's.

One other thing, I imagine if Dr. Hansen wanted to have a Ph.D. in Climatology they'd just give him one based on his body of work.

Chuck,

The last time CO2 concentration was over 5000 ppmv appears to be at least 400 million years ago. That's before amphibians, reptiles and all other land animals except insects evolved. Land plants only came into existence about 450 million years ago. The sun was dimmer (cooler) back then and the arrangement of the continents was completely different both factors that have considerable effect on the climate. The fact that is was 5000 ppmv and colder that long ago doesn't have much to do with today.

Regarding CO2 lagging temperate in the transition from a glacial (ice age to the layman) to an interglacial that's true but it doesn't preclude CO2 from driving temperature as well. What makes you think it has to be one or the other and can't do both depending on conditions? I think it's more complex than your simple binary thinking would lead you to believe.

You seem to suffer from the impression that 5 years of cooling* means something in terms of the climate. As a meteorologist you should know better. If you look at the temperature record of the last 150 years you see that there have been a number of periods of 5 to 10 years of cooling but the long term trend is still up. If your 5 years of cooling lasts another 10 or 15 years (barring events like large volcanic eruptions) then maybe I'll take you more seriously.

*To me, just eyeballing the graph I made from GISS data, it looks more like a pause in the rise of temperature rather than any significant cooling. 2008 seemed particularly cold around here but that appears to be largely related to the La Nina and the shifting of the PDO to a cool phase. It was still the 9th warmest year on record worldwide and brought record temperatures in Australia. Climatologists don't claim the temperature will increase monotonically or that CO2 is the only factor in earths temperature. But of the major factors we know of it's the one that's changing most radically now and that correlates best with the observed temperature rise. (And don't give me the old "correlation isn't causation" line. I know that but correlation can lead you to research that establishes the causation.) If you can scientifically show a different factor that is causing more of the observed warming trend than CO2 you can probably collect a Nobel Prize in a few years.

What are these "founding" physics laws you talk of? Don't you think our understanding has improved since then? Don't you think it's viewed in a more complex fashion now? If you're talking about radiative transfer and thermodynamics that's what climate models are largely base on, modified by the observed interactions between the different GHG's and other factors. Climate models may be simplified but that doesn't mean they don't have value. They don't (and can't) predict that on July 4, 2020 it will be 100º F in Portland but what they do predict is over a 30 year period (the baseline climatologists use) from 2005 to 2035 the average temperature will be between 95º and 100º F with a 95% confidence level. I can make a model about flipping a coin. It can't tell me the sequence of head or tails I'll get in reality but it can tell me I can be 95% confident that in 1000 flips the difference between head and tails will be less than 10. (All number made up for the sake of example.)

I've spent enough time on this and the post is off the main page now so you and jamie (JK) can have the last word. I imagine we'll meet again on some future post.

Dave

David Appell: Regarding CO2 lagging temperate in the transition from a glacial (ice age to the layman) to an interglacial that's true but it doesn't preclude CO2 from driving temperature as well. B: That ice core mistake, was the ONLY evidence that CO2 caused any warming. With that gone you have no evidence that CO2 can cause warming.

That you know this is indicated by your utter failure to present any evidence that CO2 causes warming, save for a graph of models that cannot replicate recent times, so you just assume that CO2 must have done it. Well, I think it was the butler. (More likely is data errors due to station placements.)

Hey David, where is the evidence for the things that you have claimed:

1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.” 2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming” 3. “if you're going to damage the climate by burning carbon " 4. “today's CO2 is different – manmade (there's irrefutable proof of this).” 5. “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt”

Of course you don’t have proof of any of this, you are just parroting Al Gore’s lies.

I see, you think I'm the David Appell living in St. Helens. Not even close. I already gave you answers to #4 & #5 in my post of "Jun 8, 2009 11:18:29 PM" so you can cross them off your list.

riverat ( David Appell): I already gave you answers to #4 & #5 in my post of "Jun 8, 2009 11:18:29 PM" so you can cross them off your list. B: Could of fooled me. Lets look at your “answers”: Item 5: . . .regarding #5 that's my opinion, not a scientific conclusion and I never said otherwise. You actually said: “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt”

That doesn’t sound like an opinion. It sounds like a definitive statement of fact for which you have solid references. Now you say it was merely an opinion!! Are you saying that ALL of your seeming confident statements are merely opinions pulled out of thin air. In other words Bull Shit?

Item 4: riverat ( David Appell): Regarding #4, CO2 is CO2, but the measured increase in the atmospheric level of CO2 is less than the total CO2 released by human activities leading me to the inescapable conclusion that the increase in CO2 is largely due to humans. B: Again you actually said this: 4. “today's CO2 is different – manmade (there's irrefutable proof of this).” Now you say that it is a conclusion that you are led to. You are admitting that there is no “irrefutable proof”, only your untested opinion.

As to you logic: again you fall into the logical fallacy of assuming that because you can’t figure out any other possibility, it must be man caused. No, David, you have to prove it by listing all sources of CO2 and all CO2 sinks (and I mean ALL) then show that man’s contribution is much less than the round off errors. You can’t because: 1. There is no way to know that we have discovered all of the natural sources and sinks. 2. We do not know then to sufficient accuracy to prove that man’s contribution is real, not just a round off error.

I feel I might introduce my self here. My name is Kate, I'm a newbie here, someone told me that i might find some good information here so... basically that's why I'm here, and for any good advice i might get also... hope to have good time here

It's fun to trace the evolution/devolution of the arguments against CO2 emissions control:

1. Global climate change isn't happening.

2. Global climate change is happening, but human activity doesn't cause it.

3. Global climate change is happening and human activity probably is causing it, but the solution proposed (ANY solution proposed) wouldn't fix it and/or would cost too much.

<h2>By employing these sophistic arguments the opponents of measures to control CO2 have managed to drag the debate out for 30 years. Reminds me of the tobacco companies' strategy in defense of cigarettes. Deny, obfuscate, delay.</h2>