Current alarmist, incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change is a fraud. Junk science is infesting the media, the Internet and public schools, affecting public health, squandering your tax dollars, poisoning sick people and miseducating our children.  Pseudoscientific claptrap abounds. Quackery is now found everywhere.  Educate, inform yourself, take a science class. See CO2 and Climate Change http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html 

 Unfortunately, we can no longer trust the media for information, as they no longer assign "Reporters" that investigate then report on a subject, most just parrot or reinterpret the information to fit their bias or their employers bias and then publish (this is called yellow journalism), thusly we have a world of disinformation and junk science.

by DrColes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 10:50:19 AM

  (0+)

Food for thought - less than 5% of the sunlight that reaches Venus actually makes it through the dense cloud cover and atmosphere, yet it is twice as hot as Mercury.  This fact doesn't seem to fit into the idea that Venus is an example of global warming gone awry.  How the hell would the scientists the author cites have any clue whether venus has ever been temperate?  Also, Mars is undergoing a warming period of it's own, and it barely has an atmosphere.  There is an example than can be twisted to any theory.

by Ben (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 11:22:12 AM

  (0+)

Cockburn's problem is that he has, at least to me, a split personality. He is a brilliant analyst of the evils of capitalism and imperialism, but at the same time he has often been a naive fellow traveler for their crimes and agendas. For example, he has always lambasted any criticism of the Warren Commission whitewash that Oswald acted alone as paranoid delusion. Now E. Howard Hunt's just released "Deathbed Confession" tape by his son is accentuating what many of us have long realized, that Cockburn is the delusional one. Hunt's tape is naming names, including LBJ's and his own, as being in on the assassination. If anybody was an insider as to the hidden machinations of the CIA and government in the 60's, it was Hunt.

Cockburn also is in denial about Peak Oil, putting himself in the same company as Exxon-Mobil and the "infinite resources of Nature" myth-makers, and is extremely antagonistic toward the 9/11 Truth Movement, dedicating some of CounterPunch to "debunking" it with theories that are as strained and convoluted as any, if not more so, than those he attempts to debunk. So again he serves the Empire that he hates so much by helping to maintain the cover-up over the very linchpin of the entire War on Terror.

Finally, he thinks he is being the hard-nosed realist here on global warming, as if the scientific method is the equivalent of the rantings of Medieval Millenarians. So again he ends up supporting the self-destructive agendas of Capitalism and Empire, of Bush/Cheney and Exxon in particular, as they continue their policies of unsustainability and alienation from Nature.

Every week now global warming researchers are discovering, to their dismay, that the evidence and consequences of global warming are exceeding their worst predictions, yet Cockburn smuggly ignores this as mere paranoid delusion. Cockburn, however, is himself not grounded in reality; he is floating about in his all too clever world of distrust and unresolved internal conflicts. Maybe it has to do with his father being harassed by the British authorities for decades as a Communist, as a member of the "International Communist Conspiracy", that sets him off when he hears people talking about conspiracies. I don't know. But he is to be read with huge grains of salt on all these matters of such great importance.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 12:42:17 PM

  (0+)

Problemo numero uno with the Global Warming(TM) hysteria crowd:

They never establish the baseline. You're a PHD. You should be able to tell us how much NATURAL WARMING would have occured since the little ice age 1450-1850. To fail to account for nature's own contribution to warming, you put the entire effect on "man." Until you acknowledge the very real and very natural temperature variability (instead of insuling our intelligence that the temperature should somehow be static at "pre industrial" level), you don't have a legitimate argument.

Problemo dos: They overstate the amount of alleged warming.

Temperature records vary. It's difficult to get an accurate historical reading, and proxy measurements must be relied on (imperfect). We also have the "heat island effect" altering the temperature in the positive direction locally around cities and whatever monitoring stations are located near them. Dr. Fred Singer has stated that if you correct for the heat island bias, then 1940 was the hottest period of the last century, not now.

3. You mock the contribution of water vapor in the equaiton? That was quite unscientific and failing to account for the most heat trapping greenhouse gas on planet earth.

While computer models do some attempted calculations, they are not accurate enough to predict the el nino cycle. They are primitive and not to be relied upon for predictions 50 years in the future. Valid criticism of computer modelling is ignored by the hysterical.

4. This is actually one of the coldest periods in the last 540 million years! The amount of natural warming and cooling is staggering, and obviously not dependent upon mankind. This is never acknowledged.

http://tinyurl.com/3bekvt

Is it too much to ask that you prove your case in the name of "science" if you want to take over the entire earth's energy sector and put us all on a Stalinistic rationing regime? George Monbiot would have us cut our petroleum usage by 91% immediately! And he acknowledges that the science is so inaccurate they can't get meaningful measurements of CO2 contribution to temperature. Based on that case, it seems he should be fitted for a straightjacket.

I don't appreciate the condescending attitude that skeptics to your power play are to be treated like children. The CO2 DOES lag the temperature changes by centuries, meaning that some OTHER force has the power to initiate climate changes on planet earth without using CO2 to do it. Until you account for that OTHER force, your theory is horseshit.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
click here

by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 5:05:28 PM

  (0+)

In reading your comment, I was struck by your statement in one paragraph that "Temperature records vary. It's difficult to get an accurate historical reading, and proxy measurements must be relied on (imperfect)" versus this statement in a later paragraph: "This is actually one of the coldest periods in the last 540 million years! The amount of natural warming and cooling is staggering, and obviously not dependent upon mankind."

If historical accuracy is so difficult, how can you be so confident about that later statement? Actually, one of the main tools scientists have for attempting to gauge the past in terms of environmental conditions is through ice core samples drilled in frozen regions such as the Arctic, which they are relatively confident about in analyzing. Scientists have not yet been able to extend their samplings to even a million years ago if memory serves me correctly, so whatever you are saying about 540,000 million years ago on up to today is rather conjectural. Certainly we are cooler than when the earth was a ball of molten lava, but that's not very relevant to the very small temperature range in which life forms can exist. Within these limitations, the vast majority of scientists are duly alarmed that we are headed for our upper limit as I write. So are we to sit and fiddle while the planet approaches meltdown or take their advice and cut carbon emissions? Would you rather have us shrug our shoulders and quip that this is just a cyclic thing. Don't worry about it?

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 6:04:22 PM

  (0+)

You might try learning something about physics, in particular about Venus' atmospheric physics. for a starter, try the article on the Venusian atmosphere in wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus . In reading it pay careful attention to this paragraph: "The enormous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere creates a strong greenhouse effect, trapping solar energy and raising the surface temperature to around 500 °C, hotter than any other planet in the solar system, even that of Mercury despite being located further out from the Sun and receiving only 25% of the solar energy that Mercury does. The average temperature on the surface is above the melting points of the metals lead (327 °C), tin (232 °C), and zinc (420 °C)."

Now *think* about that for a while.  What makes Venus hotter than Mercury???

As to the Martian warming story, I've addressed it already.  
Recall that my citation above at http://www.livescience.com/ environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html .  It has a good discussion of the solar heating issue with respect to Mars which reflects the views of the world's scientific community on this issue.

Remember that the off the wall statements about financial interests producing junk science by one of the posters here conflates that one one side of this issue you have, essentially, every single scientist on Earth, and on the other you have a handfull of corporate paid shills and the odd genuine dissenter who is used as a 'useful idiot' by these corporate interests. This type of argument tactic was perfected by the tobacco companies in confusing the public about the dangers of smoking. It is garbage.

Generally, the anti-global warming comments here reflect a lack of scientific knowledge, coupled with an evident ideological bent, pechant for straw man arguments, etc. So, in the end all that can be done is to just let the readers decide for themselves.

Further deponet sayeth not.

by Dr. Michael P Byron (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 1:00:20 AM

  (0+)

yeah, wikipedia is the place to get information on physics.   Only a fraction of the sunlight reaches the planet, the rest is reflected off into space - hence the brightness.  Now, if our planet was covered in dense cloud cover for millenia, earth would be an ice world - no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.  Court's not out on the history of Venus - you obviously subscribe to the idea that all the planets formed the same time from a cloud of dust surrounding the sun.  However, there is more and more evidence year after year that theory is obsolete (such as moons in the solar system orbiting the opposite direction, even nasa scientists have begun to warm up to the idea of capture).  If Venus is a far younger planet, or a planet like body captured long after the earth was formed - the extreme heat and volcanic activity present could be the source of the heat (as well as the electrical interactions with the sun - of which there is more and more research every day!)

I know that humans pollute the earth, we affect the earth - but until we fully understand the science of what's going on here, I'll refer to the conditions we're experiencing as CLIMATE CHANGE - because that is a fact.

However, if the idea of global warming gets people to quit burning oil - good.  It should be reason enough to stop simply because it's finite, and millions of people have died because of it.  I just hope when we have a country full of nuclear plants, our water is expensive and privatized, and we're paying incredible prices for GAS and ethanol 10 years from now, we don't find out Global Warming is bullshit, and we've done nothing to prepare for what's really going on.

by Ben (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments) on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 11:31:26 AM

  (0+)

Professor see http://www.sugarcitycane.com

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 7:28:25 AM

  (0+)

Interesting indeed! 

What about net carbon emissions?

Also what about net EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). It is probably negative for corn grown in N. America. Do you have any idea what your net EROEI is?

Mike Byron

by Dr. Michael P Byron (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 10:36:53 AM

  (0+)

 It was commented upon above that computer models are not not highly accurate, with the inference that we may be overestimating the threat from global warming. Well, this cuts both ways, for computer models can also underestimate a threat. Read the following MSNBC to see what I mean. By the way, the article doesn't point out that an Arctic devoid of ice will dramatically increase sea temperatures over time, for the dark waters of the deep ocean will absorb much more sunlight, instead of what we have now, sunlight relected back into space by the white layers of ice.

Arctic Sea Ice Melting Much Faster, Experts Find
    MSNBC News

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050107EA.shtml

    Monday 30 April 2007

Study indicates that UN reports on warming are too conservative.

    Arctic summer sea ice is melting at a significantly faster rate than projected by even the most advanced computer models, according to a new study that concludes recent U.N. reports on warming underestimate the changes in the Arctic.

    The shrinking of summertime ice is about 30 years ahead of the climate model projections, researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center report in the online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters.

    The U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had used data from the computer models to earlier this year release two reports on the state of Earth's climate. Citing earlier studies, the IPCC estimated that the Arctic could be free of summer sea ice somewhere between 2050 and 2100.

    The new study, NSIDC researcher and lead author Julienne Stroeve said in a statement, "suggests that current model projections may in fact provide a conservative estimate of future Arctic change, and that the summer Arctic sea ice may disappear considerably earlier than IPCC projections."

    NCAR scientist and co-author Marika Holland added that "while the ice is disappearing faster than the computer models indicate, both observations and the models point in the same direction: the Arctic is losing ice at an increasingly rapid pace and the impact of greenhouse gases is growing."

    While computer models are built to look forward, the authors ran them from a 1953 starting point and simulated, on average, a loss in September ice cover of 2.5 percent per decade through 2006.

    The researchers then compared that to data taken from recent satellite measurements, as well as aircraft and ship reports, and found that the September ice actually declined at about 7.8 percent per decade.

    Several possible factors were cited for the disparity:

• The models assume that half of the ice loss was due to increased greenhouse gases, but the study indicates those gases might play a significantly larger role.
  
  
• Several models overestimate the thickness of the present-day sea ice.
  
  
• The models might fail to fully capture changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation that transport heat to polar regions.

    A world without summer sea ice won't raise sea levels because that ice is already on water, not land. But it would have a huge impact on polar bears and other wildlife, as well as subsistence hunters. On the other hand, it would also open shorter sea routes, facilitating commerce.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 11:50:51 AM

  (0+)

"If historical accuracy is so difficult, how can you be so confident about that later statement?"

Because giant cold-blooded lizards roamed the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

"Actually, one of the main tools scientists have for attempting to gauge the past in terms of environmental conditions is through ice core samples drilled in frozen regions such as the Arctic, which they are relatively confident about in analyzing."

No sh*t Sherlock. That's where they determined 800+ years of lag between temperature rise and CO2 rise. In other words, CO2 changes have never initiated a temperature change in history (past 640,000 years anyway), and have always followed the temperature change. The ice core data does not help your case.

"So are we to sit and fiddle while the planet approaches meltdown or take their advice and cut carbon emissions?"

Well, there's a pretty good chance that cutting emissions will do nothing to impact global temperature. One camp of scientists predicts catastrophe. Another group predicts gradual flucutations. The prudent thing to do would be to find out what's really going on, because...

These inconclusive arguments have been used for political and economic gain. The solutions they propose have the potential for massively more harm than good. Keep that in mind.

Byron keeps citing an article that says, "Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said." This confirms sun output having a direct relationship on global temperature.

They then use some shaky science indeed.

"New estimates of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum suggest it was only fractions of a percent, and perhaps not enough to create the global cooling..."

The CO2 hysteria is over FRACTIONS OF A PERCENT OF OUR ATMOSPHERE!

CO2 is 0.54% of atmosphere. Most of that is naturally occurring. They discount fractions of a percent of sun power (24/7 heating half the planet), yet claim that fractions of a percent of one gas = Armageddon. This is science with blinders on.

CO2 is also PLANT FOOD making all life on earth possible. These proposed numbers for the level of CO2 that are allegedly optimal are completely arbitrary and pulled out of people's asses. They have no idea what an optimal level of CO2 would be in earth's atmosphere, none, nada, zilch.

CO2 plays a complex part in the life cycle, and that could account for it not having a linear or directly attributed correlation to temperature. If more plant life grows, how does that effect the temperature? Does anyone know? These are complex questions.

Byron ignores the substance of the many valid points I have made, and he resorts to ad hominem, rather than rebuttal. I thought the whole point of this exercise was a scientific rebuttal? If you can't acknowlege the other side has a valid point, you are not debating, and you are not honest.

Hey Byron -- The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% Carbon Dioxide! The atmosphere of earth is 0.54% Carbon Dioxide. Can you pick a less apt comparison!?

You'd have to admit that current global science does not have all the answers. You've opted for maximum caution (but have you stopped driving a petroleum powered vehicle?), and that's fine. But you are basing that on incomplete information. And that's a fact.

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 2:16:27 PM

  (0+)

Hey John,

Making suppositions about the distant past is always tricky. For example, you are, I take it, assuming that dinosaurs were cold-blooded creatures and hence needed a rather warm environment to survive in. However, note this excerpt from Wikipedia, which indicates many dinosuars may not have even been cold-blooded:

"After dinosaurs were discovered, paleontologists first posited that they were ectothermic creatures: "terrible lizards" as their name suggests. This supposed cold-bloodedness implied that dinosaurs were relatively slow, sluggish organisms, comparable to modern reptiles, which need external sources of heat in order to regulate their body temperature. Dinosaur ectothermy remained a prevalent view until Robert T. "Bob" Bakker, an early proponent of dinosaur endothermy, published an influential paper on the topic in 1968.

Modern evidence indicates that dinosaurs thrived in cooler temperate climates, and that at least some dinosaur species must have regulated their body temperature by internal biological means (perhaps aided by the animals' bulk). Evidence of endothermism in dinosaurs includes the discovery of polar dinosaurs in Australia and Antarctica (where they would have experienced a cold, dark six-month winter), the discovery of dinosaurs whose feathers may have provided regulatory insulation, and analysis of blood-vessel structures that are typical of endotherms within dinosaur bone. Skeletal structures suggest that theropods and other dinosaurs had active lifestyles better suited to an endothermic cardiovascular system, while sauropods exhibit fewer endothermic characteristics. It is certainly possible that some dinosaurs were endothermic while others were not. Scientific debate over the specifics continues."

So, the blanket assumption that the millions of years of the dinosaur era were exceedingly warm and tropical ipso facto is just that, an assumption. It is also my understanding that the archaelogical evidence is not supporting traditional theories terribly well. So there may have been more seasonal and temperature variation than we think. Certainly there were hot periods, just as certainly there were cold periods. And the last 500,000 thousand years has fluctuated between shorter warm periods (interglacials) and longer ice ages on a pretty cyclic basis.

What there is no doubt about is that there is a direct correlation between the level of greenhouse gases in the atmopshere and the mean temperature of the planet. In the ice core records, ice ages have recorded less greenhouse gases, warm eras more. Scientists say that without the rather small percentage of greenhouses gases in our atmosphere, miniscule compared to oxygen and nitrogen, the temperature of the planet would be some 60 degrees F. cooler! So, a little bit of water vapor, methane or CO2 goes a long, long way. So I wouldn't belittle the small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. If the ratio of CO2 to temperature warming is that dynamic, then it will not take a large increase in the former to strongly effect the latter.

On Venus, where we have an example of a runaway CO2/water vapor effect, the surface temperature is  some 500 degrees Celsius, which will melt lead! Professor Wolfson of Middlebury College states that without an atmosphere, Venus's temperature would be about 55 degrees Celsius.

Until the Industrial Era beginning in the 19th Century, the fluctuations in temperatures as well as CO2 content in the atmosphere were indeed Nature and cosmic driven, and certainly those processes still have their effects today, but the huge daily output of industrially created CO2 is a real wild card threatening to throw everything out of balance, especially as positive feedback loops kick in. It will only take temperature rises of a few degrees Celsius to dramatically effect climate and weather globally.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 6:26:59 PM

  (0+)

Originally posted here.

John,

I think your blog is great but I must contend with your latest comments on climate change. I will specifically address each of your arguments below.

Can you prove that the film used fraudulent data to promote a lie?

Professor Clark sent me an article from GeoScience Canada

(attached), with sun data up to 2003, which states:

"Moreover, inferred and direct observational data of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) flux yield a record that can explain 80% of the variance in the centennial temperature trend (Foukal, 2002). Therefore, celestial phenomena may have been therefore the principal driving factor of climate variability and global temperature even in the recent past."

If 80% of variance can be blamed on sun, still no one has proven to me that the other 20% can be blamed on CO2. And it shouldn't be that hard to prove a case with such massive funding and numerous adherents.

The reason Gore refused to address these many issues is because he did not present an honest case and he had no qualms about misleading on the science. To say that Gore is just a spokesman is also misleading. He's the one in congress giving a thumbs up for new nuclear plants, parroted by all the top presidential candidates.

Article continues:

"As a final point, the GCMs predict that the most prominent centennial temperature rise should have been evident in the higher troposphere. Yet, the balloon and satellite data (Fig. 17) do not show any clear temporal temperature trend (IPCC, 2001). Instead, their interannual temperature oscillations correlate clearly with the solar irradiance and CRF, with "no vestiges of the anthropogenic signal" (Kärner, 2002).

All this favours the proposition that

celestial phenomena may have been the primary climate driver even for the most recent past."

The cumulative effect of paving over the world and building structures could have as much to do with rising temperatures at the suface than does carbon dioxide. There are many factors.

"At current atmospheric levels, CO2

is in fact an essential commodity for

propagation of life on this planet."-Ján VeizerOttawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Universityof Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5 Canada &

Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und

Geophysik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum,

Bochum, Germany: veizer@science.uottawa.ca.

You claim that the dissenters are almost all oil company shills. But, were they dissenters first, who were sponsored because of their findings? It seems logical that the petro industry would seek out such people and champion them. It doesn't mean they are lying

I'm still looking for the truth. Quantify just how much damage CO2 is actually doing. As far as I can tell, these are all far distant projections manipulated in computer models.

When Gore presented that fraudulent chart, he damaged his case. Most people wouldn't notice. But, if as you say:

"Climatologists are fully aware, and have been for quite some time, that increases in atmospheric CO2 content have lagged the commencement of past long-term natural warming periods. This is not, as many claim, some big revelation disproving the warming effect of CO2."

But it certainly conflicts with the general understanding today, and Gore's implication in his film. If this was known, then Gore should never have misled in such a fashion. It also adds gravitas to the solar theory.

When you say it "fuels" them, this is not necessarily proven either. The net effect of CO2 is not definitively known. All the studies use weasel words to avoid this.

The word "exacerbates" could be true. I have no problem attributing a minor influence to CO2. That's not what is being discussed popularly however. The average person has no idea about the sun changes and the "cosmic rays" altering cloud cover. They think CO2 causes warming, period. That is what is written every day in numerous newspaper articles.

The reality is that CO2 has a minor role, perhaps, but it is also required for life to exist on earth. What would be the problem if we didn't have enough CO2 to have effective photosynthesis? Does that factor into any of these people's arguments, ever?

It appears to me (still), that we are at the mercy of the sun. If the sun decides to cool it, then the planet will cool it, regardless of all the hot air expended down here talking about it. If the sun cools it significantly, we are going to wish there was MORE CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

I know that's not relevant to the current trend of warming, but it is part of the equation.

ys, based on pure speculation and innuendo."

But this is EXACTLY what you just did in regard to the dissenters!

"Is Al Gore conducting climate studies and writing scientific reports? Is Al Gore even influencing climate reports at all? No. He is simply a spokesperson."

He's worse. He's making nuclear power feasible. He's making ethanol subsidies feasible. He's giving the Democrats an issue other than stopping imperialsm (which they have no intention of doing, because they are imperialists as well). He's taking attention away from many, many other problems and making carbon dioxide the next Hitler. Half of politics is distraction.

""Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned."

Bullshit. No one disputes Carl Wunsch's statement about the warmer oceans emitting more CO2. Quantify your argument.When it came to the science regarding Wunsch, you simply brought up some Entertainment Weekly styled fulff. The substance was not challenged. Warmer oceans MUST have a significant role there.

Do you see how unsettled this matter is?I fully expected this. But I went with my gut, because there seems to be a better explanation. The explanation is still relevant and not so cut and dry as the CO2 argument pretends to be.I do not believe that those sun studies are fake or that the people behind them are lying. I've seen several places that corroborate more solar activity recently, and in this century. That theory is not so easily discredited by shouting "Exxon!" repeatedly.I'm getting ready to move into part 3, and some of what you say will need to be investigated. Thanks.

My second response, originally posted two weeks ago, was as follows:

John,

Second response.

"Can you prove that the film used fraudulent data to promote a lie?"

Again, as reported by The Independent, the film "was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabeled or just plain wrong."

"One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labeled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.

...This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists...[and] the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

... Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument.

Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years."

Anyone who is willing to distort the facts in such a blatant fashion is not a credible source of information. Can you imagine if the IPCC used "a little fluff" to support their claims? There would be all hell to pay!

"Professor Clark sent me an article from GeoScience Canada (attached), with sun data up to 2003, which states:

"Moreover, inferred and direct observational data of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) flux yield a record that can explain 80% of the variance in the centennial temperature trend (Foukal, 2002). Therefore, celestial phenomena may have been therefore the principal driving factor of climate variability and global temperature even in the recent past."

If 80% of variance can be blamed on sun, still no one has proven to me that the other 20% can be blamed on CO2. And it shouldn't be that hard to prove a case with such massive funding and numerous adherents."

I have seen this paper recycled several times now. I do not have the time or the expertise to go through the whole thing point-by-point. I will, however, gladly address any particular facet of the paper that you find worthy of discussion, as I have done below in regards to the temperature trends in the troposphere.

Keep in mind that this paper is a single work by a single author, raising arguments that have been addressed and taken into consideration by the scientific community. This article will help explain why such views have been dismissed. Feel free to pass it on to Mr. Clark.

"To say that Gore is just a spokesman is also misleading. He's the one in congress giving a thumbs up for new nuclear plants, parroted by all the top presidential candidates."

I meant that Al Gore has no influence over scientific research.

Thousands of scientists from highly respected institutions such as the IPCC and the NAS have reached an overwhelming consensus and Al Gore had nothing to do with it.

"Article continues:

"As a final point, the GCMs predict that the most prominent centennial temperature rise should have been evident in the higher troposphere. Yet, the balloon and satellite data (Fig. 17) do not show any clear temporal temperature trend (IPCC, 2001). Instead, their interannual temperature oscillations correlate clearly with the solar irradiance and CRF, with "no vestiges of the anthropogenic signal" (Kärner, 2002). All this favours the proposition that celestial phenomena may have been the primary climate driver even for the most recent past."

This, like several arguments presented in the Veizer paper and in the film, is outdated and inaccurate. As the University of Washington reported in 2004:

"For years the debate about climate change has had a contentious sticking point -- satellite measurements of temperatures in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere where most weather occurs, were inconsistent with fast-warming surface temperatures.

But a team led by a University of Washington atmospheric scientist has used satellite data in a new and more accurate way to show that, for more than two decades, the troposphere has actually been warming faster than the surface. The new approach relies on information that better separates readings of the troposphere from those of another atmospheric layer above, which have disguised the true troposphere temperature trend."

I am currently unable to find the link, but I know for a fact this information had been discovered in at least one earlier study. Furthermore, Live Science provided additional confirmation in 2005:

"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed."

Regardless of these studies, this issue continues to pop up, all thanks to well-funded groups and individuals trying to cast doubt on climate change on behalf of big oil. All these skeptics have to do is read the latest IPCC report, which states:

"New analyses of balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates that are similar to those of the surface temperature record and are consistent within their respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a discrepancy noted in the TAR."

There are numerous examples of similar omissions and distortions in the film that should have been flagged by any respectable scientist.

"The cumulative effect of paving over the world and building structures could have as much to do with rising temperatures at the suface than does carbon dioxide. There are many factors."

I don't think you realize what you're saying. Changes in land use contribute to warming precisely because they cause increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The 'many factors' have been taken into account by scientific bodies such as the IPCC and are even illustrated by the diagram on page four of the IPCC's summary.

"At current atmospheric levels, CO2 is in fact an essential commodity for propagation of life on this planet."

-Ján Veizer

Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5 Canada & Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany: veizer@science.uottawa.ca.

No offense, but I think we can safely place this in the 'no sh*t' category.

Last time I checked, water is also necessary for our survival, but if we increased sea levels by more than 25%, as we have done with CO2, we would all be dead.

As I previously noted, a very delicate balance of a gaseous exchanges regulates the planet's atmosphere. By emitting hundreds of millions of years' worth of stored carbons into the air in the span of a couple centuries, we have seriously disrupted this balance.

"You claim that the dissenters are almost all oil company shills. But, were they dissenters first, who were sponsored because of their findings? It seems logical that the petro industry would seek out such people and champion them. It doesn't mean they are lying."

So much information has been omitted, distorted, and taken out of context in the film, that it seriously calls into question the ethics and credibility of the people behind it, especially the scientists who should know better.

The genuine minority views have been evaluated and dismissed by every major scientific body; and the only reason people like Mr. Clark and Mr. Ball have a forum to express their discredited arguments is because of the energy industry and their fake environmental front groups.

You and I, as far as I know, are not scientists or experts in climatology. Therefore it only makes sense to trust the overwhelming consensus of the independent scientific community, rather than a very small handful of scientists that are funded by the energy sector and tout outdated, misleading, and discredited arguments.

"When Gore presented that fraudulent chart, he damaged his case."

The chart was accurate and so were Al Gore's remarks.

He said, "The relationship is very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." This is 100% true.

Now, you can say he should have mentioned the lag, but you certainly can't argue that such a well-understood fact undermines the scientific consensus on global warming simply because Al Gore didn't put it in his movie.

Moreover, you state, "Al Gore has short-changed humanity in this most glaring omission: establishing causation." Yet one of the first things Gore does is summarize the greenhouse effect. And as I've said, if you require a further explanation, read the IPCC's report.

"Most people wouldn't notice. But, if as you say:

"Climatologists are fully aware, and have been for quite some time, that increases in atmospheric CO2 content have lagged the commencement of past long-term natural warming periods. This is not, as many claim, some big revelation disproving the warming effect of CO2."

But it certainly conflicts with the general understanding today, and Gore's implication in his film. If this was known, then Gore should never have misled in such a fashion. It also adds gravitas to the solar theory."

That is just the thing: it doesn't conflict with the general understanding, at least not as far as the scientific community is concerned. This is why you should be focusing on the scientific research, not Al Gore's film.

"When you say it "fuels" them, this is not necessarily proven either. The net effect of CO2 is not definitively known. All the studies use weasel words to avoid this.

The word "exacerbates" could be true. I have no problem attributing a minor influence to CO2. That's not what is being discussed popularly however. The average person has no idea about the sun changes and the "cosmic rays" altering cloud cover. They think CO2 causes warming, period. That is what is written every day in numerous newspaper articles."

Again, read the scientific studies. The IPCC, for instance, provides a detailed analysis of all the major contributors to atmospheric temperature changes and calculated the net effect. They use exact numbers, not 'weasel words'.

You bring up cosmic rays, another factor that has been fully evaluated by the scientific community yet commonly brought up by warming skeptics. These two papers examine the flaws of the theory.

"What would be the problem if we didn't have enough CO2 to have effective photosynthesis? Does that factor into any of these people's arguments, ever?"

CO2 is the most important of all greenhouse gases, and maintaining the planet's natural balance is extremely important for all life. But simply put, climatologists are not worried about a lack of CO2 because CO2 levels are at their highest levels in all of recorded history!

"But this is EXACTLY what you just did in regard to the dissenters!"

No. I said they were being funded buy Exxon Mobil, which is entirely true. I do not know if Mr. Clark and Mr. Ball are intentionally manipulating their work, but they are part of a relatively small network of scientists funded by the energy industry to push theories that have been evaluated and discredited by the scientific community. I will repeat: the only reason these men are given any play is because of well-funded fake environmental front groups.

And while Clark and Ball may very well be respectable men, Frederick Seitz, who I am quite familiar with, is in a whole other league. I wouldn't trust a single word out his mouth. I won't go off on a tangent, but for the record, these men have far more conflicts of interest than Al Gore.

"He's worse. He's making nuclear power feasible. He's making ethanol subsidies feasible. He's giving the Democrats an issue other than stopping imperialsm (which they have no intention of doing, because they are imperialists as well). He's taking attention away from many, many other problems and making carbon dioxide the next Hitler. Half of politics is distraction."

We share many of the same concerns regarding the government's response to climate change, but this is not what we have been discussing. We are debating the causes of global warming, not the dangers of how the government will respond.

""Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned."

Bullshit. No one disputes Carl Wunsch's statement about the warmer oceans emitting more CO2. Quantify your argument."

Like I said, everything Carl Wunsch said is true. But his statements do not in any way contradict the theory of man-made global warming. You even quoted Wunsch as saying:

"People say, 'Oh I see the ocean doing this last year, that means that something changed in the atmosphere last year.' And this is not necessarily true at all. In fact it's actually quite unlikely because it can take hundreds to thousands of years for the deep ocean to respond to forces and changes that are taking place at the surface."

There it is in black and white. It takes "hundreds to thousands of years" for changes in the atmosphere to trigger ocean degassing. So how can you argue that the current CO2 increases are coming from the oceans as a result of recent solar activity?

Isotopic analysis confirms that the recent increases in atmospheric CO2 content have been caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels. This is because CO2 from the oceans carries different isotopic markers than CO2 emitted by humans, allowing scientists to identify the source. As Edouard Bard explained for Physics Today:

"The recent CO2 increase-280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005-is accompanied by three phenomena that completely rule out ocean warming as the main cause:

* Parallel d

by Devlin Buckley (9 articles, 5 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 9:21:42 PM

  (0+)

I guess it was too long. For full response go here.

by Devlin Buckley (9 articles, 5 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 9:25:21 PM

  (0+)

While it's quite easy to be taken in, by all the alarmist sophristry in support of global warming, an unbiased examination of the science on both sides of this debate, clearly shows global warming to be a hoax! The keyword here is "unbiased", anything less than this, is a waste of time! Global warming is put into proper perspective as a political, rather than a scientific phenomenon, when compared to the great 9/11 hoax, used by the same internationalist interests, to launch the bogus "war on terror"! Like the war on terror, global warming is merely another scam designed to destroy freedoms, take power away from national governments, and put it into the hands of unelected internationalist, power structures. Just as these same people are destroying freedom and waging wars under the rubric of the "war on terror", they're after even more power and control, with "global warming"! According to the orthodox dogmas, 'Al Qaeda' is responsible for 9/11, and humans are responsible for global warming! The propaganda in both cases is equally fanatical, yet equally phony! For the most part, the public is ill-prepared for the sheer audacity, and massive scope, of these hoaxes!

by Rasoul Acheh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 122 comments) on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 10:53:24 AM

  (0+)

I agree that 9/11 was a deliberately crafted False Flag Operation promoted by the elitist, voracious Neocon Movement, but who has been pushing your so-called Global Warming Hoax? It certainly wasn't them, because they have been trying their hardest to suppress the reality of global warming every inch of the way, to the point of shutting up government scientists and hiring shills to write pseudo-scientific papers. Are you positing a second group of voracious elitists in conflict with the first? Admitting to global warming threatens the short-term profits of Exxon-Mobil and a host of other Carbon-based companies as countries look for alternative energy sources. Do you really think there is a powerful, secretive cabal that can push an agenda past these assholes? Rather I would say your theory is all wrong.

But it is probably pointless to try to convince you otherwise. I shall let reality convince you over time.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 12:04:24 PM

  (0+)