Public Opinion Polls Express Doubt about Global Warming

With a new president and a fresh batch of state senators and representatives in Salem, there is a lot of discussion on what to do about global warming. Because state and national public policy is overly focused on reducing greenhouse gases for the sake of “saving” the climate, a couple of national polls have been released assessing public opinion on the topic of global warming. It turns out that addressing global warming with public policy is not a top priority.

A Pew Research Center public opinion survey, conducted January 7-11 among 1,503 adults on cell phones and landlines, finds that strengthening the economy and improving the job situation are higher priorities today than they have been at any point over the past decade. Where does addressing global warming fall as a priority for Americans? It was ranked dead last among 20 top priorities for government action, even below lobbyists.

Not only is global warming regulation losing ground to helping the ailing economy, but Americans are no longer even convinced that climate change is man-made, according to a recent Rasmussen Report survey of 1,000 likely voters. Due to the current economic climate and the changing views of American citizens, it is not prudent to charge ahead with global warming “solutions” that will cause wide-ranging negative economic effects.


Todd Wynn is the climate change and energy policy analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research center.

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

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 80 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Joe

    Todd. How can anyone doubt global warming? AlGore has said we have it and that is good enough for me. His movie taught me all I need to know about this evil, manmade affliction to mother earth. Peoples of the world must stop whatever they are doing before it is too late.
    And all the record-setting cold weather in the US this winter? Global warming. That is what causes the cold. Trust me on that.
    And don’t get me started on the polar bears. Because you peoples drive SUV’s the polar bears will die if they have not died already.
    Wake up everyone – we are warming and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
    Gaia can no longer help our planet, who is dead.

    • Anonymous

      I have some oceanfront property in Arizona if you’re interested. Open your eyes man. Al Gore was proven wrong in his movie and he’s making big bucks on your gullibility.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    AGW is rapidly becoming something of a joke. You simply cant be having record snow falls and low temperatures for a decade immediately following crises inception and expect people to go along with it. Basically the only true and proven man made climate change I have seen is Al Gores unfortunate tendency to generate blizzards and freezing conditions whenever he gives a speech of any note.

    So what’s driving the polls?

    Well, for one Global warming isn’t new any more. Right or wrong, I think people only have a limited amount of time they can see something as an emergency. Since AGW is predicated on a self centric view of history, this is the most important time in world history with the only correct temperature being that which exists now, if something dire doesn’t happen quickly people begin to see it as a non issue.

    For another the scientists who oppose AGW theory have had time to start getting their message out. AGW depends on using fear as a weapon, generating a crises mentality to get rules imposed, power for the state grabbed, before the populace has time to think about it. This is why one of Al Gore’s main building blocks from day one for AGW theory was “the debate is over”. The fascinating thing was the attempt to pass off this very unscientific attitude as being somehow more scientific than the opposition. To this day Al Gore won’t debate the issue and this obviously has given the opposition more credibility.

    The third reason is simply practical. The economic path we have committed to, massive deficits for quite a while, will have vastly more effect on our children’s future than a one degree rise in temperature if AGW were true. Therefore AGW, even if one accepts all its premises, is simply not as big a problem in terms of impact. Most people get the seriousness and certainty of the tax rates that will be necessary to pay off the promised trillion dollar deficits. Few people, myself included, see much reason to get more exorcized about one degree here or there.

  • dean

    Maslow’s hierarchy is the simple explanation for the poll results. Putting food on the table today is bound to trump investing in the future, especially given the rapid sinking of the national and global economies.

    As for Rupert’s observations, yes…1 degree of global warming has not disrupted snowy winters in the northern hemisphere. Obviously as long as it snows the world can’t possibly be warming. It’s akin to my roof does not really leak unless it is raining.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Bad analogy Dean. With the roof scenario the true analogy would be, if I constantly predict that my roof doesn’t leak, and it rains and I see water pouring in, then obviously I am not much good at evaluating roofing.

      The simple fact is AGW is based upon predictions from computer models. Since those predictions have not stood the test of time, it is right to question them. When we see supporters of the models trying to submit phony data to support them, its shear lunacy not to question them. This is especially true when we see AGW believers behaving in a way that is directly contrary to the way the prescribe for a crises.

      Obviously its no surprise that you see questioning them as unfounded, your record for heeding well and not questioning your leaders is unmatched by most. Thankfully most are not as dogmatic.

      I think at this stage of the game AGW has had its day as a popular movement and is on the wane. As a political power grab, it still seems to be in play, so not all new is bad for the believers. AGW was always about political power after all, hence the crises mentality and shutting down any debate of what, supposedly, was science based at one time.

      Perhaps it should be enough for AGW’ers that they will get their little windmill projects and cars that no one wants to buy. You will still make money on your aesthetic evaluations of windmill sites. Call it good at that, just don’t ask the rest of the populace to engage in what now has become a very silly movement.

      • dean

        So the documented record of rising temperatures, rising sea levels, rising atmospheric CO2, melting glaciers, early animal migrations, and so forth is to be ignored because some computer models did not calibrate exactly? Or because we had a lot of snow this winter?

        In other words…the roof not only leaks…there are puddles accumulating on the floor.

        • jim karlock

          Please quit ignoring reality.

          The oceans are not rising any faster than they have been for thousands of years

          Melting glaciers ae more a rainfall pattern change than temperature.

          The Antarctic is still gaining mass

          The Arctic regularly melts. See NYT, Cec 7, 1905

          Drowning furry critters are not our fault if OUR CO2 is NOT causing warming and no one has ever proven that it is the cause of any current warming that may be occurring.

          Recently claimed early animal migrations are a real hoot as recently the temperature has been going down.

          You are ignoring the fact that the earth has been cooling for 2-10 years (depending on whose data you use.)

          Get you head our of the sand and look at the real world instead of Al Gore’s self serving, money grubbing lies.

          Thanks
          JK

        • Rupert in Springfield

          The only documented record along those lines is you insisting it is true, when in fact it is not. Rising temperatures? Come one, where have you been the last ten years?

          The fact that the computer models, upon which the entire premise is based ad fuel to the fire because at that point you have an experiment which is non repeatable.

          That, my friend, is the definition of something not being scientific. If you do not have a hypothesis which stands up to repeatable experimentation by others, you’ve got nothing. That’s the state of the computer models and AGW, a non testable hypothesis that does not stand up to the rigors of repeatable experimentation.

          Sorry to burst the bubble here, but you cant keep stamping your foot and insisting something is true when it just simply isn’t. Its almost as if you stopped reading up on this stuff somewhere around 2000. You are after all the guy who still thinks the hockey stick is true.

  • Snow

    I’ve been on this earth for a lot more years than I care to admit to. I’ve seen sub zero temps and 100 plus temps. That means nothing. I don’t believe greenhouse gas is the culprit. I believe our refusal to recognize there is a power greater than us. And I don’t mean our la-la land governor or Al Gore. I believe if the tremendous increase in forest fires is a direct result of this country trying to play God and save it all. As it is plain to see there is a lot of destruction. I drove from Bend to Portland. I was absolutely shocked at the sheer destruction from fires. It’s disgusting and stupid.

  • PanchoPDX

    Heretics!

  • Anonymous

    dean,

    With your usual pretense of higher understanding and oozing condescension your analogy is, foolish, childish and wrong.

    And like so many times by so many other it seeks to shrink the basis for refutation of global warming to that which can be mocked.

    Yet the scientific deconstruction of the entire IPCC-AGW case is rapidly approaching totality and completion.

    Here is a very clear cut display of exactly how comical the human global warming theory has become.

    I hope our Governor Kulongoski, and others get a copy to share with their climate change panels.

    http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=167

    There is no human CO2 warming.

    This current exchange is outstanding. It started here and is discussed.
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5180

    IPCC/AGW -Michael Mann goes off on the latest skeptic’s scrutinizing of his sloppy work claiming Antarctica is warming.
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/tabloid-fossil-fuel-shill.aspx

    And skeptic scientist Lawrence Solomon takes him apart.
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/mann-s-conclusions-not-to-be-believed.aspx

    Mann’s conclusions not to be believed
    Posted: February 07, 2009, 2:20 AM by NP Editor
    Mann-made science does not support the hypothesis that global warming is man-made
    By Lawrence Solomon
    A good scientist, like a good journalist, checks his facts, if for no other reason than to spare himself embarrassment and to immunize himself from charges that he’s casual with the truth, lazy or just plain dishonest. Michael Mann has not checked his facts.

  • Joe

    I am proud that Dean is completely on my side in this argument. Global warming must be stopped in its tracks.
    Or, we will die.
    All of us.
    Warming = death.
    It is really very simple.
    I am painting my roof white, I ride my bike almost everywhere I go, I take light rail (I pack heat, though), and I don’t heat my house above 62. I am helping. Why aren’t the rest of you helping, too?
    Don’t you care if the oceans rise, the ice caps melt, and death comes to all peoples?
    Please, everyone, wake up and listen to AlGore. You may not like the man, but please believe his message, as he is very smart and what could he gain by lying to us all??
    The ocean will lapping on our front doors before we really believe, and then, my friends, it will be, sadly, too late.
    I believe my heart and AlGore and both are telling me something is very wrong with our climate and man did it.
    That is good enough for me.

    • dean

      Your obvious cynicism aside, you should also be thankful someone bothers to write in and at least tries to offer a reality check.

      Oh…and try some insulation and maybe your house can be at a more comfortable temperature.

      • Anonymous

        We don’t need your reality. Because it is fantasy.

    • jim karlock

      Joe:Warming = death.
      JK: Quit being ignorent. Less people die of heat each year then die of cold. Warming gives longer growing seasons.
      Warming = Life

      Joe: I am painting my roof white, I ride my bike almost everywhere I go, I take light rail (I pack heat, though), and I don’t heat my house above 62. I am helping. Why aren’t the rest of you helping, too?
      JK: Because we see that it is all BS. BS intended to force us to live the deluded “green” lifestyle. Also LRT does not save energy compared to getting a small car.

      Joe: Don’t you care if the oceans rise,
      JK: They aren’t rising and faster than usual. Quit repeating AL Gore’s lies. I hope you recall that he said it is OK to lie to us. See SustainableOregon.com/Lies.htm

      Joe: the ice caps melt, and
      JK: The aren’t. Quit repeating Al Gore’s lies.

      Joe: death comes to all peoples?
      JK: The only deaths will be those that got sucked into AL Gore’s hysteria.

      Joe: Please, everyone, wake up and listen to AlGore. . . . and what could he gain by lying to us all??
      JK: $100 million so far. He hopes to make billions by forcing us to buy his carbon offsets.
      See SustainableOregon.com/BigMoney.htm

      Joe: The ocean will lapping on our front doors before we really believe, and then, my friends, it will be, sadly, too late.
      JK: Quit spreading AL Gore’s lies – no one except Al is talking anything near flooding from warming.

      Joe: I believe my heart and AlGore and both are telling me something is very wrong with our climate and man did it.
      JK: Yup. So that Al can make Billions! Again, see: SustainableOregon.com

      Joe: That is good enough for me.
      JK: Try thinking, instead of following otherwise you are the blind, blindly following fools, liars and idiots.

  • Anonymous

    Very good Joe.

    That was the perfect demonstration of the AGW crusade which has substituted faith for science.

    Of course people who have followed the Global Warming debate are well beyond confident that there are no worries and those steps to reduce CO2 are foolish nonsense.

    When the National Academy of Sciences expresses low confidence in the centerpiece of Global warming
    the writing is on the wall.
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/mann-s-conclusions-not-to-be-believed.aspx

    CO2, human or natural, does NOT drive temperature.
    Proven by science-
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

    http://spectator.org/archives/2008/04/18/a-time-to-deny/

    Climat expert Lawrence Solomon

    –climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland.
    http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
    Quote of the day: “Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this.”

    For all the latest developments and daily updates from around the globe.
    visit-

    icecap.us
    climateaudit.or
    wattsupwiththat.com

  • Joe

    I guess Dean and I are the only mmgw believers left on this post. We shall survive because we care.
    Canada will soon be a vacation paradise.
    If only people would believe.
    If only more would listen to AlGore.
    I know this much for sure. The ice caps seem to be in big trouble and what could cause that, other than a bunch of warming?
    I rest my case, but not my efforts.
    I am going to spray paint all SUV’s orange as part of my efforts to save mother earth.

    • dean

      Yes Joe…you and me. Well…me anyway.

    • Anonymous

      I assume you went to see all this for yourself. l I still got that Arizona oceanfront property if you want it.

  • dan

    Joe and Dean,

    You should probably not have any kids and preach this to other believers in your man made global warming propaganda. that way your sector of the population is weeded out from the actual rational intellectual people on the planet.

    Once we do away with idiots like you two, we can finally address real issues like world hunger and the aids epidemic.

    Dan

  • Steve Plunk

    What Dean should try to understand is the science behind AGW is being scrutinized and it is not holding up. Politicians seized upon the incomplete scientific inquiry to advance a political agenda. Aided by the ability to control science dollars these politicians manipulated the funding toward those scientists more inclined to portray the earth in peril.

    We can throw out dueling facts, studies, and theories but the key here is to not hurry any decision as Al Gore and others would have us do. Like a car salesman pushing you to buy they want you to hurry. The tipping point is a political tool not a scientific fact. Certain political steps will be nearly impossible to undo and that’s why there is such a hurry.

    Why is it the left is so skeptical about government on some things yet so eager to trust on others? It’s because they believe whatever fits their world view.

    • dean

      Yes it is being scrutinized. But no Steve…it is unfortunately for us holding up quite well among the scientists.

      There really are not much in the way of dueling facts and so forth. There are facts, and then there are some who are shoosing to duel with the facts.

      We are not “hurrying” a decision. The science on global warming ahs been pretty clear since the late 1980s. The longer we wait the more CO2 we pump out and the harder it will be to mitigate the problem. Remember Steve…both candidates int he last presidential election pledged to adopt cap and trade. If you add up their votes you get 99% of the voting public that voted for candidates who said they would move forward on this isue…not delay further.

      I don’t speak for “the left.” Speaking for myself, I am ALWAYS skeptical about government, just as I am ALWAYS skeptical about private businesses. But I try to not let my skepticism cloud my judgement, and I don’t wait for perfect knowledge or perfect solutions to complicated problems. We need to re-tool and we need to have gotten started yesterday.

  • David Appell

    Since when have we decided important issues of public policy based on polls?

    Isn’t the reason we’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars to send promising students to graduate school and beyond is so that we can count on their erudition and expertise in scientific matters, not so they can merely repeat whatever the relatively uneducated think about medicine, physics, genetics, or climate change?

    The science of climate change is more than looking out the window and noticing that is might be snowing in your neighborhood. It involves compiling data from a variety of sources, correcting for an number of factors, and performing some sophisticated analysis on the results. (The easy stuff was done long ago.) It involves complex theories of complex phenomena.

    We do not do science in this country by polls. If we did, God forbid, we’d have to rule out Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which is disbelieved by half of the American public.

    Let’s face it: the American public is, frankly, quite ignorant. Almost all of them believe that some giant, bearded man in the sky created the universe and controls their fate, though there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of this. Many of them believe in witches and UFOs, and I could go on and on.

    Let’s not decide important issues of science — indeed, issues that, if we decide incorrectly, could extinguish our very civilization — based on cheap and easy telephone polls. Let’s instead ask the most wise and educated scientists we have about this situation.

  • David Appell

    Steve Plunk wrote:
    > What Dean should try to understand is the science behind
    > AGW is being scrutinized and it is not holding up.

    I don’t know what scientific journals Steve Plunk is reading — he notably doesn’t say — but he is wrong.

    If you read the leading scientific journals — Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of
    Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, J Climate, and more — you will find essentially no disagreement about the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. If you attend conferences where these scientists gather, you will hear essentially no doubt that man is influencing today’s warming climate.

    All these scientists — the ones doing today’s cutting edge research and publishing today’s most important scientific papers — accept this hypothesis as proven and are moving on.

    Steve Plunk might find a few dissenting opinions in the Wall Street Journal or the National Post, but these are not scientific publications and their standards for fact-checking are far below the standards of such journals. When you look into them, you will find that they are almost always wrong, and often in simplistic, juvenile, almost comical ways.

    Steve Plunk has clearly not kept up with the scientific literature and has little grasp of the reality of today’s climate science.

    • Anonymous

      *David* Since when have we decided important issues of public policy based on polls?
      *JK:* Since Al Gore got involved.

      *David* The science of climate change . . . involves compiling data from a variety of sources, correcting for an number of factors, and performing some sophisticated analysis on the results.
      *JK:* All the while they ignore simple things like properly correcting for heat island, missing Russian rural stations and the fact that simple thermometer readings show the 1990s cooler than the 1930s. Only by applying all those fancy corrections has it been made to look like the 1990s were unusually warm.

      *David* (The easy stuff was done long ago.)
      *JK:* Not really. Why not just use high quality station data, instead of trying to correct bad data?
      Answer because most warming goes away.

      Thanks
      JK

      • David Appell

        Jim: you have not been forthright in the past about a real conversation, and seem capable of only repeating the same old tired, unimaginative points. I see no evidence that this has changed. You simply do not seem to honestly want to advance knowledge.

        It’s just not worth wasting time on people in such a situation.

        If your attitude changes, let me know. I don’t really expect it from someone like you, though. The world is moving on without you.

        — David

        • jim karlock

          I am just waiting for you to show us some evidence of CO2 actually being able to cause harm. Without proof that CO2 is harmful, the rest of your statements are meaningless.

          Your entire case depends on CO2 being harmful, so prove it.

          Thanks
          JK

    • jim karlock

      *David:* If you read the leading scientific journals — Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, J Climate, and more — you will find essentially no disagreement about the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
      *JK:* No disagreement? How about these papers:
      Living with a Variable Sun, Judith Lean, *Physics Today*, June 05

      Solar Irradaince since 1874 Revisited, Solanki & Fligge, *Geophysical Review Letter,* Feb 1, 1998
      (that one has a chart of the sun’s variations over a century and compares it with the temperature record.)

      The Sun’s Role in Climate Variation, *Science,* Vol 296, Apr 2002

      Solar Activity and terrestrial climate: An analysis of some purported correlations., Laut, *Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics* (in prepeint as of Feb 2003)

      Long-Term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth’s Climate., Lassen, *Danish Meteorological Institute.*

      Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance, McIntyre, *Geophysical Research Letters,* Vol 32, LXXXXX (This one pretty much breaks the famous “hockey stick” temperature chart touted by Gore, Burkholder etal.. See the NAS report on climate change for verification of all of the major points in this paper) A second NAS report attacks the statistical methods used to produce the “hockey stick”:
      http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

      There are many more, but I am tired of wasting my time correcting David’s lies.

      *David* All these scientists — the ones doing today’s cutting edge research and publishing today’s most important scientific papers — accept this hypothesis as proven and are moving on.
      *JK:* You mean like Michael Mann who got caught faking the hockey stick? The same Mann that tried it again and was discovered in just weeks?
      Get serious.

      *David* Steve Plunk has . . . little grasp of the reality of today’s climate science.
      *JK:* Neither do you David.

      Thanks
      JK

  • David Appell

    Anonymous on 2009-02-09 13:06 wrote:
    > When the National Academy of Sciences expresses low confidence
    > in the centerpiece of Global warming the writing is on the wall.
    > http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/mann-s-conclusions-not-to-be-believed.aspx

    This is so typical of the skeptic set — they are ready to accept anything that contradicts AGW, without doing even the slightest to evaluate the source of that information or whether it’s true or not.

    For these kind of people, it matters only that someone wrote it, not whether it’s true or not.

    It takes someone with only a slight amount of knowledge to recognize that the claims in Lawrence Solomon’s Feb-6 column are not accurate.

    The “hockey stick” has been verified numerous times by numerous scientists using numerous methodologies. Michael Mann’s conclusions are perfectly fine, if you take into account — as all scientific considerations must — the uncertainities inherent in his calculations.

    Skeptics make all kind of inaccurate and unfair claims, and then, when legitimate scientists complain about their misrepresentation, declare that the debate over climate change is not over. It is a hollow and discredited method of eliciting controversy.

    • jim karlock

      *David:* The “hockey stick” has been verified numerous times by numerous scientists using numerous methodologies.
      *JK:* All of them are part of the inbred inner circle of paleoclimateologists who use the same data and the same nethods to reach the same conclusions. They may be numerous people, but they are one (deluded) mind.

      *David:* Michael Mann’s conclusions are perfectly fine, if you take into account — as all scientific considerations must — the uncertainities inherent in his calculations.
      *JK:* a And forgive a bit of fraud, refusing to share data, refusing to share methods and choosing to use proxies thatr were well known to be useless for temperature reconstructions. It is all in MM05 etc. and verified by the National Academy of Sciences’ Wegman report. I suggest you understand it. If you do, you will have to agree the Mann was a fraud, the whole field is fatally flawed and anything they claim is likewise flawed. In layman’s terms: garbage.

      *David:* Skeptics make all kind of inaccurate and unfair claims, and then, when legitimate scientists complain about their misrepresentation, declare that the debate over climate change is not over.
      *JK:* If the debate is over, as you claim, how come the peer reviewed journals are still publishing alternatives to Mann’s-Gore-Hansen’s garbage? You klnow the papers, so I won’t waste time citing them to you.

      *David:* It is a hollow and discredited method of eliciting controversy.
      *JK:* Hey David, we are still waiting for you to back up our previous claims. You failure to do so suggests that you are lying to us and know it:

      * 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 ”

      Dave, each of these is a definitive statement that is capable of being proven. But despite repeated request, you refuse to provide any proof of their truth.

      Surely a Phd, like yourself can easily provide proof (if it exists).

      Otherwise quit trying to scare people in to making Al Gore rich and his Wall Street cronies rich.

      Thanks
      JK

  • Anonymous

    David has not the knowledge he pretends. Instead he is a political hack pretending to have expertise.
    He does not.
    Worse yet he deliberately misrepresents the scientific scrutiny AGW has faced and is facing.
    Lawrence Solomon is entirely accurate and David is simply bending the truth.

    I could assume David is mistaken but he has had access to the refuting of Mann’s Hockey Stick nonsense and has certainly viewed it. Therefore David must be deliberately distorting.

    The many expert skeptics aren’t making all kinds of inaccurate and unfair claims as David states.

    Quite the contrary they are finding major discrepancies and flaws in the IPCC data and modeling resulting in the foundation and framework of AGW becoming unreliable to a point of collapse.

    In stark contrast is the near daily does of inaccurate and baseless claims made by AGW crusaders, such as David, when he attributed Hurricane Katrina to AGW. The bizzare attributions of every observation imaginable to AGW leaves the global warming side without any credibility.
    Their hypocrisy and unethical campaign to sustain the AGW crusade can no longer rely on the science they hijacked.

    Instead science is revealing AGW to be a great farce.

    CO2, human or natural, does NOT drive temperature.
    Proven by science-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

    http://spectator.org/archives/2008/04/18/a-time-to-deny/
    Climate expert Lawrence Solomon

    -climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland.

    http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774

    Quote of the day: “Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this.”

    For all the latest developments and daily updates from around the globe.
    visit-

    icecap.us
    climateaudit.or
    wattsupwiththat.com

    There is no “if” about it, David.
    Mann’s hockey stick theory is dead and human global warming is on it’s death bed.

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/mann-s-conclusions-not-to-be-believed.aspx

    In 2006 the Energy and Commerce Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings to discover whether Mann’s hockey stick graph was the product of sound science, as Mann claimed, or a statistical sham, as his critics claimed. The person commissioned to ascertain the truth was Edward Wegman, one of America’s finest scientists and, ironically, the past chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences, the very body that Mann cites as supporting his work.

    Wegman assembled a panel of blue-chip statisticians, all of whom worked pro bono for the Barton committee, and for good measure the panel subjected its work to top level reviewers, such as the Board of the American Statistical Association. The Wegman panel’s findings? Mann’s critics were entirely in the right, Mann lacked the statistical knowledge to do the work he had taken on, and Mann’s work had not been subjected to a credible peer-review process.

    When Mann cites the support of the National Academy of Sciences, he is not referring to Wegman’s findings but those of another NAS panel, this one headed by another top statistician, Gerald North. The so-called “support” that the NAS panel provided to Mann would mortify many in Mann’s position.

    The NAS did find some of Mann’s work “plausible” — that’s the closest that it comes to actually supporting Mann’s findings — but then it immediately states there are so many scientific uncertainties attached to Mann’s work that it doesn’t have great confidence in it. The committee then proceeds to further downgrade its view of Mann’s work: “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’ ”

    In short, Mann’s main conclusions are not to be believed.

    Why not? Because “Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions” and because he downplayed the “uncertainties of the published reconstructions.” And, the NAS added, because of what Mann did not do — he did not let others examine his data for accuracy and he did not reveal his analytic methods. For this, the NAS rightly chastised Mann: “Our view is that all research benefits from full and open access to published data-sets and that a clear explanation of analytical methods is mandatory. Peers should have access to the information needed to reproduce published results, so that increased confidence in the outcome of the study can be generated inside and outside the scientific community.”

    Conclusion about the hockey stick graph: Mann-made science does not support the hypothesis that global warming is man-made.

    • David Appell

      Instead of merely cutting and pasting other people’s words about PCA and the like — which I’m sure you don’t understand — can you please explain to us how at least a half-dozen other independent analyses — such as Crowley and Lowery, and others — have found the same “hockey stick” figure as did Mann, Bradley, and Hughes?

      • jim karlock

        *Hey David*
        We are still waiting for your proof CO2 can actually cause global warming. I have asked you for this many times, on the local blogs, over the past six months, You have been unable to show any real proof. Instead you fall silent and move to a new venue to spread your line.

        Why do I ask? Because even the web site set up by “working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists” to defend global warming had to admit:

        At least three careful ice core studies have shown that *CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature* during glacial terminations. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)

        Since *a cause cannot follow the event that is supposed to have caused,* this is powerful evidence that CO2 does NOT cause major warming. Further, there appear to be *no studies that prove that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming in the real world.*

        You mention Venus to scare us. But you forgot to tell us that it is much closer to the sun than we are. You also forgot to tell us that Mars has nearly a 100% CO2 atmosphere and is -41% C.

        By the way, *historically the length of the solar cycle tracks Earth’s temperature much better than CO2* ever did.

        I request that you quit trying to scare little children and scientifically naive politicians into seriously hurting our standard of living until you can actually prove the fairy tales that you spew.

        Why are you trying to do this? Do you just hate to see people living well? Are you getting paid by Al Gore and his Wall Street buddies that are setting up to make millions from trading carbon offsets? *Shame on you.*

        Thanks
        JK

  • Anonymous

    Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

    Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/#more-5352

    • David Appell

      Actually, if you would do some actual investigation and not just accept the first thing you read that you think confirms your ideology, you will find that Theon was not, in fact, Hansen’s supervisor and was, in fact, below Hansen on the NASA org chart and was not his “supervisor.”

      • jim karlock

        *Got any proof of this David?*

        Or is just another of your many distortions?

        *Here is what Theon said:*
        Yes, one could say that I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation.
        *JK:* Seems clear that he was at least a partial supervisor, as it is pretty rare to have an underling allocate resources and evaluate the results of a superior. (I suppose it could happen, but not too likely.)

        *JK:* He went on to say:
        *Theon* He [Hansen] was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position. . .

        *JK:* Exactly how can a muzzled guy get thousands of press mentions?

        *Theon* He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.

        *Theon* My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system . . .

        *Theon* Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.

        *Theon* They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists.

        *Theon* Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.

        Any questions, David?

        Thanks
        JK

  • Anonymous

    Good reasons to not only doubt global warming but to reject it and condemn those who perpetrated the fraud.

    http://www.icecap.us

    http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

    http://www.climateaudit.org

    • David Appell

      A mere Web site is not a substitute for science. If they were we would be treating infections with various weeds and magical incantations.

      Science — real science — is done in peer-reviewed scientific journals — the same journals you rely on for the safety and efficacy of the medicines you take and the lasers that doctor’s shine into your eyes. Anyone can publish anything on a Web site like icecap.us — why would you believe it over other published material?

      • Joanne Rigutto

        David, while I agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there on the web, please keep in mind that there is a lot of good, valid info out there too.

        Just because it’s on the web doesn’t invalidate information. If being on the web were grounds for disqualification, I wouldn’t believe what is on the web as far as info put out by our state legislature regarding bills before committee, votes in the house or senate, etc.. I wouldn’t believe information put on the web by CDC, FDA, USDA, etc.. And I certainly wouldn’t believe info published on the web by proponents of AGW, not that I do, but my disbeliefe is not based soeley or even partially on the fact that there is an awful lot of proAGW infromation out there on the web…. And I don’t think any of the dissenters here do either.

        • David Appell

          Joanne: anyone can post anything to the Web. Why would you believe it?

          Or, would you rather believe information in the form of scientific publications that have been vetted by experts. That doesn’t necessarily mean the information is correct — but it does mean that, unlike much of what you read on the Web, it isn’t obviously wrong.

          Where is such a guarantee for what appears on icecap.us?

          • Joanne Rigutto

            David,

            I didn’t say that something published on the web was garaunteed to be valid, I was saying that just because it was published on the web didn’t, in and of itself, discredit what ever was published. James Hansen has material published on the web, does the fact that his statements are published on the web automatically discredit him? NASA publishes a lot of stuff on the web, does that discredit them? For that matter, Al Gore, Michael Mann, and many prestegious scientific journals on climatology, metierology, virology, epidemiology, etc. are all published on the web. Are they all now discredited just because they are accessed by a web browser? I think not.

            That’s the only bone I was picking with you, was the contention that being published on the web automatically discredits information.

            If you want to take that a a primary criterion for credible information, then all of the web available references you’ve cited above would have to be discredited as well…..

      • jim karlock

        Those are the journals that publish hogwash from Mann and condoned his refusal to disclose his methods or data. They allow authors to ignore their own disclosure policies.

        Further they condone the endless rehash of the same, proven false, data in paper after paper.

        But all for good cause, *as the editor of one per reviewed journal said:*

        “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. . . On the other hand. . . *we* . . .have to *offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.* DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47, Bold Added (Steven Schneider is now Editor of Climate Change Journal)

        Peer review had never been a guarantee of anything. Its purpose is to avoid blunders on the part of editors, not to check detail of papers. (Just another thing that AL and Dave lie about.)

        Thanks
        JK

  • Anonymous

    Mann and his Hockey Stick

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/200809272059/energy-and-environment/michael-mann-behind-the-hockey-stick.html

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/monckton_man_made.html

    “Warming freezes the Southern Ocean,”Another Mann-made Climate Change
    Written by Christopher Monckton
    Monday, 26 January 2009

  • Bob Clark

    There are so many things wrong with Oregon and Washington’s climate change cap and trade proposals. One, a lot of time and effort and paper work burden will placed on business in our states to establish some program, and yet in one chicago-like minute all this effort is most likely to be waisted by a federal program. And if Oregon and Washington add their programs on to a national program it will put our states at a major competitive disadvantage. On top of this, it is truly fantasy to believe the U.S is going to somehow force, or induce, countries like China, Russia, and India to trade economic material wellbeing for any significant amount of global climate benefits, even if there is a written agreement/treaty to do so. Three, why not take a more incremental approach such as trying to tackle the most potent of green house gases like methane or carbon black, and leave carbon dioxide to a later time. Concentrating on the more potent gases would get us the most bang for the buck, and more quickly than the all encompassing abstract program dreamt up by the governor and his puppet master Tim Nesbit of government employee union fame. Geez wonder who stands to gain with the governor’s proposed cap and trade program…it surely wouldn’t add to the government employee ranks would it? You bet it would.

    • dean

      Bob…I bleieve the answer is that the “more potent” gases are a lot less in terms of volume, so dealing with those alone would do little to solve the problem.

      There is no easy, cheap, later way out of this. But I tend to agree with you on hitting the pause button on the regional cap and letting Washington take the lead, which is appears finally ready to do if they can get 60 senators to vote yes.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Well, unfortunately the most potent greenhouse gas is water vapor. That’s right, clouds.

    Hmm, Oregon kind of has more clouds than just about anywhere else in the US.

    OH MY GOD, OREGON contributes to global warming more than anyplace else in the world!!!!!!

    Look, Oregon and Washington entirely eliminating their emissions of carbon will do about as much to change global temperature as me deciding to have a fried egg rather than Cheerios for breakfast.

    For anyone who is really serious about the issue, probably the simplest way to solve the problem is to confront it head on. No small number of AGW proponents have been shown to be complete charlatans. The last ten years have statistically wiped out whatever warming we have seen, thus tending to question the whole basis of AGW, that it was man made.

    Basically the state of the science now is – you guys clean house, get rid of the guys who seem to constantly get caught making up numbers, work on your computer models and get them to actually predict something and actually produce a paper that shows CO2 produces global warming then get back to us.

    Until that time we need to accept whatever global warming that is occurring as natural, rather than man made.

  • Joe

    The only way out is to stop all CO2 emissions NOW! This can be done with wind and solar power quite easily. We must act now to save mother earth. She is overheating like a guy trapped in a sauna. Her heart is racing, her breathing is labored, her pores are sweating, but she is still HOT, HOT, HOT. Too hot.

    How can any thinking adult not see this? Forget the record cold temps most of the nation has been dealing with. They are only a brief respite from the warming that is surely here to stay. Man is evil. Man is bad. Man must stop warming the mother earth that cares for him as best as she can. When man drinks from the teat of mother earth, the milk will be warm and sour.

    Global warming can be bad
    Gobal warming makes me sad
    How can so many peoples deny
    That warming too much will make us die?

    Why can’t they see, feel, and hear
    The end of mother earth so dear?
    She gave us all she ever could
    and we just stoked the fires real good.

    The warming is going to get worse
    Your next ride will be in a hearse
    As death and decay surround us all
    And mother earth becomes a flaming ball.

    Please, peoples, stop right away
    Make the earth safe for another day
    We can do it – yes we can
    We must stop warming for the sake of man.

    Everyone join me and AlGore
    Let’s put and end to global war
    The war against mother earth is what I descibe
    Let’s err on the global warming side

    As we must take action swift and bold
    Before the earth we know no longer can hold
    The massive amounts of CO2
    And other pollutants that make me blue.

    So I say again – everyone take my heed
    And destroy whatever you think we need
    to end the warming that is making earth sick
    And return the cold to the earth real quick.

    • dean

      I suspected snarky “Joe” was really snarky “Jerry.” Now…with that bad poetry…I’m convinced. Welcome back Jerry.

      Rupert…yes…water vapor. That is the dirty little secret the climate scientists have been hiding from us regular folk. Either that or they completely overlooked it. Only they didn’t.

      The thing is, humans aren’t putting more water vapor into the atmosphere. We are putting more CO2. And to the extent that has resulted in warmer oceans and higher evaporation rates, we may also have more water vapor. But since water vapor molecules live something like 18 days in the atmosphere, while CO2 molecules live 50 years to a century there, we can’t solve the problem by building a giant dehumidifier.

      Yes…Oregon and Washington alone don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Neither does Denmark, Germany, France, or Casablanca. What single city, state or nation does amount to a hill of beans? None arguably. Certainly none can solve the problem acting alone. This is why everybody has to do their bit, including us. Hi ho…hi ho…it’s carbon free we go….

      And no…unfortunately for you there is no “you guys clean house…” answer. The house is already clean. Its called science. It ain’t perfect, but it has a time tested process for sorting out physical truth from fictional beliefs. It is a self-regulating system…sort of like free-markets were supposed to be. What we do with the science is worth us debating. But us debating the science is silly.

  • Anonymous

    David,
    Your stunts have been shown o be unethical over and over again.

    Your repeated insulting attempts to obstruct, diminish and disparage the expert skeptic’s scientific work has become a lesson in gross propagandizing.

    Of course the “mere Web site” is not a substitute for science. You made up that suggestion.

    Those web sites are the location of extensive reports and discussions of scientific work for all to study and engage in.

    Your dishonest misrepresenting of the real science work disqualifies you as any credible contributor.

    As for your default position of “real science — is done in peer-reviewed scientific journals”?

    What a hypocrite. Did you “peer review” your dishonest claims that Hurricane Katrina was AGW related?
    Not hardly.
    How about the many other nonsensical claims made by you and your fellow alarmists? They are many and baseless.
    Peer review and publishing is optional for your crusade.

    It is not the skeptic scientists way to make unfounded claims.
    It is the global warming crusade which delivers daily doses of unfounded claims attributing every imaginable observation to AGW.

    You represent bad medicine.

    You are deliberately misrepresenting the web sites. icecap.us has stories from around the globe covering all sorts of research and other climate related topics.
    It’s not a matter of determining that if it’s parked at icecap.us then should we believe it?

    But that’s your dishonest attempt. And you’d rather people not view the substance of the reports and work.

    That makes you a political activist attempting to obstruct and distort.

    Peer review has had all sorts of problems as well by not catching flaws in submitted work.
    Between the flaws not caught and the plethora of baseless claims made by you alarmists the scam is becoming clearer every day.

    Your confidence in establishment Peer review and journals is as irrational.
    I could cite example after example again as you have been previously shown.
    But for what reason? You reject everything and grasp nothing.

    Amazingly you still believe the Mann Hockey Stick theory is valid. A theory that had wrongly removed the medieval warm period and little ice age.

    But you’re also still falsely discounting both those global events even in the face of enormous contradictory scientific evidence.
    Just as you irrationally discount all contradictory science.
    You’re a fanatic activist hell bent on advancing the global warming charade and thrusting upon our society the reckless and harmful polices aimed at reducing Human generated CO2.

    Peer review and Nature Journal are facing embarrassment with their recent publishing of flawed work which reported a warming Antarctica.

    But for someone like you who makes baseless claims without any science, you’ll no doubt easily dismiss these problems as well.

    For the latest, here is what is happening within the AGW scientific community.

    It all started at http://www.climateaudit.org/

    Antarctica warming?

    Which led to this Michael Mann piece,,,at “google news” —— David may want to disregard it because it’s on a web site?

    http://news.google.com/news?btcid=8fffb63511dd67ae

    And the Lawrence Solomon response here:

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/mann-s-conclusions-not-to-be-believed.aspx

    Other troubles with AGW
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/05/fear-and-loathing-for-california/

  • Anonymous

    And now we have dean making baseless claims.

    What are you doing telling people these things? It’s complete BS.

    dean, you can’t point to any science at all that shows human CO2 is warming the oceans. Or causing higher evaporation rates,
    or increasing water vapor or warming the planet.

    You can’t even point to any science which shows CO2 increases “lead” to global warming.

    Yet our real science, ice core samples, shows the opposite. That warming increases natural CO2.

    I don’t want people to listen to you, David or me.

    Of course David doesn’t want anyone to view anything parked on the web unless it’s some of the massive disinformation by AGW alarmists.

    But here is easy watching of clear cut debunking of your fantasies.

    The climate experts have prepared real evidence.
    CO2, human or natural, does NOT drive temperature.
    Proven by science-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

    Never mind that human CO2 is a tiny trace of all CO2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A

    dean , your jibberish is propaganda like David’s.

    Your demonstrating a cult like acceptance and adherance to the fatally flawed AGW alarm.

    There is no problem to be solved by Oregon, Washington, Denmark, Germany, France, or Casablanca.
    Or the globe.

    Your extremist oppostion to fossil fuel use is destructive.

    And debating the science is fine.
    With expert scientists around the globe scrutinizing the many flaws with AGW there is plenty to discuss.

    Stop telling people there is nothing to see.

    • dean

      Yes…er…well…of course there is the You-tube science to consider. I imagine there are some good things on Twitter as well. Who needs peer reviewed journals anymore?

      So sure…whatever you say anonymous person. Real science = ice core samples. That’s pretty much all there is to it. I’m resigning from the cult today.

  • Anonymous

    Every post you make includes fabricated straw man remarks.

    I did not say “Real science = ice core samples. That’s pretty much all there is to it”

    Far from it there is much substance to the extensive real science one can easily view because of the convenience of U-tube and other internet websites.
    Just as you alarmists use in far greater mass.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

    It’s not “You-tube science” dean. The widespread expert scientific scrutiny can be found all around the globe and a lot of it is available on the web.

    Your remarks suggesting only “peer reviewed journals” be accepted is more of your smary and juvenile farce.

    Especially since those peer reviewed journals are being shown to be biased and flawed.

    Stop misrepresenting science.

  • Anonymous

    The rtuth shall set us free of the AGW crusaders

    One thing is certainly true now. There has been no warming for the past 11 years. While Human CO2 rose.
    We’re entering something similar to the 1940 to 1975 cooling while human CO2 soared.

    Here is the chart for RSS, UAH, HadCrut3 and GISS.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/10/updated-11-year-global-temp-anomoly.html

    Double click the chart to enlarge it.

    Also, when we correct for ENSO, the temperature trend remains virtually flat. Here is a chart comparing raw HadCrut3 with ENSO corrected HadCrut3.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/gavin-schmidt-enso-adjustment-for.html

    As you can see, there is virtually no difference. The period in question had 7 ENSO event. 4 were El Ninos and 3 were La Ninas. Taken together they had almost no effect on the trend line.

    • David Appell

      You clearly do not understand what the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is all about.

      Climate change unfolds over decades, not years. It certainly does not mean that every year will be warmer than the previous year, because other factors are in effect as well, including natural, chaotic fluctuations.

      And actually, according to NASA GISS data, 2005 was the warmest year ever, not 1998. In any case the latter was an El Nino year and expected to be warmer — the real question is, why was it as warm as it was, far warmer than previous El Ninos?

      In any case, this current decade is clearly far warmer than the ’90s, which was significantly warmer than the ’80s, which was warmer than the ’70s, etc.

      Looking at the long-term view, there’s no reason to doubt that the globe is warming. Already the last several months have been warmer than the year before.

      • jim karlock

        Hey David, None of this warmest year crap means anything if you cannot prove man is the cause:

        Where is your proof that CO2 can cause warming?
        Where is your proof that it is man’s CO2 causing the increase?
        Where is your proof that any warming will be enough to be dangerous?

        You have been avoiding this key question for months now, so it appears that you have no proof and are trying to cover up with alarm about alleged warm years.

        If man is not the cause, ceasing man’s activities will accomplish nothing. Except make AL Gore richer if we do cap & trade.

        Still waiting
        JK

  • Anonymous

    David,
    Stop your kindergarten propaganda lesson.

    Who do you think you are talking to?

    You the guy who attributed hurricane Katrina to global warming.

    I understand exactly what AGW- climate change is all about.
    More than you do .

    I don’t need you to point out what climate change is.
    And climate change unfolds over centuries not a few decades. You are retarding the conversation.

    Your rhetoric and pretense of understanding is pathetic.

    There are multiple data sets as I already posted ion the graph links above.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/gavin-schmidt-enso-adjustment-for.html

    We are either not warming or we are experiencing insignificant natural variation in climate.

    We can argue all day about that.

    AGW has not been proven, period, by anyone.

    Just because you are a loyal believer hardly makes you credible.
    Quite the contrary, as you have previously admitted to not reading and keeping up with current scientific work.

    This current decade is not clearly “far” warmer than the ’90s.
    That’s a falsehood.
    Looking at the long-term view, there’s plenty of reasons to doubt that the globe is warming, more than insignificant natural variation.

    There’s no science showing otherwise.

    That’s why you never provide any.

    There are many very smart expert scientist around the globe who know better than you.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

    No smoking hot spot
    David Evans | July 18, 2008

    Article from: The Australian
    I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

    FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.

    When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

    The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

    But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

    More,,,,, use link.
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

    Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

    • David Appell

      > You the guy who attributed hurricane Katrina to global warming.

      In fact, I have never attributed such a thing, and I dare you to reproduce such a claim. You can’t. Your claim is a lie.

      No wonder you aren’t man enough to sign your real name.

      • dean

        David…what makes you think anonymous is a man? Could be anything.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        I love it when it gets into the who the real man is on the blog thing.

        Its so weird, on the one hand its kind or porn and hot cause its sort of like a fight and on the other its kind of lame cause its a blog and we both know you two guys mostly wrestle with a big bottle of Pepsi and a bag o’ Cheetoes.

        In other words, the old saw: a blog argument is like the special Olympics, you can win the race, but you are still retarded.

        I would so love it if once, and I mean once, I would read in the papers how two blog guys met real life, got into a brawl, and beat each other to a pulp to decide who the real man was.

        “Blog guy killed over Global Warming debate, Cheetoes spill warrants Haz Mat team call in”

        Either of you guys own a pair of chaps and some sort of weird belt with a lot of studs all over it? Or maybe something more in a Mad Max motif?

        Gosh I feel sweaty now. A picture in my mind that’s painted with a fever, colour me Village People.

      • jim karlock

        *Hey, David!*
        Still waiting for you to show us the proof of you claims.
        You failure to do so suggests that you are lying to us and know it:

        * 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 ”

        Dave, each of these is a definitive statement that is capable of being proven. But despite repeated request, you refuse to provide any proof of their truth.

        Surely a Phd, like yourself can easily provide proof (if it exists).

        If you cannot prove that man’s CO2 is causing warming, you have no reason to advocate man ceasing CO2 emission.

        Thanks
        JK

      • jim karlock

        It was AL Gore that tried to blame Katrina on global warming. That was one of the lies that a British court caught him in. Here are some more.
        (only those lies that went beyond the IPCC lies were counted):

        cpi.cam.ac.uk/gore/pdf/Al%20Gore%20ruling%20-%2010%20Oct.pdf

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
        B e f o r e : MR JUSTICE BURTON
        …..
        All these 9 ‘errors’ that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant’s case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

        The ‘Errors’
        *1. ‘Error’ 11:* Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West
        Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

        *2. ‘Error’ 12:* Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic
        global warming.

        *3. ‘Error’ 18:* Shutting down of the “Ocean Conveyor”.

        *4. ‘Error’ 3:* Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by
        reference to two graphs.

        *5. ‘Error’ 14:* The snows of Kilimanjaro.

        *6. ‘Error’ 16:* Lake Chad etc

        *7. ‘Error’ 8:* Hurricane Katrina.

        *8. ‘Error’ 15:* Death of polar bears.

        *9. ‘Error’ 13:* Coral reefs.

        Thanks
        JK

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Well, the bottom line here is some of what the AGW proponents claimed was true, namely that the debate was over.

    Why was this such a crucial step? Why was Al Gore so insistent upon this single point.

    Simple, crises mentality, lets generate a crises and then foist upon the populace a solution that empowers us, the proponents of the crises, into the maelstrom of its solution. Thus enabling enrichment of the problem solvers for a crises that never was. This much, at least, is not the subject of much debate.

    Anyone want to stand up and argue Al Gore et. al. hasn’t parleyed this little pony into a small fortune? No, I didn’t think so. Anyone want to argue that Al Gore has behaved in a way directly contrary to the dire nature of the “crisis” he claims to be fighting? No, I didn’t think so.

    Do we see any other group of main players behaving in a manner that would indicate they believe this is a genuine crises? The UN? Certainly not, few can forget the private charters to Bali. How about Obama? Well, he just flew Air Force one 150 miles for a meeting or something. How about his supporters? Nope, not there either, more private jets and the BO inaugural than at any Republican shin dig.

    OK, so please, lets not all get cranky when people do the logical thing, if the proponents of the crises do not act like there is a crises, that’s reason for doubt. If those who buttress the crises, the “scientists” whose fortunes depend on government grants, get caught day after day making up numbers, that’s more reason for doubt.

    Finally, if you keep looking out your window and see record snow storms, do a cursory check of the weather and find out the past ten years of record, and not predicted by the infamous computer models, cold weather has wiped out all the warming of the several decades then one thing remains:

    If you do act like those who question AGW are loonies, and you who accept it wholesale are grounded in science, then you probably need to find the nearest “structured environment” and check in.

    If you still like AGW, fine, just please, lets stop getting so frustrated by those who look at the basic facts of the matter and draw a different, more logical conclusion. Rather, spend your time selecting a wardrobe more appropriate to your cause. An “end is near” sandwich board and a large bell to ring in the streets springs to mind.

    You’ve been had.

    It was a con. It was all about a segment of the population getting rich, and you have been duped into thinking it was about any more than that. Al Gore has made his fortune, and windmill makers have secured their useless grants. Suffer the ignominy that goes with faddishness and move on. The rest of us have.

    If not, then the bright side is that given the economy, bell and sandwich board prices have probably fallen sharply.

    • dean

      Rupert…the frustration…if there is a frustration is that you and a dwindling number of others are not “looking at the basic facts of the matter.” You appear to be drawing unsuportable conclusions about the science of global warming based on All Gore’s finances or who flies where on what.

      The science by definition is always incomplete….and there will always be some errors New evidence could someday lead to different conclusions. But it is not a con. A con is what you yourself appear to have fallen for.

      Plus…I don’t drink pepsi or eat cheetos, and no…I don’t even have chaps or a big belt buckle. Part-time farmer bibs yes…chaps no. So take a cold shower.

  • David Appell

    Rupert: that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been known since about 1824.

    And, in fact, its small proportion is responsible for about a 9 C rise in the Earth’s baseline temperature.

    I have yet to see even one skeptic argument that disproves this elementary, 200-yr old fact.

    Would you care to present one? Please be clear — if it'[s within you — about the scientific details.

    Thanks, David

  • Joe’sSon

    Please help my generation. Listen to my Dad. I am tired of painting our roof white. Could someone please help me understand this hockeystick thing. I want to continue playing in my hockey league at Valley Ice Rink. Joe’s Son

  • Anonymous

    Joe and Joe’s son,
    The Hockey Stick thing is covered here

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

    dean,
    Hansen, Mann and the IPCC don’t use your definition of science. While they’ve never proven their AGW theories they don’t care if the never complete their science, they make excuses for their errors and new evidence has not altered their conclusions at all.
    You’re uninformed.

    David,
    I’m so glad you responded as you did. You’re showing how you lack integrity.

    As you have to know I already did show your Katrina hypocrisy in an earlier blog thread.
    I posted your own article where you made that reference to Katrina and AGW.

    Now suppose I do it again here? You’ll?????? What?
    You’ll do exactly what you have done many times when shown material. You will later claim it was not provided.

    You’ve done that over and over again.

    Well here AGAIN is your own article

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/12/environment-climate-change-poznan

    These are your words in your article.

    “Those expecting that we are going to reduce our atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content to 350 parts per million are naïve activists perhaps living off the donations to their organizations. In any case, they are dreaming in la-la land.
    There is no crisis that will change our minds – not heat waves in France, not Katrina, not the disappearance of Arctic ice up north. We want what we want, and our species is lousy at planning for the future.”

    There you are saying weather such as Katrina should be convincing us of AGW and to reduce CO2 emissions.

    Along with your baseless attributing of France’s weather to climate.

    Don’t you know weather is not climate? And climate is not weather?

    David you really are severely lacking integrity.

    • dean

      As for science…here is the on line OED definition:

      “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject”

      Scientists observe nature. They pose theories and test them. They review each other’s work for objective accuracy. And from this a body of knowledge is established and gradually accepted as the best explanation. That body of knowledge is never complete. What Hansen and Mann and the IPCC say is given the body of knowledge, they have little or no doubt about the link between increased greenhouse gasses, released through human activity, and the warming of the planet over the past century. And they and many others predict that if we keep loading our very thin atmosphere with greenhouse gasses, warming will continue, with potentially dire consequences for our kids, their kids, and many other of God’s creatures.

      The body of work is never complete. Geneticists are still confirming and expanding on Darwin’s theory of evolution. Physicists are still learning more about gravitation. No one has ever seen gravity, but we all believe it exists because the evidence says so.

      What you seem to confuse is the call to action, that we no longer wait for further evidence, as a statement that no more study or knowledge is required. I don’t know anyone who says that. But the present state of the science is what it is, and as of today AGW is the accepted theory among actual climate scientists. What we choose to do with the knowledge is politics and economics….not climate science. But your side insists on arguing the science by asking for absolute proof, which is not possible when it comes to predicting the future. Or you point to short term blips…hey its snowing outside…or hey…it did not warm the past 5 years as much as those silly scientists thoght it would…

      Meanwhile Austrailia burns, the planet warms, the oceans rise, and we keep stalling.

      If so-called skeptics can offer an alternative theory for the current warming of the planet and convince the body of climate scientists that it makes more sense than AGW, then great. Until then….the rest of us will support meaured efforts to wean modern society off of carbon-based fuels. If you want to persist in thinking us fools or members of a cult…fine. But that is on you. It does not advance your argument one iota. It just makes you seem a frustrated person with no good argument.

  • Jerry

    These warming blogs always bring out the crazies. It is pretty funny. All the typing going on and posting going on have contributed to warming in a big way.
    There is no stopping it now.
    I feel for mother earth.
    There is no hope.

  • Anonymous

    dean,

    You’re out of line and distorting.
    Why continue with describing what science is when Hansen, Mann and company are not following it?

    Their theories are not tested at all. That’s the problem. In fact when flaws are raised which question their theories they go out of their way to avoid testing them.
    Yet here you are now comparing AGW to the certainty of gravity?
    What a complete fraud you are.

    No one has ever seen proof of AGW and the evidence does work either.

    I am not confusing the call to action.
    Stop making up things.

    There are many actual climate scientists and related experts who flat out reject AGW. For very good scientific reasons.

    The opposing science is extensive.
    Not simply demands for AGW to be proven .
    You made that up.

    It is not my side who excessively and repeatedly points to weather observations and attributes them to AGW.

    Sure skeptics raise various weather trends and records. Why not? And that is hardly the sum total of the contradicting science.

    That’s your spin.

    But here you attribute weather in Australia to AGW and lie that AGW ocean rise has occurred.
    Just as David falsely attributes the short term weather of Katrina to AGW.
    You like David are a hypocrite and disinformation hack.

    Expert skeptics have presented alternative theories for the current warming. You are lying about that as well.
    They have fully demonstrated the natural cycles, fluctuations and insignificant warming cycle we recently were observing.
    They have shown the Mann Hockey Stick theories that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice age cycles were regional NOT to be the case. Extensive science has shown otherwise and that both events were global.
    This greatly contradicts the assumptions which the IPCC modeling claims we are in unprecedented warming.
    We are not. The Mann theory is bunk and the IPCC modeling fatally flawed.
    That’s science testing theories and seeing them fail.

    You’re a anti-car, central planning, enviro fanatic who’s on board the AGW train because it justifies your insane agenda that’s peddled by Sam Adams, Rex Burkholder, Metro, the Governor et al.

    You’ll spread your propaganda here on every thread that’s related to your fanatatasisim.

    • dean

      Well I guess that settles it then. Have a nice life….whomever and whatever you are.

  • John in Oregon

    I see the discussion is quite lively with a wide number of well reasoned and documented comments questioning the basis for “Global Warming”. On the pro side Dean and Dr. David Appell present arguments in favor, attempting to rehabilitate Michael Mann of Hockey Stick and the Antarctica Is Warming fame.

    All in the face of a good kerfluffle involving weather stations Gill, Harry, and snow caves. A regular pair of Keystone Cops, not yet noticed by the US legacy media, Mann and James Hansen are now the butt of English and Canadian media for data manipulation.

    Meanwhile I would like to introduce a different prospective. *The Collapse of Climate Policy and the Sustainability of Climate Science.* Recent comments by Roger Pielke Jr. converged with some thoughts I had. I summarize his comment with edits for space, fair use, and clarity here.

    *”* The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this fact you will be very soon. The collapse is not due to the cold winter in places you may live or see on the news. It is not due to years without an increase in global temperature. It is not due to the overturning of the scientific consensus on the role of human activity in the global climate system.

    It is due to the fact that policy makers and their political advisors … can no longer avoid the reality that targets … are simply not achievable with the approach to climate change that has been at the focus of policy for over a decade. Policies that are obviously fictional and fantasy are frequently subject to a rapid collapse.

    The current shrillness that has been put on display by many politically-active climate scientists … can be explained as a result of this looming collapse, though many will confuse the shrillness and feeding-frenzy as a cause of the collapse. Let me explain.

    If you think that the current consensus on climate politics rests on a foundation called the scientific consensus, you might see signs of weakening in the political consensus as … evidence that the scientific consensus must be itself weakening… [O]r if you’d prefer, that people are making it look to be weakening, regardless of the reality.

    The climate scientists … have taken their battle to the arenas of politics, waging a scorched earth campaign of bullying, name calling, threats, and obnoxiously absurd appeals to authority.

    The skeptics think they are unraveling a mythical scientific consensus imposed by an evil elite, while the climate scientists think they are waging an all out battle of righteousness against know-nothing hordes. They are both wrong.

    Battles over climate science are a side show, increasingly looking like a freak show, observed simply for the spectacle.

    Climate politics is collapsing because of political realities, and not real or perceived changes in how people see the science…

    However, for climate science I fully expect things to get worse before they get better, simply because the most vocal, politically active climate scientists have shown no skill at operating in the political arena. The skeptics could not wish for a more convenient set of opponents.

    I don’t expect everyone reading this to accept my assertion that the political consensus surrounding climate is in collapse… I will spend very little additional time on the self-destruction of the politically active subset of the climate science community … I know that many won’t accept my assertion that debates putatively about climate science are largely irrelevant to the current state of climate politics.

    And for those fighting to address the sustainability of climate science in this mess, good luck, you will need it to avoid getting pushed onto one side of the Manichean battle and becoming part of the carnage. *”*

    — Roger Pielke Jr. —

    I have not yet totally digested Pielkes comments, although at this point I have three thoughts.

    First I find Steve McIntyres’ call for some form of Generally Recognized Accounting Principals for climate science productive.

    Second I believe Pielke is correct. The Collapse of Political Climate Policy is pending.

    Third I wonder whether DC and Salem politicians will complete their bull headed rush to Economic Armageddon before or after the collapse.

    =====================

    In support of the Political Climate Policy Collapse I have noticed these recent happenings.

    *O* California State Assemblyman Dan Logue is the 3rd District has introduced a bill to suspend AB32 — the so-called California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

    *O* Connecticut state representative John Piscopo, has introduced a measure “to repeal global warming legislation that was passed based on the assumption that global warming is caused by human action.”

    *O* In the South David Sanders writing a series of articles for the Arkansas News Bureau on the intimidation tactics and belittling words of those in global warming alarmism. Sanders that the Arkansas regulatory costs both in terms of dollars from the state budgets and lost revenue, and economic consequences in terms of lost jobs and lost economic development, were “dramatically underestimated.”

  • dean

    Those are 3 pretty weak reeds to hang your hopes on John.

  • Anonymous

    David and dean are two left wing activists pretending to be knowledgable, objecitve and well reasoned.

    They are not.
    That’s why they use the same dishonest methods repeatedly.

    The strawman, diverting, misrepresenting, blatant faleshoods and the biased bromides from the left wing are their tools.

    Anyone can simply google global warming and come out with a better understanding of AGW and how it’s a theory in shambles without the
    scientific evidence these two try and propogate.

    They appear to be on some self assigned mission to peddle the BS one can find in Al Gore’s and Bill Bradbury’s presentations.

    The AGW crusade has been making many bizzare claims that attribute, without science, to AGW, every environmental observation their troops can dream up.
    This is what fanatics do. They’ll fabricate anything with the belief that their mission justifies the means.
    David has been peddling global warming whoppers on various blogs for some time.
    dean peddles all the land use, transportation, education, energy and global warming nonsense the loony left cooks up.
    He’s got all all the stupid central planner’s jargon down and pretends to be offering his wisdom.
    He has only the loony left agenda that places people, their property and their livelihood behind the never ending liberal pursuit of utopia.

    • dean

      You have not suceeded in killing the messenger yet. But keep trying.

      Given that the “loony left” now controls the White House, most governorships and state legislatures, the entire mainstream media, Europe, the UN, the IPCC, all major universities, and so forth, does it ever occur to you, whomever you are or aren’t, that what you are raging about is the broad mid spectrum of American and world opinion, and not just some fringe?

      No…I didn’t think so.

  • Anonymous

    dean,

    Yeah loony.

    How about new 100 -150 from top of bank setback environmental zones for all exisitng urban streams and drainage ditches prohibiting any contruction, additions, deck or sheds?

    And new fence limitations to make them wildlife friendly. Maximum 4 ft high and 1 foot off the ground.
    Is that a fence?

    Loony.

    I could cite 100 examples of your loony left just in this state.

  • John in Oregon

    Dean, I think your avoidance of Pielke’s comments shows your discomfort. Boiled down Pielke’s concept is simple.

    *When political supporters begin to see that Global Warmest goals are impossibly insane, the solutions are nuts, and the results irrational, then support can collapse under its own dead weight.*

    Do I expect my three examples to pass? Not really, that wasn’t the point.

    Take the repeal of California AB32 for example. The California elite are true believers. They have run the state into bankruptcy. They have driven business and industry out of the state. They have turned Silicon valley now a silicon dessert.

    Like rats raised in darkness, blind to the disaster they have caused, in the light of reality the politicos lash out at those that question them. And yet, California State Assemblyman Dan Logue had the courage to propose repeal of AB32.

    I asked *whether Salem politicians will complete their bull headed rush to Economic Armageddon before or after the collapse?* Any proof you might ask? Well yeah there is. Not minutes after I posted!

    News leaked out about Governor Kulongoskis’ House Bill 2186 to be passed under a state of emergency. The bill would authorize the Environmental Quality Commission to implement enforcement regulations to prohibit the sale and distribution of aftermarket motor vehicle parts if alternatives are available that “decrease greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.”

    Supposedly the bill requires the use of original manufacturer’s specifications of Road Tires. But the vague language and broad interpretation of the bill would affect everything from increased wheel size to custom exhaust systems, from engine performance upgrades to audio and visual enhancements.

    In short the Environmental Quality Commission bureaucracy would evaluate all automotive related products. This product can be sold, that product not sold, as the bureaucrat walks down the isle, checking each product and making a list. Checking it twice.

    Does this include used parts from the local wrecking yard? Who knows, but no bureaucrat hesitates to control more.

    About the emergency nature of the bill. I’m sure that has nothing to do with the fact that the emergency label prohibits referral to the people by referendum. Does it?

    Of course it does. Governor Kulongoski knows full well that it wouldn’t take 10 days to collect the signatures to refer it to the ballot.

    This is the poster child of a solution that is just NUTS. I mean an Oregon Bureaucrat going through and approving the auto store inventory is just insane.

    • anonymous 2

      Actually Dean. Neither avoidence nor discomfort. When AGW critics come up with an alternative theory that is testable and it holds up that is the day AGW crashes down. Just like evolution or gravity or any ohter scientific theory.

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)