Which country would you rather live in?

What two countries are these, as photographed at night by satellite?

Which has the lower carbon footprint?

Which would you rather live in? Which would their own people rather live in?

As economist Don Boudreaux points out,
while environmentally conscious people around the world were turning off the lights for an hour on March 29th in recognition of Earth Hour, North Korea has turned the lights out for decades. Apparently, they’re doing it to reduce their carbon footprint. How noble.

So, while First Worlders were celebrating Earth Hour, North Koreans get to celebrate Earth Decades.

Anyone up for returning to what Boudreaux calls the Dark Ages?


Steve Buckstein is Senior Policy Analyst and founder of Cascade Policy Institute, a Portland-based think tank.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:55 | Posted in Measure 37 | 59 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    But I think the North Koreans get free health care, don’t they? That should make it all worthwhile.

  • John Fairplay

    There’s probably no more stark illustration of what you get when you buy what Barack and Hillary and their political party are selling.

  • Dave Porter

    Just plain silly! I do not see how this contributes to constructive thinking about the issues of fostering economic growth or solving environmental problems. Just who do you think holds North Korea out as a model of anything! The photo speaks to other issues. Too much punching at straw men.

    • Jerry

      I see nothing wrong with someone pointing out the abject failure of communism.

    • Steve Plunk

      Not only the abject failure of communism but also what we can expect if our economies are crippled by ill-conceived environmental laws that cap carbon. There no straw men here, real issues exposed in a clever manner.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Two great movies that I saw about North Korea recently:

    A State of Mind – Follows two gymnasts preparing for NK’s “Mass Games”. Pretty amazing movie that I would highly recommend. Oddly it never ceases to amaze one that despite the death toll that extreme Socialism has brought to the world, it always seems to excel at massive synchronized gymnastics and colour card flipping in the stadium seating for display of propaganda.

    National Geographic – North Korea – This one is unreal, if you are at all interested in this subject, you have to rent this. I mean really have to, its incredible. Netflix has it. The physical death and destruction inflicted upon the people is all there, but what is truly frightening is the mental aspect. Its simply astonishing and about as scary a documentary as it gets.

    Books:

    Aquariums of Pyong Yang – Must read. I think I have been through it three or four times and it is still one of the most astonishing books I have ever read.

    Taken as a totality, these give some insight into the workings of the Socialist/Stalinist/Fascist state in a way like nothing else can. The cult of personality, constant manufactured crises mode, endless sacrificing of the individual for the supposed good of the group are all on full display.

  • Al

    Clearly the north is far prefferable as it has a much smaller carbon footprint. And with all that darkness there’s probably more dudes getting lucky.

  • CRAWDUDE

    The true worth of a country can be measured by the the amount of people who want to get in, compared to the amount who want to get out.

  • Jerry

    I should think North Korea an astronomer’s paradise.

  • Very Bad Man

    I suggest we ship all LIEberals, Progressives and Democrats there on one way tickets. Then they will find out what their “Utopia” is really like.
    By the way, this Obama charcter is already stating that he wants to put Al Gore in charge of environmental matters. Is that scary enough for folks that still are not brainwashed by the LIB/ENVIRO hype or what?

  • dean

    Steve…why not compare the US to Germany or France or Denmark or any number of nations with comparable wealth who generate less than half the carbon per capita that we do? Who in the world is arguing in favor of a North Korea model for the US?

    Someday, “conservatives” are going to wake up and realize that “conservation” has the same Latin root, which essentially means to be cautious. Conservatives are cautious about making the changes necessary to reduce carbon, while conservationists are cautious about tinkering with the climate of the earth.

    • jim karlocik

      Dean, tell us:
      *1.* Has the earth warmed, cooled or stayed the same since 1998?
      *2.* Which is the most important creenhouse gas: CO2 or water vapor?
      *3.* What % of the CO2 emission id due to man?
      *4.* Do crops grow better or worse as CO2 increases?
      *5.* Do more people die of the cold spells, or heat waves?
      *6.* In past climates, which went up first, CO2 or temperature?
      *7.* What % of USHCN stations are up to high quality standards?

      Thanks
      JK

      • CRAWDUDE

        I read that this year cooler weather world wide has virtually wiped out the 30 year increase touted by the “Sky is falling” crowd.

        The same article had a few leading “Global Warming” scientists quated as saying that Global Warming was in” Hibernation”……how convienent for them…….using that as an excuse means they can continue this hoax forever.

        I think it shows global warming for what it is, a ever changing weather cycle that will cool and warm at the pace the earth decides, not at the pace Algore does, lol!

    • jim karlocik

      Hey Dean, here is a chance to learn something from a real scientist, instead of a failed politician and money grubbing multinational environmental corporations asking for money:

      Check out this climate video running on Comcast cable:
      Friday 4/4/2008, 7:00 AM, Channel 11 (area wide)
      Tuesday 4/8/2008, 10:00 AM, Channel 22 (Portland only)
      Friday 4/11/2008, 11:00 PM, Channel 22 (Portland only)

      Or you can see it on the web:
      blip.tv/file/791876

      Thanks
      jk

      • dean

        Jim…I’ll do my best:

        1) According to NASA, 1998 was at the time the record high for worldwide temperature, occuring during the srongest el nino of the 20th century. The long term (30 year) temp trend line has continued up since 98, though only 2005 exceeded the 98 level.

        2) There is a lot more water vapor in total, so it has a greater day to day “greenhouse” effect than CO2, but water vapor is pretty constant in amount and each molecule is short lived, where CO2 is long lived and accumulating, so it has a great long term warming affect.

        3) I think you are mixing up CO2 “generation” with “emission.” I don’t know the answer, but I do know (or the scientists have measured) that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily due to fossil fuel burning by humans, not by other natural phenomena.

        4) There is some stimulative effect on plant growth from increased atmospheric CO2. But why even ask this question if your premise on #1-3 is correct (it is not warming and it is not our fault)?

        5) I do not know. A lot of elderly French people died a few years ago in a heat wave. And if you factor in the spread of tropical diseases, then it could be heat.

        6) A very complex topic. “Past climates” can mean almost anything, so lets stick with the recent (few million year) glacial-inter glacial cycles. Changes to orbital parameters caused the northern hemisphere to tilt more to the sun, which melted ice and increased CO2, which then further increased temperatures in a feedback loop. So atmospheric CO2 was both an effect and a cause of increased temperatures during interglacial periods.

        7) Back to doubting weather warming is happening? I don’t know the answer, but NASA scientists and other international agencies that are responsible for colecting the data stand by their measurements, which has been thoroughly peer reviewed, and that is good enough for this mere landscape architect.

        Jim…all you are doing is recycling the same, already refuted many times crap put out by a handful of cranks and scientists who can’t get their work accepted by the greater scientific world, paid for by the oil and gas industries to confuse easily confused people and delay any action to reduce the use of their products. That a person with your apparent intelligence would fall for this is beyond me.

        You are welcome
        DA

        • jim karlocik

          *Dean:* 1) According to NASA, 1998 was at the time the record high for worldwide temperature, occuring during the srongest el nino of the 20th century.
          *JK:* Strongest el nino? Gee where were you during 1998, I don’t recall your side cautioning us that it was just an el nino, instead of the earth having a fever. PS: The world’s most respected climate record, the USHCN, puts 1998 tied with 1934 as the warmest since the thermometer record started and, by implication, probably the warmest since the little ice age. Why not take a look at: junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm

          *Dean:* The long term (30 year) temp trend line has continued up since 98, though only 2005 exceeded the 98 level.
          *JK:* 30 years is not long term. Do you not realize that we are dealing with cycles that range up to millions of years? You choose a trend that started at a time when some of today’s warmers were screaming coming ice age. You could be even more dramatic if you start your trend in the little ice age? (This, as you know, is the foundation of the claim that 1998 was the warmest year in 400 years – 400 years ago was in the little ice age.)

          On the other hand, you could start in the Roman warm period. But that would not serve Al Gore’s purpose of scaring us into giving him money. (I presume you know that there was a Roman period that was warmer than now. Some claim that the climate turning cold was what caused Rome’s downfall. Probably all those oil companies.)

          *Dean:* 2) There is a lot more water vapor in total, so it has a greater day to day “greenhouse” effect than CO2,
          *JK:* What is this day to day stuff? Water vapor is THE major greenhouse gas, accounting for up to *“about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, *the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%..”*(see: realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

          *Dean:* 3) I think you are mixing up CO2 “generation” with “emission.” I don’t know the answer, but I do know (or the scientists have measured) that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily due to fossil fuel burning by humans, not by other natural phenomena.
          *JK:* Let me inform you:
          *1.* Of the total greenhouse effect, CO2 is at most 30%. The other 70-90% (see above) is water vapor & clouds which *WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY MAN*
          *2.* of THE TOTAL CO2 emission, man puts out under 10%.
          *10% of 30% is 3% – that is the max effect that man can be having.*

          *Dean:* 4) There is some stimulative effect on plant growth from increased atmospheric CO2. But why even ask this question if your premise on #1-3 is correct (it is not warming and it is not our fault)?
          *JK:* To show that there is a very real possibility that we are in an age of carbon deficiency, strangling plant life, thus endangering all life on earth.

          *Dean:* 5) I do not know. A lot of elderly French people died a few years ago in a heat wave.
          *JK:* You don’t know because Al Gore didn’t tell you and you didn’t bother to find out if he lied to you before you instantly followed his call. That kind of unthinking, blind, obedience started at least one world war.
          *JK:* The correct answer is over 3 times as many people die from cold each year than from heat. So what is the problem with a little warming, if it is really occurring? And the IPCC consensus projection is for a little warming, not the many degrees Al Gore spews around. The IPCC consensus is also a few inches, not many feet of ocean rise.

          *Dean:* And if you factor in the spread of tropical diseases, then it could be heat.
          *JK:* Oh, tropical diseases like malaria? Which plagued New York before we got rid of the mosquitos that carried it.

          *Dean:* 6) A very complex topic. “Past climates” can mean almost anything, so lets stick with the recent (few million year) glacial-inter glacial cycles. Changes to orbital parameters caused the northern hemisphere to tilt more to the sun, which melted ice and increased CO2, which then further increased temperatures in a feedback loop. So atmospheric CO2 was both an effect and a cause of increased temperatures during interglacial periods.
          *JK:* Another key ting that you did not bother to check. Not even Al Gore says that CO2 causes then end of the ice ages anymore. If you paid attention to his recent science fiction film, An Inconvenient Truth, you should have noticed that he showed a graph of temperature then the CO2 line filled in above it and he *did not* say which came first. He merely referred to a relationship. That was because *Al Gore knew that CO2 rose several hundred years after temperature.*
          * HE LIED (by omission.)*
          *JK:* PS: Got any proof of that feedback loop that the warmers keep claiming. I mean quality, empirical proof, not Mann’s playstation crap.

        • jim karlocik

          *Dean:* 7) Back to doubting weather warming is happening? I don’t know the answer,
          *JK:* You should know the answer, because it is one critical piece of the whole picture. Here is the only data that appears to be available:
          *4% are “Class 1* – Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3. Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.
          *9% are “ Class 2 – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.”
          *18% are “ Class 3 (error 1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.”
          There you have it only `13% of the stations in the world’s best temperature network are really good.
          (From: surfacestations.org/)

          *Dean:* but NASA scientists
          *JK:* You mean like Jim Hansen who said it used to be OK to lie to get people into action? The same Jim Hansen who got money from the democrats. Can I assume that you do not know that NASA gets a lot of money for climate research and much of it will go away if there is no climate panic? (This appears to be a repeat of the crap that NASA pulled on the ozone hole that cost the world billions, with the same unethical politician cheerleading again.)

          *Dean:* and other international agencies that are responsible for collecting the data stand by their measurements,
          *JK:* Tell us how many of these agencies will loose money and how many “scientists” will loose their jobs if climate panic goes away?

          *Dean:* which has been thoroughly peer reviewed,
          *JK:* Actually, it hasn’t. The whole palaeoclimatology field in quite a little clique. Here is what one National Academy of Sciences report had to say:
          *Wegman:* page 4: In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at *least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him*. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus *“independent studies” may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. *(Bold added; from: 07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf, page 4)

          *Dean:* and that is good enough for this mere landscape architect.
          *JK:* Just like the 1930s propaganda was good enough for millions of Japanese and Germans.

          *Dean:* Jim…all you are doing is recycling the same, already refuted many times, crap put out by a handful of cranks and scientists who can’t get their work accepted by the greater scientific world,
          *JK:* Oh, you mean like these:

          Dr. Edward J. Wegman, a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University and chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics,

          Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University

          Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona

          Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and UN IPCC lead author and reviewer,

          Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named in “1000 Most Cited Scientists,

          Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut and author of “The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won’t Run the World,”

          Sir Patrick Moore, a fellow of the UK’s Royal Astronomical Society, host of the BBC’s Sky at Night program since 1957 and author of over 60 books on astronomy

          Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as the father of the “Green Revolution” for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal

          Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute,

          Dr. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania

          Dr. Timothy Ball, formerly of the University of Winnipeg, who earned his PhD from the University of London,

          Of course Al Gore & Michael Mann know more than all of the above.

          *Dean:* paid for by the oil and gas industries to confuse easily confused people and delay any action to reduce the use of their products.
          *JK:* I am constantly amazed by how many people are sucked in by that lie spread by the greens. Care to tell us how much money those evil gas and oil companies have spent opposing warming AND how much has been spent supporting research that supports warming. The stuff that I read says it is over 10:1 spending on supporting research – the big money is being fed to the likes of Mann and Hansen.

          *Dean:* That a person with your apparent intelligence would fall for this is beyond me.
          *JK:* I feel in good company with the list of doctorate holders a few lines above. Why don’t you look beyond the handouts from the rich, phoney green, multinational corporations like the Sierra club wildlife fund etc.
          You could start here:
          junkscience.com, icecap.us, climateaudit.org, CO2Science.org, science and public policy.org, climate-skeptic.com, WorldClimateReport.com, iceagenow.com. The proper use of all of these sites if for leads to quality journal articles which you then obtain and find out what’s in them. If you actually do this you will see that you have been lied to by the warmer’s – their case is mostly gone.

          And don’t miss: blip.tv/file/791876

          Thanks
          JK

  • Jerry

    Dean – this from the BBC:
    Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

    The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

    This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

    We are actually helping prevent the cooling by doing what we can to pump up our carbon footprint.

    • dean

      Jerry…..give me a break.

      • jim karlocik

        Dean, get your head out of the sand:
        *Global warming is likely the biggest science hoax of all time.*

        Thanks
        JK

        • dean

          Jim,

          1) I don’t have “a side.” The world body of climate scientists (see below) is “the side” I turn to for my understanding of the issue. The 1934 record temperature was North America only…not worldwide by the way.

          The 30 year record is not arbitrary. It is used because it starts from the point when reliable measurements of temperatures in the trophosphere began to be recorded. 1970 is date from which the modern temperature rise is mostly measured (has gone up .6 deg C since then).

          The NASA temperature records date from 1880, and we have had .8 deg C rise since that point.

          Data from tree rings clearly shows the 20th century as the warmest over the past 1000 years.

          Or you could look at the past 10,000 years (the period of human civilization), which shows a mostly stable climate with a spike in temperatures coinciding with the late 20th century.

          The “little ice age” was limited to northern Europe. It was not worldwide. It is false to attribute past concerns about “global cooling’ to the same scientists who have tracked global warming. There was never any scientific data to support global cooling, and as far as I can tell there were no published scientific papers on this. Just journalistic hype.

          3) As CO2 increases, and temperatures warm, additonal water vapour may collect for short periods in the atmosphere, which exacerbates warming further. It is a feeback effect, not a forcing.

          Yes…the potential effects of accumulating CO2 is limited. No one argues against that. The question is how much effect it has, and what the consequences will be. An 8 degree increase in average global temp would melt virtually all the ice sheets and raise sea levels by dozens of feet. Would 100 million Bangledeshee refugees be welcome in your neighborhood Jim?

          4) Nonsense Jim. Absolute nonsense not worth responding to.

          5) Al Gore is not the point. He is an advocate for a cause, not a scientist. The scientific evidence is the point. How much the temperature will rise depends on what actions we take or whether people like yourself are “successful” in stalling change. Projection lines are based on various scenarios: no change in current trends, full bore CO2 reduction, and points in between. The current best hope is that we could hold the average temp increase to 3.5 degrees over the next 100 or so years if we get busy now and make smart, prudent, and affordable choices. If we can hold the temp increase to 3.5 we MAY be able to avert a catastrophe.

          Yes…tropical diseases like malaria, and many others. Temperature rise may be good for Canada, Russia, Scandanavia, and North Dakota. It won’t be good for most third world nations or Arizona.

          6) The ice ages were caused by a periodic orbital wobble, and the temperature changes were quite gradual. Al Gore, again, is not the point. The scientific evidence is the point.

          7) Nonsense. The issue is not getting an exact measurement of air temperature from any given reporting station. The issue is the trend line. Taken as a totality the vast majority of weather stations across the world show an upward temperature trend. It does not matter what the actual average temperature is or isn’t to show that warming is the real deal if you use the same stations.

          8) Again…utter nonsense. James Hansen of NASA acurately predicted the rate of warming that would occur in the 1990s in his 1988 testimony to the US Senate, including a scenario for a major volcanic erruption that would mitigate warming somewhat. This erruption did occur (Mt Pinatubo), and Hansen’s “B” line proved to be dead on the money. I doubt Hansen ever said what you say he said. You are twisting his words. He may have said it was defensible to talk about worst case secenarios to stir people to action, not to “lie.”

          What does “NASA” care whether it gets money for climate research or not? Assuming it is staffed by government scientists, they all have protected employment status and would simply be given other research to do. To imply they or other scientists would doctor their findings to influence policy just to get a few more dollars in research money is too ridiculous to bother with, and displays an ignorance of the peer review process. It is an accusation that cannot ever be disproved, so you and others can just throw it out there, fold your arms over your chest and think you have made a point….but it betrays your fundamental bias. You simply don’t accept the scientific findings so you choose to cast aspirtions on the motivations of the scientists. Shame on you Jim.

          Why would you compare global warming with Nazis and Fascists of the 1930s? What is the relevance? Again…you simply make associations to discredit those you disagree with. This is pure propaganda intended to distract, with no motivation to get at the truth.

          *Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions*:

          NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
          National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
          Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
          National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
          State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) –
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
          The Royal Society of the UK (RS) –
          American Geophysical Union (AGU):
          American Meteorological Society (AMS):
          American Institute of Physics (AIP):
          National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):
          American Meteorological Society (AMS):
          Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):
          Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
          Royal Society of Canada
          Chinese Academy of Sciences
          Academie des Sciences (France)
          Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
          Indian National Science Academy
          Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
          Science Council of Japan
          Russian Academy of Sciences
          Australian Academy of Sciences
          Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
          Caribbean Academy of Sciences
          Indonesian Academy of Sciences
          Royal Irish Academy
          Academy of Sciences Malaysia
          Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
          Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

          Yes Jim…there are still some who disagree, including a handful of reputable scientists. And maybe they are right and everyone else is wrong. For our sake I hope so. But in the meantime the prudent thing to do is reduce our use of fossil fuels, conserve tropical forests, and invest in alternative energy.

          You can cruise the internet all you want. You will find next to nothing in the way of peer reviewed research or analysis that refutes global warming theory. You will find a lot of crap and nonsense to continue recycling. But I encourage you to take a step back, use that large brain you have, and reconsider the evidence here, taking politics completely out of it for just a moment.

          You are welcome
          DA

          • jim karlocik

            *The Deniers*
            “It’s a tiny, tiny minority,” he told Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, comparing those who hold this view to people who believe the earth is flat. These are people who believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie set in Nevada, he said.

            I found it ironic that Gore would compare these deniers to those who don’t believe in space travel. One of those deniers is Michael Griffin, the head of NASA. Another is Habibullo Abdussamatov. He heads research on the Russian half of the International Space Station. A third is Eigil Friis-Christensen, the head of the Danish Space Agency. A fourth is Freeman Dyson, one of the best known scientists on earth today. The furtherance of space flight are among his many accomplishments. He developed nuclear pulse propulsion for the Orion project. He also developed the TRIGA, the research reactors used in hospitals and university labs around the world to produce isotopes. He does have a connection with movie sets, however. Dyson’s theories about space travel inspired the Star Trek series.

            Everyone in this room has heard of Al Gore and his conviction that global warming threatens us with extinction. And probably just about everyone in this room knows that the closest Al Gore came to a scientific achievement is the invention of the Internet. And probably just about everyone in this room accepts what Al Gore says about global warming.

            On the other hand, possibly none of you know that Michael Griffin, the head of NASA believes that global warming isn’t a problem worth wrestling with. This is an interesting viewpoint from the man who oversees the world’s single biggest climate change research budget – $1.1 billion per year. Here is what he told National Public Radio in the US last year:

            “First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. … I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

            Was Griffin entitled to express his viewpoint? He holds a PhD in aerospace engineering. He holds five masters degrees. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the International Academy of Astronautics. He was unanimously confirmed to head NASA by the United States Senate.

            No sooner did he express his opinion than he was called an “idiot” and said to be “in denial.” He was called a “fool” and “surprisingly naive.” He was called either “totally clueless” or “a deep anti-global warming ideologue.” He then apologized and wasn’t heard from again on the subject. And that’s probably why you haven’t heard about him.

            I haven’t been in touch with Griffin but I’ve been in touch with the other scientists I mentioned. In fact, I’ve been in touch with hundreds of scientists in fields related to climate science. I started contacting them about 18 months ago, to see if they really all were kooks or in the pay of the oil companies, as they’ve been described. I expected to find a half dozen or so dissenters. I had no idea that I would find a seemingly limitless number of scientists. If you want to read about some of them, you’ll find them in my columns in the National Post. I’ve profiled several dozen of them, in my series called The Deniers. I’ve also just come out with a book by the same name — The Deniers. It’s available now on Amazon, and doing quite well – it’s one of Amazon.ca’s top sellers. My daughters are impressed that it’s outselling Harry Potter.

          • jim karlocik

            *Dean:* 1970 is date from which the modern temperature rise is mostly measured (has gone up .6 deg C since then).
            *JK:* 1970 just happens to be end of a cool spell. That may be the real reason for starting there.

            *Dean:* The NASA temperature records date from 1880, and we have had .8 deg C rise since that point.
            *JK:* That is the tail end of the little ice age. Another convenient starting point.

            *Dean:* Data from tree rings clearly shows the 20th century as the warmest over the past 1000 years.
            *JK:* Only if you include strip bark trees and bristle cone pines, like Mann did. That, plus bad math, is where the hockey stick came from. Since Mann know those two tree types were bad temperature gauges, he probably committed fraud.
            *JK2:* I presume that you know trees respond to things other than temperature (fertilization, moisture) and may not be as good temperature proxies as Mann claims.

            *Dean:* Or you could look at the past 10,000 years (the period of human civilization), which shows a mostly stable climate with a spike in temperatures coinciding with the late 20th century.
            *JK:* Where do you get that crap. You really have to look beyond the green garbage publications – their main purpose is to scare you into giving them money.
            3000 BC: Egyptian (Menes) warm period
            2300 BC: Egyptian old Kingdom warm period
            1300 BC: Minoan warm period
            300 BC: Roman Warm period
            900 AD: Medieval warm period
            1850 AD: Late 20th century warm period
            With a cold spell between each. (Based on Greenland Ice cores.)

            *Dean:* It is false to attribute past concerns about “global cooling’ to the same scientists who have tracked global warming.
            *JK:*
            *1.* Dr. S . H . Schneider. (Editor of journal: Climate Change). Said it is ok to lie (see below.)
            *2.* Dr. James Hansen (NASA guy gets money from Democrats.) Said it is ok to lie (see below.)
            (July 9 , 1971 THE WASHINGTON POST)

            *Dean:* There was never any scientific data to support global cooling, and as far as I can tell there were no published scientific papers on this. Just journalistic hype.
            *JK:*
            *Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate,* S. I. Rasool; S. H. Schneider,
            Science, New Series, Vol. 173, No. 3992. (Jul. 9, 1971), pp. 138-141.
            links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819710709%293%3A173%3A3992%3C138%3AACDAAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7

            *JK2:* Open your eyes, you are being lied to by Al Gore & his money grubbing friends on wall street. Have a look at Friday, July 9 , 1971 THE WASHINGTON POST:
            • “In the next 50 years,” the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel- burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees.

            • If sustained over “several years” —”five to 10,” he estimated—”such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”

            These ‘ conclusions—including the ominous exclamation point rare in scientific publication — are printed in this week’s issue of the journal Science out today, signed by Rasool and co-worker Dr. S . H . Schneider.
            *JK:* Notice the name Dr. S . H . Schneider? That is famous warmer who said it is ok to lie.

            *WASHINGTON POST* it may be simply necessary for men to stop most fossil fuel-burning— use of coal, oil, natural gas and automobile gasoline —and switch in the main to nuclear energy, despite the atom’s own disadvantages.
            *JK:* Notice we must shut down modern society due to cooling. Recognize anything here, Dean?

            *WASHINGTON POST* A new ice age would flood the world’s coastal cities and further lower temperatures to build up new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.
            *JK:* Ohhh, there is that flooding thing again! I get it, if the climate cools, we get flooding and if it warms we get flooding. Dean, how much longer do you want to listen to idiots?

            *WASHINGTON POST* They also had available a computer program developed by -Dr. James Hansen
            *JK:* This is the famous developer of Al Gores fraudulent hockey stick temperature chart. Dean, do you see a pattern here? I’ll help you: these guys want man to change his evil ways and will come up with any crackpot idea that they can sell to idiot politicians and scientifically illiterate media.

            *Dean:* 3) As CO2 increases, and temperatures warm, additonal water vapour may collect for short periods in the atmosphere, which exacerbates warming further. It is a feeback effect, not a forcing.
            *JK:* Water vapor in clouds reflects sun light away. It also traps the earth’s heat. It plays both roles, and is poorly understood. You are showing you ignorance again – to say it is only a feedback is simply not true.

            *Dean:* An 8 degree increase in average global temp would melt virtually all the ice sheets and raise sea levels by dozens of feet.
            *JK:* The only people talking of 8 degrees are idiots and liars like Al Gore and Hanson.

            *Dean:* 5) Al Gore is not the point. He is an advocate for a cause, not a scientist.
            *JK:* As the leading advocate, he has a duty to get it right. He failed.
            *JK:* As the leading advocate, he has a duty to be honest. He failed.

            *Dean:* … The current best hope is that we could hold the average temp increase to 3.5 degrees over the next 100 or so years if we get busy now and make smart, prudent, and affordable choices. If we can hold the temp increase to 3.5 we MAY be able to avert a catastrophe.
            *JK:* Where do you get this crap? The most likely is less than a degree due to CO2 (it is a log function). The amplification is pure speculation by alarmists at their playstations. Look at the IPCC – you will see that Hansen and Gore are taking the least likely, moat alarmist scenarios and publicizing them the moist likely.

            *Dean:* Yes…tropical diseases like malaria, and many others.
            *JK:* Again, where do you get this crap – *malaria is not a tropical disease.* It is found in the tropics only because the advanced countries got rid of it.

            *Dean:* 6) The ice ages were caused by a periodic orbital wobble, and the temperature changes were quite gradual. Al Gore, again, is not the point. The scientific evidence is the point.
            *JK:* OK, cite me a paper to support “quite gradual” and “orbital wobble”

            *Dean:* 7) Nonsense. The issue is not getting an exact measurement of air temperature from any given reporting station. The issue is the trend line.
            *JK:* You are wrong again. The issue is accuracy. There is no way to be sure the temperature actually changed, when most weather stations have been moved multiple times, have started on grassy fields then, over time, became surrounded by asphalt. That was my point that you are completely ignoring: only a few of the stations are free of obvious problems. The biases from replacing a grassy field with high rises, parking lots etc., are larger than the temperature change being measured. If you had any real-world knowledge, you would instantly recognize this as a big, very difficult to correct, problem. When you look only at the really good stations, most warming disappears.

            *Dean:* 7) Taken as a totality the vast majority of weather stations across the world show an upward temperature trend.
            *JK:* Remember all those bad stations I mentioned? They are in the WORLDS BEST monitoring system. The rest of the world is even worse. You are relying on crappy data.

            *Dean:* 8) He may have said it was defensible to talk about worst case secenarios to stir people to action, not to “lie.”
            *JK:* Oh, you mean like Bush is accused of doing to get us into Iraq?
            *Are you claiming that it is OK to deceive the public to trick them into doing something that they other wise would not allow?*

            Here are some of the liars that you are following:
            *Jim Hansen:*
            *Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time*, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.
            ( from http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html, bold added)

            *Al Gore:*
            *Grist:* There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?

            *Al Gore:* I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, *I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is,* as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

            *Al Gore:* Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there’s going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.
            (From Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added)

            *Steven Schneider*, Editor of Climate Change Journal:
            Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists’ dilemma this way: “On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. *So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might. have.* This `double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” (DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47)

            *Dean:* To imply they or other scientists would doctor their findings to influence policy just to get a few more dollars in research money is too ridiculous to bother with, and displays an ignorance of the peer review process.
            *JK:* Are you incapable of learning? The National Academy of Sciences said the peer review process is broken in this field. I’ repeat it for you again:
            *Wegman:* page 4: In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at *least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him*. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus *“independent studies” may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. *(Bold added; from: 07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf, page 4)

            *Dean:* Why would you compare global warming with Nazis and Fascists of the 1930s? What is the relevance?
            *JK:* The relevance is that people are being sucked into a propaganda war as effectively as the propaganda that people of axis powers were victims of. That led to millions of dead people. You are on a similar path as your “solutions” will got millions killed. You are just to ignorant to realize it.

            *Dean:* *Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions*:
            *JK:* That is simply false. They may agree on warming, but not “warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions”

            *Dean:* You can cruise the internet all you want. You will find next to nothing in the way of peer reviewed research or analysis that refutes global warming theory.
            *JK:* Again pure crap. There are a number of peer reviewed articles that refute CO2 as the cause of dangerous warming:

            * Sir William Herschel, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 91, 265 (1801)

            * Length of the Solar Cycle : An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate E. FRITS-CHRISTENSEN AND K. LASSEN SCIENCE, VOL. 254,’NOVEMBER 1991

            * “Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago”, Nature 411, 290 (2001)

            * G. Bond et al., “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene”, Science, 294, 2130-2136, (2001).

            * “According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.” (Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years S. K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schü ssler1 & J. Beer4, NATURE |VOL 431 | 28 OCTOBER 2004 |

            * Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes, P. J. Polissar, M. B. Abbott, A. P. Wolfe, M. Bezada, V. Rull, and R. S. Bradley, PNAS, June 13, 2006, vol. 103, no. 24, 8937–8942

            Senator Inhof has collected a list of hundreds of papers – check it out.

            *JK:* You need to take you own advise, especially in view of the numerous false statements you made above:
            But I encourage you to take a step back, use that large brain you have, and reconsider the evidence here, taking politics completely out of it for just a moment.

          • dean

            Jim…Michael Griffen, the head of NASA you seem to rely on, said he has NO DOUBT that global warming is occuring, that it has amounted to 1 deg C over the past century (plus or minus 20%) and that it is caused by humans. So why do you continue to question the temperature data? Nearly every denier now accepts a warming earth as reality that has been well documented.

            The “little ice age” was limited to Northern Europe, it ended much earlier than 1900, and has nothing whatsoever to do with present warming.

            Mann’s tree ring data was peer reviewed and has been replicated by others. Again, you make a baseless accusation that “he committed fraud.”

            Yes Jim…as a landscape architect I know lots of things influence tree growth. Mann and dendrochronologists also know this and account for it in their research and findings.

            “That crap” on the Holocene climate is the scientific consensus. What happened in particular places during that period is not relevant, and only reflects variations during that time. An “Egyptian warm period” means squat. It is the global average picture globally that matters.

            Again with the false accusations, and a failure to answer my point. Aerosals and particulate pollution had a cooling effect that masked the CO2 warming effect from the 40s through the 60s. That is well documented and accounted for by climate scientists.

            Schneider’s research and speculations on “global cooling” was not backed up by other research and was dropped. Science did what it is supposed to do.

            The Washington Post, last time I checked, is not a peer reviewed scientific journal Jim. So what is your point in citing them as a source on something that has no relevance anyway?

            An 8 degree increase is predicted by many climate scientists, but only over a very long period and only if we keep burning coal and oil. Gore’s exaggeration (in his movie) was implying that the 8 degree increase could happen within a century. This is not impossible, but is not supported by the bulk of evidence.

            Gore failed? I don’t think so. He woke people up, and we and our kids and grandkids owe him a debt of thanks for that. If complete truth and honesty in this debate are what maters, you Jim, should be the last one to cast a stone in his direction.

            The 3.5 rise dgree prediction is in the IPCC findings for the year 2100. It is an average from the low end (2 degrees) and the high end (5 degrees) based on a set of assumptions about population levels and energy use. I suppose you can dismiss the IPCC scientists as being speculative if that is your choice.

            Okay…malaria is a disease of the tropics AND subtropics. Not temperate regions unless we become subtropical due to global warming.

            Milutin Milankovitch published “Astronomical Methods for Investigating Earth’s Historical Climate” in 1938. His theory, the Milankovitch Theory, was that variations in the Earth’s dance around the Sun caused fluctuations in the global climate of the Ice Ages, one such fluctuation being our current Holocene.

            This theory has been tested in various ways and has passed the tests so far as far as I can tell.

            Jim….the weather station issue has been thoroughly studied and vetted. Even your pal Griffin has no issues with the measurment accuracy. I’m not relying on crappy data. The world body of climate scientists is satisfied with the data, and I rely on them.

            You use the charge of “lying” with impunity. Like I said, Hansen and others, including Gore, have stressed worse cases to stir people to action. this is not “lying.” And it is not deception unless one presents a worst case as something else. And anyway who cares? I don’t rely on Al Gore for the science, and nor should you or anyone else.

            It seems to me Schneider was simply stating the dilemna as best as he can. He was being honest, and you accuse him of condoning “lying” (which he never did) as a result. you have nothing to work with here.

            The National Academy of Sciences published a report in 2007 that global warming is happening 3 times faster than had been predicted. They are not on your side here Jim.

            So…the world body of climate scientists are akin to Nazis? And reducing fossil fuel use, developing alternative energy sources, driving electric-hybrid cars and riding mass transit or bicycling now and then is going to kill millions of people? Yet continued global warming is benign and nothing to worry about?

            Whatever.

            No Jim…my claim was not false. The only serious disagreements
            within the science bodies I listed are about rates of warming and effects.

            Imhoff is a crank. An outlier. And a blowhard. That you would rely on him for anything is pathetic. If I am not citing Al Gore, you should not cite him.

            Naomi Oreskes did the most complete search on global warming papers and found zero out of 928 published, peer reviewed papers took issue with the central claims fo global warming theory. ZERO. Look it up. it was published in Science.

            Jim…we can agree to disagree. I’ll stick with the actual science and you can go where you like with this.

            For the record, I would be delighted if the world body of climate scientists turns out to be wrong and everything is hunky dory.

  • Chris McMullen

    Dean, you truly are a tool:

    Kyoto sinks Europe: Billions in costs make it more and more unlikely that the EU can continue to go it alone slashing carbon emissions
    http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=03445f57-0777-4554-ac7c-ec63cb073223

    Japan, Spain, Italy Face $33 Billion Kyoto Payments
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aktImREihjy0&refer=home

    New Studies Reveal Real Cost of Kyoto Protocol
    http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=157608

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

  • jim karlocik

    *Currently on icecap.us/*
    1. The great rivers which covered the Roman provinces, the Rhine and the Danube, were frequently frozen over, and capable of supporting the most enormous weights. The barbarians, who often chose that severe season for their inroads, transported, without apprehension or danger, their numerous armies, their cavalry, and their heavy wagons, over a vast and solid bridge of ice. Modern ages have not presented an instance of a like phenomenon.

    2. The reindeer, that useful animal, from whom the savage of the North derives the best comforts of his dreary life, is of a constitution that supports, and even requires, the most intense cold. He is found on the rock of Spitzberg, within ten degrees of the Pole; he seems to delight in the snows of Lapland and Siberia: but at present he cannot subsist, much less multiply, in any country to the south of the Baltic. In the time of Caesar the reindeer, as well as the elk and the wild bull, was a native of the Hercynian forest, which then overshadowed a great part of Germany and Poland. The modern improvements sufficiently explain the causes of the diminution of the cold. These immense woods have been gradually cleared, which intercepted from the earth the rays of the sun. The morasses have been drained, and, in proportion as the soil has been cultivated, the air has become more temperate. Canada, at this day, is an exact picture of ancient Germany. Although situated in the same parallel with the finest provinces of France and England, that country experiences the most rigorous cold. The reindeer are very numerous, the ground is covered with deep and lasting snow, and the great river of St. Lawrence is regularly frozen, in a season when the waters of the Seine and the Thames are usually free from ice. Read more

  • Jerry

    Guys – this whole global warming thing can be summed up by one simple comparison.
    Y2K
    Remember that one? The world was going to end and NOTHING happened. NOTHING.
    So, I submit, this nonsense about warming is just that – nonsense and over reaction.
    We are cooling right now, in case no one noticed. Cooling, do you hear me?
    The facts are in – it is cold out there in 2007 and 2008. Very cold.
    A lot of snow. Very much snow.
    Cold. Cold. Cold.

  • dean

    Jerry….utter nonsense. 1 cooler year is nothing more than a blip on the screen. You need to follow the long term trend lines.

    • jim karlocik

      *Dean* Jerry….utter nonsense. 1 cooler year is nothing more than a blip on the screen. You need to follow the long term trend lines.
      *JK:* It is not one cooler year – it is nine, since 1998, the year tied with 1934 as the warmest in the 400 years since the end of the little ice age. ( using the best available data, the USHCN.)

      Where were the cautions about that one year (1998.) I don’t recall hearing that it was just one warm year – no it was shouted from the rooftops as the warmest year in 400 years, maybe in a 1000 years. (of course it wasn’t)

      Dean, please tell us how many years of cooling we need before you consider it significant, after 26 years of warming?

      We are already 9 years into a cooling – that is over 1/3 the length of the previous warming.

      I encourage everyone to have a look at the best, legally on the web, climate video: http://blip.tv/file/791876

      Thanks
      JK

  • Jerry

    The trend lines show only normal warming and cooling as has been the case for millions and millions of years. Millions. By your argument you can not support warming, either, because the past however many years you want to cite are nothing in the history of the planet.
    Get it? Nothing. Less than .00001 of 1 percent if that.

    • dean

      Jim, according to data from NASA, through 2005:

      every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992;
      the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15;
      every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976;
      the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25;
      every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956; and
      every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917.
      The five-year mean global temperature in 1910 was .8 degrees C cooler than the five year mean in 2002.

      And 2005 was hotter than 1998, though just by a smidgen.

      The 1934 warm year was a US record, not global.

      Jim…I would say however many years it takes for the world body of climate scientists to be saisfied that things are cooling down, then I would be satisfied. And no…we are not “9 years into cooling”…not by any stretch.

      Remember, you cited Griffen yourself as an expert on this. He says he has no doubt the earth is warming, that the amount of warming is right where the world body of scientists says it is, and that the main cause is CO2. So why argue with your own expert?

      Jerry…the warming and cooling cyles dating back into the distant past were more gradual, and were not due to human causation.

      Its the science Jerry. Its not about me or what I think.

  • jim karlocik

    *Dean*: Jim, according to data from NASA, through 2005:
    *JK:* How about a link to the NASA data?

    How many times do I have to repeat that *the USHCN is widely regarded as the best in the world.* It shows 1998 merely tied with 1934 as the warmest since the little ice age. (That other records show different data is probably due to them being crappy.)

    Here is the USHCN before & after the last correction:
    data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt

    The same revisions put the ten warmest years spread throughout the century:
    1910s…2,
    1920s…1,
    1930s…2,
    1950s…1,
    1990s…2,
    *Thus the claim that the warmest years are in th 90s is crap*

    I took a closer look at the USHCN data and found:
    1. 1917 was -1.07 and 1934, 1.24, a rise of 2.31 in 17 years, 0.136 deg/yr.
    2. 1979 was -.59 and 1998 , 1.24, a rise of 1.83 deg over 19 years, 0.96 deg/yr.
    *Thus the claim that the recent rate of warming is unusual is crap.*
    (the above temperatures are differences from a constant average.)

    BTW, don’t miss this hint that CO2 may start dropping soon:
    .esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    Note the lower peak forming. We will know in a month or two.

    I’ll bet you haven’t bothered to see the video either. It just takes the first 10 min to see the warmers are mostly wrong:
    blip.tv/file/791876

    Thanks
    JK

    • dean

      Jim…so you are saying that Dr Griffen, whom you cited earlier as supporting your position, is wrong?

      Quote: “”I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists”

      Was Dr Griffen wrong Jim?

      You are welcome
      DA

      • dean

        The clip below is from a Goddard Institute of Space Studies press release:

        2007 Was Tied as Earth’s Second-Warmest Year
        Jan. 16, 2008

        Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.

        Image at right (not included here): This still from the animation presented shows the temperature anomalies that were present during 2007. Credit: NASA. View Temperature Anomaly Video (MPG) or “Earth’s Temperature” Web short.

        “It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature,” said Hansen. “Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases.”

        *The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

        Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.

        Image at right (not included here): Graph of global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951-1980 mean temperature. Air and ocean data from weather stations, ships and satellites. Credit: GISS.

        The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007.

        *”As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.

        A minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth’s surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century.

        Image at right (not included here): This shows temperature anomalies for the 2007 calendar year relative to the 1951-1980 mean. Warmer areas in red, cooler areas in blue. Largest increases were in the northern hemisphere. Credit: GISS.

        The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.

        No disrespect meant Jim, but I’ll go with Hansen’s analysis of the data over your analysis. Credentials matter.

        Your welcome
        DA

        • jim karlocik

          *Deam:* No disrespect meant Jim, but I’ll go with Hansen’s analysis of the data over your analysis. Credentials matter.
          *JK:* Again you are blindly following an admitted liar to think for you.
          Again, you are using crappy GISS world data instead of the best available data, the USHCN.

          As to “Credentials matter” – you mean credentials like this:
          *Jim Hansen:*
          *Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time*, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.
          ( from http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html, bold added)
          *He says it is OK to lie.*

          *U. S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming July 9 , 1971 THE WASHINGTON POST*: They also had available a computer program developed by -Dr. James Hansen
          *SCIENCE, VOL. 173, 9 JULY 1971:* J. E. Hansen, personal connnunication. We are indebted to Dr. Hausen for making these Mie scattering calculations for us, for suggesting suggesting the use of the two-itream approximation, and for checking the fluxes obtained by the two-stream approxinlation against solne exact solutions (which agree to within about 5 perccnt) to the multiple scattering problenl
          [see, for example, J. E. Hansen, Astrophj.~.J . 155, 565 (1969)l. 17. J. E. Hansen and J. B. Pollack, J . Atmos.
          *Conclusion: He worked with the ice age panic purveyors in the 1970s.*

          March 5, 2001: Dr. Jim Hansen, … one of this year’s recipients of a $250,000 Heinz Award
          *He got 250K from Kerry’s wife’s foundation*
          *Do you think this will encourage him to look for other causes for warming?*

          He received help from a George Soros foundation to defend whistle blowers. My take is that this is just an attempt to speak his mind without NASA minders present. But suppose it was Exxon contributing to the defense of Steve McIntyre – what would you say of McIntyre’s credibility in attacking Mann’s fraudulent temperature chart? Can you say double standard? See: a_complete.pdf; search for Hansen)

          Really good choice of people to blindly follow.

          Thanks
          JK

      • jim karlocik

        *Dean:* Jim…so you are saying that Dr Griffen, whom you cited earlier as supporting your position, is wrong?
        *JK:* I don’t find any mention of “Griffen” in this thread or my local records. What are you talking about?

        Thanks
        JK

        • dean

          Jim…you must know that the world data is what is used to determine changes to world climate. The US data only covers a small percent of the earth’s surface. NASA uses the best natinonal and international data in its analysis, so to call it “crappy” is ridiculous and not worth responding to. You are making an unsubstantiated claim, which appears to be your MO.

          You call Hansen an “admitted liar,” but this itself is a blatant lie. He never admited lying, as I already pointed out to you. And his work is all peer reviewed by other scientists who poke and prod and look for weakneses, which is their job. You are simply playing kill the messenger here. And you have zero credibility. Again…you should be ashamed of yourself for calling people names they can’t respond to.

          “Emphasis on extreme scenarios” is NOT equal to LYING and you know it. It simply means that within a range of possible outcomes, some are far worse than others, and to the extent an Al Gore or anyone else points at the farthest extreme outcome Hansen says that was justified to get people to pay atention. These farthest extreme scenarios are ALL BASED ON SCIENCE.

          So he got money from the Heinz Foundation? What does that have to do with anything? Are they some sort of extreme organization that is immune to good science? Does the Heinz Foundation have an economic agenda that benefits from falsified findings? You think Hansen would risk his career and reputation for a grant? When he is already employed with tenure at a government job?

          Again Jim…you are in la la land. You just can’t accept the reality that is in front of you. Fine…but please stop disparaging the motives and professionalism of those you disagree with. You have no credentials as a climate scientist, so no credibility to make the claims you are making about actual scientists.

          And again…I don’t “blindly follow” any single person. The peroponderance of evidence collected and analyzed by THOUSANDS of scientists, vetted through peer review journals, has come to clear conclusions about global warming. That is the story here.

          The handful of reputable scientists who disagree are free to pursue their own research, their own interpretations of other research, and to submit their own work to their peers. To date their only case has been made through the media and the internet, and that should tell you and other readers of this blog all they need to know on this subject.

          From your earlier post:
          “On the other hand, possibly none of you know that Michael Griffin, the head of NASA believes that global warming isn’t a problem worth wrestling with. This is an interesting viewpoint from the man who oversees the world’s single biggest climate change research budget – $1.1 billion per year. ”

          You don’t remember clipping that in up above?

          • jim karlocik

            *JK:* Hey Dean, Hansem just got another $50,000 for his position on warming:

            Hansen was in Wilmington to receive a 50,000 dollar Common Wealth Award for outstanding achievement,
            (http://www.terradaily.com/2007/080407011650.dyqm0pmz.html) (AFP) Apr 07, 2008

            Do you want to argue that he would still have gotten this $50,000 if he decided that there was no climate problem?

            JK

  • Steve Buckstein

    Dean, part of the confusion here is that the head of NASA is Michael Griffin. You refer to him as Michael GriffEN. The NPR interview Jim refers to is at:

    NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Not Sure That Global Warming Is A Problem
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=22729

    • dean

      Thanks for the clarification Steve. My apologies to Jim for any confusion caused by my speling error.

      Griffin acknowledges the reality of global warming and its human causes. in one interview with NPR (which he later apologized to his colleagues for) he said words to the effect that who are we to determine what temperature the world should be. In other words, he questioned whether we should take any action to reduce carbon in the atmosphere as a way to slow down global warming. He did not question the fact of warming and its causes.

      • Steve Buckstein

        Dean, I don’t think Griffin apologized to his NASA colleagues for the opinions he stated about climate change. He apologized for embroiling the agency in a controversy in which it “doesn’t have a dog in the fight.”

        He also said, “I didn’t realize it had approached the status where you can’t express any sort of a contrary opinion or a comment without it being treated almost as a religious issue.”

        Source:
        NASA Chief: Global Warming Treated Like a Religion
        http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2008/03/17/80933.html

  • Anonymous

    Another part of Dean’s problem is his constant repeating things that aren’t true.
    As when he often states the boiler plate dismissals of skeptics.

    And Dean is living in a fanatsy land if he think the IPCC is reliable.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/1001

    “The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.

    In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

    A good example of a principle clearly violated is “Make sure forecasts are independent of politics.” Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

    Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

    The IPCC’s policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

    H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.

  • Anonymous

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

    Statistical analysis apart, a number of the most eminent scientists in the field of

    physics and climate science generally have made scathing criticisms of the IPCC

    and of the ‘consensus’ view. One such criticism is from Hendrik Tennekes, the world’s

    7 leading authority on the physics of turbulent flow, and recently retired Director of

    Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute:

    The climate orthodoxy perpetrates the misconceptions involved by speaking,

    as IPCC does, about the Scientific Basis of Climate Change. Since

    then, I have responded to that ideology by stating that there is no chance

    at all that the physical sciences can produce a universally accepted scientific

    basis for policy measures concerning climate change.

    Australia’s Garth Paltridge, a distinguished scientist who retired recently from his

    post as Director of the Antarctic CRC and IASOS at the University of Tasmania,

    commented on the way in which the IPCC and its supporters operate:

    Each of the successive summaries [to the IPCC’s Assessment Reports] has

    been phrased in such a way as to appear a little more certain than the last

    that greenhouse warming is a potential disaster for mankind. The increasing

    verbal certainty does not derive from any particular advance of the

    science. Rather, it is a function of how strongly a statement about global

    warming can be put without inviting a significant backlash from the general

    scientific community. Over the years, the opinion of that community

    has been manipulated into more-or-less passive support by a deliberate campaign

    to isolate—and indeed to denigrate—the scientific sceptics outside

    the central activity of the IPCC. The audience has been actively conditioned

    into being receptive. It has thereby become gradually easier to sell

    the proposition of greenhouse disaster.

    After making sceptical comments in the press about the global warming ‘consensus’,

    Professor Paltridge was threatened by the CSIRO with major funding cuts to

    the Antarctic Research programme for which he was responsible.

    • dean

      And you should add that CSIRO is: the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia’s national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in the world. Their position is that global warming is happening, it is largely caused by CO2 emissions, and that steps need to be taken to reduce CO2 release into the atmonsphere.

      Steve…I accept your clarification of Griffin’s apology. Key point still is that he is not in the global warming deniers camp. He simply questions what the right policy response is. There is a big difference, and it is misleading to use him to make a case against the science behind global warming.

      And Jim…I don’t know. I suppose Hansen could get a lot more money (from Exxon) if he switched sides don’t you? If he or anyone else manages to overturn the science of global warming they would become famous and maybe win a Nobel. If he is selling his integrity for $50K, that is pretty cheap.

      Lets sum up. Every major scientific organization in the world that deals with climate and related issues acepts global warming theory. A few legitimate individual climate scientists and a larger number of non- climate related academics, like Green and Armstrong oppose this or that aspect of policy prescriptions.

      Isn’t it time for those still opposed to at least admit the technical case is heavily weighted against them? That this is not some grand conspiracy intended to impose communism? At what point does reality matter here?

      • jim karlocik

        You summation:
        You are not capable of looking at evidence, so you rely on supposed expets. Have you considered moving to Cuba or North Korea?

        You would relaly like not having to think there.

        Thanks
        JK

  • Anonymous

    “the technical case is heavily weighted against them?”

    No the alarmists like you “claim” the technical case is heavily weighted against the skeptics.

    The IPCC case itself is invalid and manipulation.

  • Anonymous

    Forget Dean, he appears to be as much a fraud as the IPCC case.

    And don’t listen to me either.

    Just watch this

    http://blip.tv/file/791876

  • cc

    Hey, dean,

    What will change your mind?

    What event or non-event will cause you to re-evaluate?

    What prediction that doesn’t materialize will be the “tipping point” for you?

    How long will you persist?

    …oops, stupid question.

    • dean

      Jim…not “supposed” experts. Actual experts.

      No…I would like to visit Cuba someday, but doubt I would want to live there. North Korea is not my cup of tea. Is that really your comeback? Move to Cuba? Its pretty pathetic Jim. Why don’t you move to Houston, Texas?

      cc….when the data and analysis as collected and disseminated by the climate science establishment points the needle the other way, I’ll re-evaluate. Rest assured.

      Tipping point? I’m not sure.

      Persist? Until I’m persuaded otherwise by the preponderance of evidence, as distilled by climate scientists.

  • jim karlocik

    *Dean:* Persist? Until I’m persuaded otherwise by the preponderance of evidence, as distilled by climate scientists.
    *JK:* http://blip.tv/file/791876

    Thanks
    JK

    • dean

      Jim…you are welcome.

      You never did answer my question about Michael Griffin of NASA. Since you cited him as an expert, and he is clearly on record as agreeing that the earth is warming at the rate Hansen says it is due to the anthropogenic causes that Hansen and the vast majority of climate scientists say, does this give you a reason to reconsider your own position? Or do you use Griffin only in ways you find convenient?

      • jim karlocik

        *JK:* Hey Dean, Hansem just got another $50,000 for his position on warming:

        Do you want to argue that he would still have gotten this $50,000 if he decided that there was no climate problem?

        JK

      • jim karlocik

        *Hey, Dean.* Looks like your side just lost the big one. It appears that your water vapor amplifier effect is B.S. and therefore there is no case for dangerous warming (of course you saw this in the video at: blip.tv/file/791876 )
        Below from: nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR (bold added)

        there is a mechanism at work that “washes out” the water vapour and returns it to the oceans along with the extra CO2 and thus *turns the added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism.*

        The newly discovered mechanism is a combination of clouds and rain (Spencer’s mechanism adds to the mechanism earlier identified by Professor Richard Lindzen called the Iris effect).

        The IPCC models assumed water vapour formed clouds at high altitudes that lead to further warming. The Aqua satellite observations and Spencer’s analysis show water vapour actually forms clouds at low altitudes that lead to cooling.

        Furthermore, *Spencer shows the extra rain that falls from these clouds cools the underlying oceans, providing a second negative feedback to negate the CO2 warming.*

        *Alarmists’ quandary*

        This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt, especially as *the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right!*

        There goes the alarmist neighbourhood!

        The climate is not highly sensitive to CO2 warming because water vapour is a damper against the warming effect of CO2.

        That is why history is full of Ice Ages – where other effects, such as increased reflection from the ice cover, do provide positive feedback – while we do not hear about Heat Ages. The Medieval Warm Period, for example, is known for being benignly warm – not dangerously hot.

        We live on a benign planet – except when it occasionally gets damned cold.

        While I have done my best to simplify these developments they remain highly technical and many people distrust their own ability to assess competing scientific claims. However, in this case the tipping point theories are based on models that do not include the effects of rain and clouds.

        The new Nasa Aqua satellite is the first to measure the effects of clouds and rainfall. Spencer’s interpretation of the new data means all previous models and forecasts are obsolete. Would anyone trust long-term forecasts of farm production that were hopeless at forecasting rainfall?

        The implications of these breakthroughs in measurement and understanding are dramatic to say the least. The responses will be fun to watch.

        • dean

          I don’t have a “side” Jim. And…you still punted on my Griffin question.You seem to have dropped him and moved on to Spencer….Rush Limbaugh’s official climatologist.

          Spencer is also known for not believing in the theory of evolution. At least he is consistant.

          And you seem to have missed an important part of what Spencer wrote: “Spencer et al. is quick to caution, however, that they are not sure what the implications are in regard to anthropogenic global warming:”

          But let’s say “Spencer’s mechanism” works as theorized and reduces net global warming due to CO2 (note that Spencer seems to agree the earth is warming and that it is due to CO2) by the 75% he ballparks. Great…that would mean we only have 25% left to deal with. It does not mean zero.

          Jim…you are over reaching.

          • jim karlocik

            Here is a nice example of the crappy data from the GISs that you seem to like to use. How about commenting on the science and leave the ad hominems out of it (if you are able.):

            http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2991#more-2991

            What do yo think of the practice of adjusting history downwards?
            Do you think this is a location that may require a heat-island adjustment?
            Do you have any thoughts on why such an adjustment is proper?

            Or do you just trust some expert to think for you?

            Isn’t this some of the data maintained by Hansen, who has received a lot of money because of his belief in warming – do you suppose that could have some influence on his choices in the data maintenance?

            Thanks
            JK

  • jim karlocik

    Instead of attacing people, why don’t you comment on this line:

    *the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right!*

    Thanks
    JK

    • dean

      Jim…you are back to questioning the accuracy of the temperature readings? What can I say. Its been dealt with. Your men Griffin and Spencer and as far as I can tell, all of the remaining scientifically reputable “doubters” by now have acepted the temperature record accuracy and no longer point to this or that station as proving anything.

      The National Weather Service (NWS) maintains the stations and takes the readings. NASA (GISS) produces grided analysis of the raw temperature data given to them by NWS. So the data that you call crappy is from NWS, the analysis is from GISS.

      There are thousands of meteorological stations. Finding a few that may be dodgy does nothing to refute the fact that the surface of the earth is warming by measurable amounts, and that this is primarily due to atmospheric CO2. Sure…I have no problem with the NWS making adjustments to station readings if the land use around them has changed. or if some other technical glitch is discoverd.

      To clarify…Hansen and his colleagues do not “maintain the data” on surface temperature readings. They interpret the data that is maintained by the NWS. Okay?

      Warming has also been documented in the oceans, in the atmosphere, in observed Arctic sea ice retreat, in glacier recession, in earlier springs, reduced snow cover, and so forth, so even if you could throw out every last surface meteorological station (which you and climate audit can’t) global warming would still be well documented. Deal with reality Jim.

      Hansen does not get money for any “belief.” He gets money to fund further research. You need to find a different messenger to shoot at, or perhaps pick several thousand climate scientists who agree with him. You will need a machine gun and a lot of ammo for that however.

      Give me some context for your quote. What was the full letter that the lead author of the IPCC wrote to Spencer? Do you have a link?

      Jim…I have not “attacked people,” though I did point out a fact about Spencer (he does not believe in evolution) that might cause some (certainly me) to question where he is coming from on global warming. You have spent a lot of time casting aspersions on: Hansen, NASA, Gore, Mann, and the 800 scientists of the IPCC.

      But I’ll offer a truce with you. You make your case without further attacks, and I’ll do the same.

      DA

  • jim karlocik

    *Dean:* “Spencer (he does not believe in evolution) ”
    *JK:*
    1. Lets see your evidence.
    2. How is his religion that relevant ro his science. (don’t you realize that many famous scientists have crazy beliefs in other parts of there lives? Schottky, inventor of the transistor was racist complete with BS data. One of the fathers of modern science believed in fairies.)

    *Dean:* They interpret the data that is maintained by the NWS. Okay?
    *JK:* NOT OK!
    1. Hansen adjusts the data – that is what I mean by maintain.
    2. How come that data is on the NASA web site?

    *BTW:*
    *The oceans not warming.*
    *The satellite data shows very little warming in the Northern Hemisphere and cooling in the southern.*
    *The anarchic ice has been growing for decades.*
    *It is not a few bad surface stations it is over 80% bad.*

    Please quit getting your “facts” for the Sierra club weekly reader and scare stories in their begging for money letters.

    Thanks
    JK

    • dean

      Jim..Spencer’s views on evolution, in his own words can be read at: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I

      I don’t know what his religion is. As a scientist, dismissing evolution is troubling because it indicates he is willing to place personal ideology or beliefs over evidence. Maybe he is doing the same with respect to global warming, and maybe he isn’t.

      I believe in fairies too. Doesn’t everyone?

      I don’t know why NASA posts the NWS data. Why don’t you ask them? Lot’s of people post things they did not generate themselves.

      Ocean warming:
      GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L02604, doi:10.1029/2004GL021592, 2005
      Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003
      S. Levitus, National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
      J. Antonov, National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
      T. Boyer, National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

      Abstract
      We present new estimates of the variability of ocean heat content based on: a) additional data that extends the record to more recent years; b) additional historical data for earlier years. During 1955–1998 world ocean heat content (0–3000 m) increased 14.5 × 1022 J corresponding to a mean temperature increase of 0.037°C at a rate of 0.20 Wm−2 (per unit area of Earth’s total surface area).

      Received 22 September 2004; accepted 8 December 2004; published 22 January 2005.

      Index Terms: 4513 Oceanography: Physical: Decadal ocean variability (1616, 1635, 3305, 4215); 3305 Atmospheric Processes: Climate change and variability (1616, 1635, 3309, 4215, 4513); 1635 Global Change: Oceans (1616, 3305, 4215, 4513).

      Peer reviewed and everything.

      The sattelite data is far less reliable than the ground surface weather stations you disparage. But…rest assured. Initial errors in calibrating the readings have been corrected and atmospheric warming is well established. You are dredging up old stuff.

      There is a lot of discussion over whether the antarctic ice sheets are growing (thickening) or thinning out. But either way does not really matter. In some places, warming will lead to more ice, not less. Why? Because if precipitation increases as a result of warming, and that precipitation is snowfall (a bit of warming in the Antarctic still leaves things well below freezing) then ice sheets will thicken.

      Your 80% bad number comes from what peer reviewed and published analysis?

      I have never read the Sierra Club weekly, but thanks for the tip.

      You are welcome
      DA

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)