This web site: warmlist@numberwatch.co.uk keeps tabs on all the things that have been blamed on global warming. Some are hilarious, such as those that are complete opposites.

So, let's see if I have this right- global warming caused a helicopter in Somalia to be shot down?

drought in Africa : what's next? Hurricanes in the carribean? Snowstorms in Canada?

Lawsuits must be filed against the likes of Gore and Suzuki and all the other MSM purveyors of despair and LIES, and that is all this hoax is. This bull...t should be called Global Madoffing. Since the structure of this scam is much the same, the first idiots [agenda scientists] do a false study, the second idiots,[MSM] trumpet the end, like y2k, ice age etc, and now climate change etc, and then the experts, like Madoff, Gore, Suzuki, Hansen, get all the cash. If you must be a useful idiot and send cash to some phoney ecowhaco outfit, please send it to the Salvation Army instead, at least they, will help someone else, and not themselves, like these charlatans saving the "earth".

Did that article really quote 3 and 4 star generals as authorities on climate change?

Wow...just wow.

Our own pied piper of Global Warming; Dr. Suzuki, has a new ad out where he shows a neighborhood of good Canadians screwing in their Suzuki bulbs (you know, the twirly ones with toxic mercury in them to save the environment) This leads to the planet being saved by a suburban Toronto neighborhood.

Well, yours truly is already ahead of the game when I got a free one in the mail one day. The Mrs. and I installed it on our porch light. Alls good right? Wrong! Over the last three weeks, temperatures here in the 'bridge have dipped below -35 with -45 windchills. The Suzuki bulb doesn't work below -20. Therefore, you need global warming for the Suzuki bulb to work outside!

Any ways, Happy New Year to All!!

Chris in the Bridge, weather like that kinda makes the case against the electric car.........

The BBC says the leap second to be added to official time tonight is the result of the slowing of earth's rotation caused by tides and global warming.

"Frozen penguin babies"

I guess I'm just too tired to comment anymore

Global Warming causes a shortage of Rubber Duckies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/22/nasa-arctic-icecap-climate-change

speaking of Suzuki , Im more creeped out that those parents let him up in the treehouse at night with a bunch of six year olds. and he wants them to call him David.

just weird.

Or Suzuki promoting alcoholism with his other ad having a guy running around his house unplugging evertyhing so he can buy more beer.

As for pythons taking over America, not when Samuel L. Jackson is on duty "I have had it with these....snakes"

"Frozen penguin babies", or cute little furry polar bear cubbies. Jeez louise, I'm getting all weepy now, over all this.

Reminds of a T-shirt I saw years ago, that said,"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle'em with BS."

And that about entails the AGW Warmongers strategy and philosophy. When all that fails, haul out the cute little cuddly thingies.

Environmental bulbs are dim bulbs.

Um, Kate? You've established that I'm thick and all, but I can't quite understand why you've linked me to those who "resort to holocaust imagery" etc. Perhaps you might enlighten me.

For one, my piece starts by talking about the time I publicly criticized Elizabeth May for engaging in unscientific hype and I made it plenty clear I have no use for Suzuki-esque hyperbole. That's not the usual behaviour of a Cultist of Gore. In fact, if you Google my name and Suzuki's, and you'll see that I've criticized the man repeatedly in my columns (and book) and been hammered on leftist blogs for it. I've even been called a stooge of the chemical industry. Again, not many Cultists of Gore can say that.

For another, I made no use of Holocaust imagery. That would be disgusting.

And lastly, I've accepted that I got what you wrong -- that your use of weather in making a point about climate change is actually clever satire of a particular sort of claim which you and I both agree is unscientific.

You see? On this point, WE AGREE! Isn't that nice?

Now that the cute little pengies are dying,when is the "Save the sea lion" campaign going to start? Or do we just feed them all the dead pengie/polar bear carcasses?
And hasn't the earth's rotation been slowing down since,oh,about 2 billion years ago???

My what I would not give for a wee bit of global warming in the Fraser Valley right now, getting rather tired of having to shovel my way to the barn and wade through knee deep snow.

I try to find this funny, but all I can do is find it sad and alarming that this absolute bullshit actually is reported on and is used to further poison the minds of millions of people who haven't been educated enough to know the MSM is not going to tell you the truth, or even shades of it, they'll only fear monger as a shallow and transparent attempt to stay afloat as their revenue continues to dwindle.

Thank God for the internet, and sites like this.

Isn't that nice?

Posted by: Dan Gardner at December 31, 2008 1:41 PM

My how condensending you are when you try to apologize. Tool.

Gord.

It's the 2009 Global Warming Top Ten List!*
...-

"An Inconvenient Truth

Premiering On: Thursday January 1, 2009 at 8 pm on CBC-TV
Repeating: Sunday January 4, 2009 at 10 pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld

"Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb."
(cbc)
(*H/T)

Dan, the point is: For years now the friggin media have been pushing outright lies and fear mongering over AGW. (for which they may someday be held liable)

--------------

Computer Climate Models Are The Heart Of The Problem Of Global Warming Predictions.

By Dr. Timothy Ball

Abstract

Entire global energy and climate policies are based on the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Their conclusions are based on climate models that don’t and cannot work.
This article explains how the situation developed and why the models are failures.

Introduction

What do the IPCC reports actually say about global warming? What is the basis for their position? All predictions of global warming are
based on computer climate models. The major models in question are the ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to produce their Reports. The most recent, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) uses and averages output from 18 computer models. These Reports are the source for policy on climate change used by world governments. The Reports are released in two
parts. The first release and the one used for policy by governments was the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) released in April 2007.
The Technical Report (“The Physical Science Basis”) produced by Working Group I was released in November 2007. It is essential to read because it contains more, but not all, of the severe limitations in climate research including the data, the mechanisms and the computer models.

And hasn't the earth's rotation been slowing down since,oh,about 2 billion years ago???

Posted by: Justthinkin at December 31, 2008 1:48 PM

The rotation actually fluctuates. Theoretically, global warming could be a factor. If huge blocks of shelf ice were to melt, the movement of mass from one area to another could create a wobble.

The wobble we're seeing this time is more likely from the incredible volume of mountain snow pack we've seen for the last couple of years. Pretty well the opposite of the claim it's caused by global warming.

A perfect example of 'none so blind as those that will not see'. (And how some journalists use spin)

Liz 'seriously' claims warm Wx proves AGW.

Kate mocks - then so can cold WX disprove it.

Goes clean over media hacks head. (Try to keep up)

Or is it just another case of Journalistic fudging ? Playing dumb ? Knowing one has been outed - obfuscate ? Smear ? Too much Cool-Aide ? MSM the sole source of information ? Indoctrination ? All of the above ?

Sounds like an Editorial page, doesn't it ?

With respect to Dan, the majority of the media has done a piss-poor job of investigating AGW.

The ramifications are far beyond Suzuki, Lizzie May and trivial weather battles. The big stories are politicized science, IPCC/UN manipulation, data irregularities and the massive profit-making potential for an elite few. The MSM is oblivious to the lack of observable proof and missed predictions from AGW scientists. Journalists avoid discussing the illogical basis of using flawed computer models, forecasting possible future events, to determine today's political/environmental/economic policy. They seem unconcerned that these "crystal ball"-based policies are guaranteed to produce a negative impact on Canadian businesses and Canadian families.

Thanks dp.I know the wobble fluctuates,but is that directly related to slowing the rotation???(physics and me don't get along..heh)

This won't be seen, as I have reservations he will not allow my post at his site. Which is his buisness. This is what I thought of his obvious fast read of Sda.

As usual you unhinged tofu-chomping losers don't get sarcasm. Posted at SDA myself on this. It was pure mockery laced with cynicism on my part to use there methodology. We on the right know weather is an intermittent phenomena that is affected by uncountable variables. Its in distain we use there methods to show how humorless & stupid they are. If not ants thinking a storm is a world flood. You do Kate McMillan with her readers a disservice, by insinuating we use the moronic practices of the Socialist collective. Kate has the instincts of an old fashioned Teacher. You miss what she is really saying, like me at times, you become the dunce. She likes to set traps for the lazy.
JMO

Sarc is the default.

Nothing, but nothing, undercuts a flake better than sarcasm and mockery.

(Best to date: MC serial #)

Rev: Unlike some, I allow any comment that isn't criminal, insane, or criminally insane. Yours met my exacting standards.

And, Rev, you're wrong about what "we on the right" know. Yes, Kate gets it. Put if you scroll up from the post that Kate linked to you'll find another where I provide example after example of right-wing commentators citing unusually cold weather as evidence that AGM is false.

And no, there's not a lot of evidence those folks are being sarcastic. One of them even takes a pre-emptive shot at those who say weather and climate aren't the same.

So there are lefty enviros who point to the weather to make their point about climate and there are righty critics who do the same. And they're both wrong.

It's easy to see the bias and error in your opponents. Self-examination is a little more demanding.

AGW is becoming unhinged.
So now its morphed into Climate change.
Different "Coolaid", same great taste for the scammed.
Gore and Madoff have one thing going for them. The believers won't call BS until they are ruined, taking a swath of the population with them.

"climate change" is the diversion to keep "cap and trade" snake oil scams going. It always was about the money, never the planet.

IF this entire scam totally unravels the only cannibalism of note will be the Greenies eating their own. Then purging. Repeat as necessary.

So we lose a second. I won't lose any sleep over it.

ron in kelowna....what about Ogoopogo??

And Dan.I Have shovelled enough global warming so far this winter to last me a summer.Get it? Sarcasm. If the eco-cultists can call a +40C day in the middle of July AGW,I can call 6" of white stuff in 3 hours global cooling. Funny how that works.Problem is,I realize weather varies.Always has,always will.The Goracles don't realize,or fail to acknowledge that little fact in their push for socialism.And make no mistake,AGW is socialist/commie based.They had to do something after the collapse of the USSR!!

Dan Gardner;
Thanks for the compliments. Did'nt mean to upset you.
Happy trails

And here I thought that Somalian social and economic collapse in the early 90s was caused by that "civil war" thing they were having.

I'd think that generals would be sensible enough about the normal effects of civil wars to have grasped that one.

Though to be fair, not only is the only source CNS News - who I trust as far as I can throw it - but the only source in that for "generals blamed global warming" was an idiot Congressman's speech to some high schoolers.

I'm more inclined to think he just bungled something in his speech.

(Such as perhaps a military report of possible effects of climate change, said that it might have had some effect in Somalia? And that the "11 generals" were those who had anything to do with the report?

I don't mean that I know of such a report, just that that's a plausible way for a real thing involving "11 generals" to get more-or-less innocently bungled into "generals say global warmenings caused famine in Somalia", despite the generals not actually having said that.)

Regarding the -- money vs. planet theme --

Church of England puts its faith in Al Gore's investment arm.
"The Church of England’s Church Commissioners have gone green, investing £150 million with former US Vice-President Al Gore’s environmentally minded investment firm, Generation Investment Management."

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=3568 (courtesy Drudge)

Sarcasm Alert for Dan

Wow, empty, fence sitting, pox on both their houses, moral superior posturing passing itself off as informed news reporting from a dead tree angry planet scribbler.
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

Dan won't allow my above comment on his one way preachy newspaper site but comes on here rapidly down shifting to "No no no you misread, what I meant was "Your commenters" Ghia forbid not "you".

*Note to Dan; dramatic irony

(theater) irony that occurs when the meaning of the situation is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn.

Since i was actually in Somalia, drinking 16 litres of water a day, i can assure you it was murderous, doped up Somali gunmen who brought those helicopters down.

Honest.

Droughts in Africa, who knew?

To refresh your memory, Dan -

"climate change deniers on right-wing blogs like Small Dead Animals"

The word "denier" in this context appropriates the vocabulary of the Holocaust. Surely, you can't claim not to have known this - it's been protested as inappropriate ever since the usage began.

Secondly, "denier" declares that those who disagree don't simply hold contrary opinions on a science that's adjusted with every snowflake (and every independent audit of the data). "Denier" rests upon the premise that there is an established Truth, that dissenters know this Truth and their refuse to acknowledge it borders on the criminal.

Those who use the term "denier" in the context of the climate change debate tip their hands - it indicates that they're unable to present evidence to support their position. Instead, they resort to delegitimizing their opponent, belittling and vulgarizing the Holocaust in the attempt.

justthinking..i would think that a wobble would slow the rotation of a spherical object, as some of the energy used in maintaining rotation would be diverted to essentially a change in direction.

If the axis of the sphere is disrupted, given the size and weight of the sphere, eventually there will have to be seen a slowing effect over time, in this case, millions of years..

So let's get this sorted out.

MSMer takes a swipe at Blogger.

Blogger sticks a figurative pointy object up said MSMer's nose.

MSMer "corrects" and "clarifies" his position by denigrating the readers of said blogger.

Blog readers point out that they're not the ignorant Bozos the MSMer made them out to be.

MSMer goes to Blogger zone to further defend himself.... largely by suggesting that all the blog world should be researching his work before calling him out on this ONE particular matter.

Looks like a "Not Waiting for the Asteroid!" sort of moment to me.

Happy new year!

why do we need dirty(Bush-Cheney-Harpoon) coal plants to power our cities when we have stingrays? what about electric eels? the natural repulsion of libs&cons?

Kursk

the heat at the core of the earth is generated through friction, this energy transition is radiated, thusly it will "rob" the rotational energy (inertia) causing a rotational slow down. Because of the mass of the earth this slow down is measured in sec/Mil-yrs

Dan is doing rather poorly, both here and on his own blog. Of course we "deniers" are such bullies. Lighten up Dan. Take a polar bear to lunch while we still have solid north pole instead of a slurpee.

Recipes » Fried Python ( http://tinyurl.com/8sor63 )
serve 4 persons

Take

600 gr Python fillet or 800 gr Python bone in
1 cup sherry
1/2 tsp black pepper
1/2 tsp season-all
1/4 cup lemon juice
1/2 cup Italian salad dressing
some flour

Marinate pieces of snake in the mixture of sherry, pepper, lemon juice and Italian dressing for about 2 hours. Drain and turn pieces into flour. Fry pieces for about 12 minutes and turn often untill brown. Serve hot.

Has anyone tried this yet?

Ural:
Yeah, I tried it. But when I sliced open the python, there was a guy inside. He was still alive. Apparently the the python ate him because he was a "denier."

I call myself a climate change denier proudly.

and Al Gore and Dr. Mengele Suzuki side are the climate change derrieres.

I see flipping through the channels that CBCpravda is about to start the new year by showing "An inconvenient Truth" they should be required to put a warning on it like an infomercial.

Someone asked about Ogopogo ?

Been on the lake (boat & float plane) many days - no sign of him/her.

The amazing part is - some still believe it possible.

As in AGW, some just WANT, no, HAVE to believe.

AIT still being shown on CBC !?? You got to be kidding !!??

HAPPY NEW YEAR !! to all on sda. Been a great year.

Kate,

Thanks for the clarification. But no, there was no malicious intent -- and certainly no desire to link this in any way, shape or form to the Holocaust -- in my usage. One who denies another's assertion is a "denier." That's ordinary English and it's the only sense in which I meant the word.

As to your second point about the implication of "denier," I think you're seeing something that simply isn't there. I deny assertions made by others all the time. If someone says I am a (blank) denier, that's fine. It means someone claims X is true and Gardner denies that is so. So what?

Incidentally, I find it a little odd that someone famous, or infamous, for faking a Holocaust survivor's tatoo would be so keenly sensitive to the inappropriate use of Holocaust imagery.

And to the merry band of commentators here, I want you to know this is all deja vu for me.

Just last month I was condemned on a website and read with amusement as a long line of commentators shouted "burn the witch!" The website was The Tyee. The commentators condemned me as a typical MSM right-wing hack. And like you, their posts were filled with standard ideological talking points that divided the world neatly into hostile camps of rational, empirical, smart and good-looking sensible people (them) and irrational, ignorant, deluded, lying, ugly villains (everyone who does not share each and every one of their views).

You are, in short, blinkered ideologues -- the mirror image of the "leftards" you so despise.

Kate - you dun made nother victim. Dan is very, very smart!!! His can make hisself own meanins for words!!!!

Ural (and Kate), I thought it might be helpful for you to consider the definition of "denier" on p. 374 of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary:

"A person who denies something."

Kate. How dare you make poor,edumacted Dan feel bad on New Year's Eve! Especially as ural noted he is busy making up new leftard meanings for words.He isn't a "denier",he is just a useless idiot.Not even useful. He reminds me of the type who needs a baseball bat upside the head to make a change in their thinking.Do deny that the Goracle and his cultists do not use the word "denier" in the worse possible terms is,well,justifiably deniable to the eco-freaks,and those who can't think on their own.
Rutgers grad,are you,Dan???

OK, sport. MAZ2 asked Hans about 2 German words in the Readers tips (todays). The word used in a blog was freigeshprochene ... spelled incorrectly ... should have been freigesprochene. The word has no meaning in any dictionary. Split it's frei gesprochene, or freely spoken according to translations (babelfish).

Because my German is rusty, and I don't know what the connotations are, I said "freely spoken". I suspect the author meant freespeak ... which is how that I would translate it in our NA context.

I do know what "denier" means in our NA context. But your a gay ol' fella, BTW ... what's another word for a "bundle of sticks"?

Illustration only, sport.

“You are, in short, blinkered ideologues -- the mirror image of the "leftards" you so despise”.

“Bill's [O’Reilly] not all bad, though. In his very person, he has provided a useful litmus test for quickly and easily distinguishing between rational, civil, principled conservatives and the surly knucklehead variety: Simply mention his name and if anything positive is said in response, you are almost certainly in the presence of a surly knucklehead”.

Now that’s funny.

Gardner

What you are conveniently ignoring, perhaps on purpose to stir the sh!te here, is that in today's political climate, the use of the word 'denier', is accepted and used to slag anybody with the same brush as a Holocaust denier, due to the frequent referral to that subject, yet the two remain completely independent ideas.

You won't find anybody here denying the Holocaust, or splitting hairs over it, you will have to visit an Islamist website for their hairbrained ideas. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.

On the other hand, AGW has yet to be unequivocally proven, it has only been a 'consensus', not absolute. As many scientists doubt it, as those who promote it. The IPCC is a panel of leftist UN politicians and indentured 'scientists'. Hardly an unbiased group. And, a group that refuses to have any rational discussion in regards to AGW, but invests, at will, in ad hominem attacks at the first sign of trouble.

It is hard to deny that there has been some warming over time, as the receding of glaciers, for example, over the last 12,000 years is undeniable. Yet, the ice masses of our poles have retreated and progressed over time, as has the icesheet of Greenland. The earth has cooled over the last 10 years,(in 3 independent measurement mediums) despite CO2 continuing to rise. Poor correlation, to be sure.

There are two many inconsistencies, and too many of the usual suspects involved, for those of us of free minds and wills, to fall into line with the sheep in the crowd. Good science and thought needs to question the accepted norm: at one time, the earth was thought to be flat. Is it not out of the realm that perhaps the sun is the true climate engine of our home planet? No doubt it's current sunspot cycle correlates well with the current cooling trend, and correlates well over the past few decades.

But it doesn't fit into the radical enviro plan of the radical left, funny, eh? Therefore, the old sol is never uttered, it doesn't fit the dogma of the faithful.

Many of us here would accept the theory if the science was sound, despite the usual suspects. The problem, is the science is as solid as a hunk of swiss cheese. That, and, the fact that the Goracle, to this day, refuses to stand up to hard questions and debate over his half-baked theory. perhaps too many embarassing questions to answer in regards to his holding companies and investments in carbon schemes? Nah......

Each passing day reinforces the doubt in this weak theory, as our climate goes in the opposite direction of the AGW faithful

AhHah.Went back to Dan's blog and just figured it out. Ottawa Citizen!!! As said before,any newspaper/organization with "people's,citizen,democratic,star,etc" in its name is just a commie/socialist cover."Deny" that,Danny boy!!
Oh,and Happy New Year

I loathe television evangelists with their offer to purge people of their sins with a donation to a cause which will benefit themselves financially(Falwell Bakker). It's unfortunate that people don't see Gore and theSuzuki foundation for what they are. Scientiifically qualified skeptics are called deniers , the MSM and politicians follow the illogical, but fanatic view that we are heretics of our era (see spanish inquisition). I hope I'm not in financial ruin by the time we're proven right.

OK, in the (almost certainly deluded) belief that constructive engagement with this blog is possible, I'd like to ask a question.

If those who deny anthropogenic climate change is true must never, never, never be called "deniers" -- even though that's precisely what the dictionary calls for -- what would you consider an accurate and non-pejorative term?

I don't think "skeptic" fits because most the essence of skepticism is doubt. It says "you haven't convinced me yet but I'm listening..." But most opponents (for lack of a better term) of climate change theory don't "doubt" that it's true. They're sure it's not. Some deny (there's that word again) that it's happening. Some advocate other explanations (solar activity). And plenty (especially here) go even further, arguing that those who advocate climate change theory do so in bad faith for selfish or nefarious purposes.

This is all opposition that goes well beyond skepticism.

So I ask you: If "denier" is unacceptable no matter what the dictionary says, what is an acceptable term?

(And an aside: Bernie, I was distinguishing between reasoning conservatives and the sort of angry, unreasoning, conservative who is only interested in denouncing. In my larger political view, that's a sub-set of a sub-set of a sub-set .... etc. That you see it as similar to the way blinkered ideologues divide all the world between the smart people who get it (them) and the idiots who don't (everyone else) is indeed funny.)

OK, in the (almost certainly deluded) belief that constructive engagement with this blog is possible, I'd like to ask a question.

That's not a good start,

So I ask you: If "denier" is unacceptable no matter what the dictionary says, what is an acceptable term?

How about we go back to the start, you compared Kate with Lizzie calling both hypocrites? Now you want to change the discussion to the meaning of "denier", why can't you give a sincere apology and move on?

Gord.

EPILOGUE ( R. N. Hall) (presumably written in 1968)

Flying Saucers are still very much with us. As Langmuir said, "Of course, the newspapers wouldn’t let a thing like that die."

Langmuir's talk on Pathological Science (December 18, 1953)

http://tinyurl.com/64sb3n

The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science By ROBERT L. PARK

http://tinyurl.com/70se

Having presented the science a number of times, I would say that for some the term "denier" is correct. From those who deny that quantum mechanics exists to those who deny that statistical methodologies yield useful results, I have experienced a wide range of attitudes that I would have to describe as denial.

However here is my standard test. Here are three fundamental statements which are true (as far as our testing and understanding allows us to consider something true).

1) We are responsible for the current increase in CO2.

2) CO2 will absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation.

3) If you shine longwave radiation on something it will warm (or cool less quickly).

Now, do you accept these, or which do you deny and why?

Regards,
John

Just for fun - a modern look at a dish served up by MSM 40-50 years ago:

http://tinyurl.com/83co6r

What time do the Persecutions begin?

I really don't want to miss them.

John Cross:
Back to your golden three again are we?

Its 2009 and the answers don't change:

1) We are responsible for the current increase in CO2.
No, this hasn't been proven!! Please don't try to tell us this crap again. We don't yet have complete understanding of most, or even "a good chunk", of all the processes happening on this planet. Until then, you are simply playing the correlation causation game, no matter how you want to dress it up!

2) CO2 will absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation.

In some conditions and also along with a myriad of other molecules. What about them?

3) If you shine longwave radiation on something it will warm (or cool less quickly).
Not always, perhaps there is a phase transition happening or othewrise endothermic reactions that absorbs energy (such as drying paint on my house!) Or maybe there is a whole combination of things happening that we haven't yet "modelled".

NOTE: why don't you ever answer question/problems posed back to you?

Try:
1) what's been happening with temp for the last 10 years, and how can models that don't account for this still be considered accurate for 100 years hence.

2)If the world is warming, is that really bad, and if so, for whom

3) if we try to stop this warming, what will it take and is this worse than simply adapting.

4) take a cruise through Climate audit and point out where Steve is a shmuck on all the problems he's noticed with the various data sets being used to promote AGW

4) etc, etc ad nauseam

but I know you won't, you'll obfuscate, mask, BS, etc but will never admit that your 3 questions miss the point and you are simply an AGW apostle.

Frenchie, lets add a few things to this critique of John's points.

1. "We are responsible for the current increase in CO2."

Indeed it is not established. Historically, CO2 rise has always followed, not preceded temperature change. It is entirely unclear that the reverse is the case this time. Also, the claimed CO2 concentration and claimed rise does not match with the long series direct chemical measurements of CO2 atmospheric concentration. Moreover, the increases from human contribution are trivial compared to the natural changes in CO2 concentration, particularly the ocean-atmosphere exchanges.

2. "CO2 will absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation."

You know as well as we do that this effect is essentially close to saturation. The saturation effect means that each additional increment of CO2 concentration has less effect, not more, than the previous increment. Hence, even if your model was true, the effect diminishes, not increases, over time.

A note to Dan Gardner @ 9:25. There is a very good reason for the deep skepticism on the part of many with respect to climate change theory. Discussing strictly the science of it, not the environmentalist advocates, the science has consistently been presented in bad faith and without recourse to the scientific method. The handling of IPCC documentation along through reports 2, 3 and 4 clearly demonstrates this.

The principal scientific authorities, I am referring here in particular to Hansen, Jones, Mann and Ammann who have provided the bulk of the scientific data and modeling, have persistently refused to disclose both their methodology and where possible their raw data. This is in complete defiance of the scientific method in which any scientist discloses everything.

Even worse, there is a persistent pattern of, when these evasions are pointed out, all resort to ad hominem arguments against any and all critics. This is not science, Dan. This is propaganda. The pro side of the debate long abandoned any learned scientific discourse on the matter more than a decade ago.

Now, let me put it for you very simply. The IPCC has claimed that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the most powerful driver in increasing atmospheric temperature even though the absorption effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is trivial. By their own admission this is based on a rise in world temperatures over a 10 year trend. If that is true, then why is it that we now have a 10 year trend of stable and declining temperatures?

A second key point: if the theory of AGW is true, then it MUST be reflected in a warming of the upper atmosphere. No such warming has occurred.

O teh ironing.

Hi Frenchie: A happy new year’s to you.

Unfortunately, 2009 has not brought any new arguments. Referring to your points as listed.

1) As has been pointed out by me and others many times, we are producing more than shows up in the atmosphere. As long as this is true then the only possible conclusion is that either there are magical sources and sinks or we are responsible.

I find it very ironic that you accuse me of not answering questions when you have not answered the question that I have posed to you many times. Let me put it to you again! There is a common bank account that various people can put money into and take money out of and it starts with a balance of $100. Over the year you put in $7. At the end of the year the balance is $103. What would the balance be if you did not add your $7.

2) It is true there are a number of molecules that will absorb longwave radiation, but almost all of them are not found in the atmosphere. In any significant amount. The only ones found in significant amounts are H2O, CO2 and CH4.

3) In regards to phase changes, sure, but any interruption is only a delay in temperature change and heat is still being added to the system. There is no such thing as an infinite phase change!

Now, can you please refer to a place where I did not answer your questions? I mean it, please post a link!

However in regards to your new set, lets see:

1) what's been happening with temp for the last 10 years, and ....

Well, it depends on what we are trying to model. Climate is generally taken to be the average temperature over a 30 year period, so we need to look at multiple year averages. You mention 10 year averages and Tamino have a post where he looks at 10 year averages, so please review it and let me know what is not being modeled.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/#more-1354

2)If the world is warming, is that really bad, and if so, for whom

One example: Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States by Edward R. Cook (Science 306-1015).

3) if we try to stop this warming, what will it take and is this worse than simply adapting.

Don’t know.

4)take a cruise through Climate audit and point out where Steve is a shmuck on all the problems he's noticed with the various data sets being used to promote AGW.

I don’t agree with you that Steve is a shmuck. I have exchanged a couple of e-mails with him in the past and while we disagree on some things he has always been courteous. However his work is pretty specialized on paleoclimate data sets and I don’t think these are the foundation of AGW. In fact when I called one of his co-authors on a physics issue (his interpretation of entropy) Steve very quickly called a close to the topic and told us he didn’t want it discussed on his site.

Hope this helps,
John

CGH: are you familiar with the argument that I have made here about why we are responsible for the increase in CO2? I ask because your response did not address it.

In regards to saturation, no, the spectrum is not saturated (parts of it are, but not all of it). However even if it was, adding more CO2 would still cause warming. I can explain that in more detail if you wish.

Also, while your comment was addressed to Dan and not me, I will note that the upper atmosphere is actually cooling as is expected from greenhouse theory.

Regards,
John

For all the deniers of our ability to alter the climate lets make this real simple.

Are we responsible for increases in CO2?

OBVIOUSLY YES. Hmm..lets see...we dig up carbon out of the ground (oil) and burn it off into the atmosphere...while destroying forests and other ecosystems that fix carbon. Doesn't seem to me like a whole lot of math and measurements are needed to come to the logical conclusion that those processes would increase the atmospheric concentrations of carbon.

There have been historical extinction events caused by high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere halting the global energy cycle, only to be reversed by the sequestering of carbon. Hmmmmm...don't need a rocked scientist to see some similarities.

As for the "unstable" climate lately...and this statement itself is questionable since the vast majority of humans are concentrated in a small portion of the earth and so only concerned with their "backyards". One result of screwing with the earth's systems is a state of instability...so snow and cold don't negate anything...they support the theory that we're affecting the earth's energy systems.

Regardless of climate change we're are still in the midst of a massive extinction event at an exponentially increasing rate. I'm sure some think we can live without the rest of life on earth but truth is we wouldn't have a chance.

Deeznuts, John Cross et al;
Waiting for their ship to come in while watching bus after bus go by.

G:

Huh? If you're implying that climate change and our effects on the planet aren't yet blatantly obvious...then you need to wake up and do some REAL RESEARCH.