A parting comment from Roger A. Pielke Sr. of Climate Science;
… suppose a group of scientists introduced a new cancer drug that they claimed could save many lives. There were side effects, of course, but they claimed that the benefit far out weighed these risks. The government than asked these scientist to form an assessment Committee to evaluate this claim. Colleagues of the group of scientists who introduced the drug are then asked to serve on this Committee, along with the developers.
If this occurred, of course, there would be an uproar of protest! This is a clear conflict of interest.
Yet this is what has happened with the IPCC process! The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.
Read this as well and be sure to bookmark the archives.
Climate change has rapidly been politicized and moved out of the realm of science. If it were in science, its axioms would by necessity remain open to debate and further data.
This is not the case; instead, we are treated to a rhetoric that claims that the ‘issue is settled’ and furthermore, moves it into the realm of dogma. A particular type of dogma – one based around the notion of sin and redemption.
The model of AGW is an ancient and basic religious model; it sets up the human as culpable, as inherently a sinner, and describes in horrifying detail, the apocalpytic results that will inevitably result from this human sin. It then outlines the steps to redemption, whereby some measure of peace, security and purity may be regained.
The steps are, an acceptance of moral guilt, and, importantly, an admission of human inability to technologically solve the problem because this guilt requires an acknowledgment of human incompetence and weakness. That is, Kyotoism effectively requires that humans accept that they cannot solve this situation without self-destruction. They cannot show competence before the Apocalypse and the Higher Powers of the Universe.
This requirement for self-immolation requires a prostration before a Higher Power (UN), an abstention from success and progress, self-flaggelation and suffering, and finally, redemption by ‘giving to others’. This is Kyotoism. It is a religious cult, an exact copy of the models of just about every apocalytpic religious cult that has ever existed.
Note how this cult requires exclusivity. Canada can’t join APEC, the Asia-Pacific Environmental group that includes the chief emitters of the world, China, India, the US, which all reject Kyotoism. Canada is criticized for joining this group which is focused on pragmatic and technological tactics to deal with both pollution and emissions.
Such tactics ignore the Kyoto requirements of admission of human sin, prostration before the advent of the Apocalpyse, acceptance of human weakness – and payment of ‘sin money’. Instead, these APEC tactics consider that humans CAN do something about both pollution and emissions without self-destruction; this is not acceptable in Kyotoism.
Kyotoism requires human suffering – particularly in the West. The West can get of out this ultimate horrifying end, only by massive financial transfers to other countries, and by reducing its own industrial progress.
Science? It has no role in Kyotoism and indeed, is considered the Devil’s Handmaiden within that cult.
“If it were in science, its axioms would by necessity remain open to debate and further data. ”
But in reality, axioms that are well established should only be open to debate when new evidence comes along. That is the problem with climate science. Too much recycling of objections that have been put to rest by science. Thus instead of looking at areas where there are interesting things going on (and by interesting I mean things that we haven’t figured out yet) we see the same thing over and over again.
For example, the following two statements are well established and should be beyond doubt unless someone can produce extraordinary evidence.
1) Anthropogenic emissions are responsible for all the recent rise in CO2.
2) Even though certain bands of CO2 are saturated, adding more CO2 will still cause warming.
The science of global warming is of course open to further data and this data is being collected all the time. New ideas are being developed and evaluated. Most of them will not make it past the stage of observation but that is the nature of science.
Could the whole AGW scenario be wrong – of course. It will never be 100% certain in the way that math is, but to challenge it you need a theory and the observations to back it up. To date that has not happened.
John
The entire theory is based on science fiction … a type of end-of-the earth horror story to frighten the populace into submission.
Dust off those ‘No Fear’ T-shirts that made the rounds about a decade ago.
Politicians are always quick to seize upon these ideas, of course, as a means of control.
All science should be accepted only on proveable merits, of course.
Not meaning to topic-shift, but I remain curious as to why another bit of science fiction, the theory of evolution, remains so appealing.
Species to species change has never been scientifically proven, but it seems the Scopes Monkey Trial helped the theory’s acceptance.
In the case on this thread, the same scientist who floats the theory verifies it.
Well, at least it’s a scientist.
The celebrated court case was decided by a jury of 12 hillbillies.
How’s that for credibility?
syf you DID change the topic — please stop it !!
You forgot the most important part. ‘And when this committee published it’s preliminary report, most of the Committee members disagreed so strongly with it that they sent letters demanding that their names not be attached to it. The Committee Heads ignored it and published it anyway, names still attached.’
[… but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict.]
Most at sda recognize it and with each passing day others are also.
Some, such as the media, ‘do not want’ to recognize because it certainly does not fit their agenda — fear-monger the people for the sake of controling them.
“If this occurred, of course, there would be an uproar of protest! This is a clear conflict of interest.”
Also a case of liable ??
[Could the whole AGW scenario be wrong – of course.] JC
I comend you on your first step.
ron:
OK. My main point, which I should have made clearer, is that Global Warming is not the latest incident in which politicians have manipulated conjecture and sold it as fact.
I love pure science and admire the honest researchers who discover cures for diseases.
I love their curiosity and their search for the truth.
This latest posting is just an example of political science – how vagueness about an unkown can be used to panic a populace.
And how science has evolved into something that used to be a pure pursuit of knowledge of our natural world into something more sinister.
To have a scientist head up a review panel that checks his own work … I’m guessing political scientists have been getting away with this for a long time.
Thanks to forums such as these, tactics such as these can be brought to light.
1) Anthropogenic emissions are responsible for all the recent rise in CO2.
2) Even though certain bands of CO2 are saturated, adding more CO2 will still cause warming.
————————
1) Correction; a very, small part. (natural warming causes CO2 conc to rise. Has been happening since time began)
2)Correction; very, very little warming.(In reality, will it matter if a winter day in Canada in the year 2097 is -22C instead of -22.5)
why another bit of science fiction, the theory of evolution, remains so appealing.
Because science a few centuries ago set itself as the new religion. Scientists were/are the new priests, never to be questioned especially by the ‘uneducated’.
AGW is just part of the “dark ages” that science must go through as its lack of answers to life’s important questions becomes ever more obvious.
We can only hope in a coming enlightenment that relegates science to its proper place, a tool to help mankind make its way in this world.
“The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment!”
Yup. Which is what leads me to question statements such as: “1) Anthropogenic emissions are responsible for all the recent rise in CO2.”
I don’t know that’s true. It -could- be true, but given the above reference to the IPCC, it -could- be bullsh1t. I’m required to trust the claims of people I’d be a fool to lend money to.
That’s the core of my problem with climatology and the entire social sciences these days, and even medicine. Science does not prosper in an environment of political partisanship, grant fixing and generalized bad behavior. Remember Viox?
That’s why they call it the “Ivory Tower” in the first place, its supposed to be pure science, shiny, slick and white. Unsullied by the rat-scrabbling of politics or the mercenary interests of commerce. (My apologies to any rats who may have been offended by that remark.)
I’m convinced the only reason physics and chemistry haven’t gone the same way is the nature of the universe. You can CHECK physics anywhere, its really hard to check climatology or other things because you can’t get the same samples. Much more difficult to catch liars, of whom there appear to be many.
Suzuki’s foot soldier, Dale cannon fodder Marshal, was just on the CBC tube. They let him rant on about Kyoto losing ground to … to reality.
I did not hear him cite ONE scientific fact — has none. It was an anti-American time-slot.
The CBC “host” could have asked; “Why was the United Nations’ IPCC committee stacked with “beleivers ??”
After all, that is where the scam originated. ‘Get to the bottom of it’ reporting ??
By the way John Cross. The method of science is to DIS-prove the hypothesis. I don’t see many people running around seeking to do that with Global Warming. Mostly I see guys trying to shore it up against ever increasing contrary evidence.
That’s backwards. A theory is only worth anything if it resists all efforts to destroy it. This includes making fun of the bad thermometers and the IPCC for trying to hide their conflicts of interest.
Joe:
You hit it on the head.
The scientific dark ages, in which opportunists have gained a louder voice over pure scientists, has been unquestioned for a nearly couple of centuries.
Even the word ‘atom’ which in ancient Greek usage meant the smallest indivisible particle. I ask, is an atom the smallest indivisible particle and what is the implication of this declaration.
Nobody apologized for this obvious misnomer and its misplaced triumphalism when pure scientists subsequently discovered protons, neutrons and electrons.
I believe it is important to examine all the science fictions we have come to accept as fact. And, it is important for our own sanity to have an ability to discern between fact and fiction.
Otherwise, you deserve exactly what your intellectual sloth will give you.
SYF, we’ve got quarks named up, down, charm and strange. You want to complain about atom? Give it a rest, eh?
Mythinformation is a huge problem in the world today.
The IPCC would have never got away with myth if the media had been honest in it’s reporting.
However, the National Post, for one, is appearing to catch up to the blogsphere.
[That means that if Canada is to significantly reduce its greenhouse emissions, it would have to reduce its exports dramatically. But that would be financially suicidal for most individuals and governments.] NP
Remember David Suzuki and Nickolas Stern were at the TSX ? Mythinformation to the nth degree ?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=4e72d715-fb91-4759-bfd2-60e63dc6b446
Ya gotta love those exclamation marks! I wish he had used more!
The only facts are
1) CO2 has risen
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Man is a contributor to the recent rise in CO2
4) It is warmer now than it was in mid 1800’s and the early 70’s.
After that there arent too many agreed pieces of information that can be safely quoted as fact.
The cuasality model is not clear, the correlation models are off and statistical models are in major flux because the data sets arent hard and fast, reliable, lingthy or widespread.
So AGW is a theory, and we under other theories, solar forcing, we may see the GW part of AGW coming under some question.
So should we take our foot off the accelerator….sure, pumping lots of extra CO2 probably isnt a good thing (not clear if its a bad thing) SHould we drop all other things and radically change our economy at great cost, absolutely irresponsible to do so.
I do wonder what will happen if we do see temperatures start a decline over the next 5 years.
Anyway, SNP (Still not proven)
“It is warmer now than it was in mid 1800’s and the early 70’s.”
You bypassed a decade: The 1930’s had about the same temps as the mid nineties to now with 1934 matching 1998 as the 2 hottest years since official records have been kept which started around 1880 I think.
If the 1970’s was a colder decade (which most of us can remember, I certainly do: Montreal was literally paralysed in snow for a full week in winter 1973with women in labour being snowmobiled to hospitals in downtown just to give an idea) that could mean that there are mini cycles of about 40~50 yrs apart within MAYBE larger cycles which we call “Ice ages”(?).
Many scientists, especially the ones studying/corolating solar activity have predicted the next decade to be colder which would be about 40 yrs since the 70’s cold spell.
stephen. it is colder now than it was about 100k years ago according to greenland ice core data. it will be much cooler by 2030 but i will be dead by then. i just hope it stys warm until i shuffle off.
Richard Feynman had this to say in his 1974 commencement address at Cal Tech, where he taught:
“But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves — of having utter scientific integrity — is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.”
I think that it’s applicable here. The whole address is worth reading. You can find it at
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html
Stephen, Phantom: Sorry, I am a little rushed for time so this is done quickly. I can provide clarification as necessary. However, we can safely say that we are responsible for 100% of the current rise in CO2. To see, all you have to do is to take the total consumption of fossil fuels. That is done in this graph, but not being one to take anything for granted I worked out the numbers for the Petroleum. I dug up some data and based on the carbon content of various fuels calculated a carbon content of 2, 464 million tons. The graph shows a little more but my analysis left out diesel (I didn’t have a number for it – incidentally what I did include was gasoline, jetfuel, kerosene and fuel oil). I think it is close enough to accept the number on the graph. So we are looking at an annual production of 6.5 billion metric tons of carbon.
Now lets look at the atmosphere. The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5.2 x 10^18 kg. The concentration of CO2 is about 385 ppm. But the trick is the ppm is a mixing ratio but we need the amount in a mass basis. Assuming that most of the atmosphere is N2 and O2 we use the molecular mass to come up with a % mass of CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.058%. So the total mass of CO2 is about 3.01 x10^15 kg. Thus the 23.8 billion metric tons of CO2 we release is about 0.79% of the total. In other words, the carbon we produce should increase the CO2 in the atmosphere by 0.79%.
However what do we see? A rise of about 2 ppm per year out of 385 ppm. On a percentage basis this is about 0.5%! OK, take a deep breath, the math is done.
What this shows is that we produce significantly more than what is showing up in the atmosphere. This is the natural carbon sequestration going on by plants and the ocean. This is critical because it now becomes simple logic.
We produce 0.79%, 0.5% shows up in the atmosphere. If we were to not produce that 0.79%, what rise would we expect? To make an analogy, we have a bank account (this is the carbon in the atmosphere). Many people have access to it and can put money in and take money out (these are the various processes of the carbon cycle). We put in $79 over the year and by the end of the year the account has increased by $50. What would the balance be if we had not put any money in?
So, as long as we are producing more than is showing up in the atmosphere we are responsible for all the increase. QED 😉
If you can find a hole in the logic, please post it I would like to discuss.
Regards,
John
I forgot a link above and tried to send it through but it got held up for moderation. If Kate releases it you can see it, if not – it is available upon request.
John
Phantom: you said “By the way John Cross. The method of science is to DIS-prove the hypothesis. I don’t see many people running around seeking to do that with Global Warming. Mostly I see guys trying to shore it up against ever increasing contrary evidence.”
This is actually an excellent point. You see there was a huge debate in the scientific community about the role of CO2 in global warming. Of course that took place about 70 years ago. I would recommend Dr. Weart’s excellent book that gives a really good history of the scientific progress.
John,
As I said one of the facts is that CO2 has gone up. I said we are a contributor to the increase. Once cant assume steady state as there are times in the past when CO2 has risen without there being an antrhoprogenic cause.
However that isnt the point. The point is just that the facts that are not in dispute are few.
What is in dispute is whether or not we are causing warming, whether the warming is anything out of the ordinary so that even if we were able to stop adding to the natural carbon process, kind of difficult unless we all stop exhaling, what would happen.
This article on Lake Baikal looks pretty solid and ooops guess what its been warmer and the current warming trend started a few hundred years ago. By the way we see the Medieval Warm Period signal and the little ice age signal, two really inconvenient truths to the AGW crowd.
So to repeat I dont doubt that there is more CO2 in the air I just dont know if it really is affecting anything in a major major way.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/25/questioning-20th-century-warmth/#more-253
john cross – I disagree with your assumption that axioms should only be open when ‘new evidence comes along’. And I disagree with your two points that claim that AGW is a proven fact and that CO2 is a prime cause of global warming.
First – there is no such thing as ‘new evidence’ within a closed axiom. It is, by definition, ‘set and closed’. Different evidence will be brushed off as ‘noise’. Therefore, all scientific axioms must, to be considered as scientific rather than dogma, be open at all times.
Second – we’ve been through all of this before; Your insistence that global warming is caused by humans – remains your conviction. It isn’t mine; and it isn’t that of a lot of reputable scientists. I don’t see any point in trying to convince you to change your viewpoint and have no intention of even attempting such an act.
The fact is, our universe is an complex adaptive system; that means that it is always undergoing cycles of changes. Our evolutionary history of climate clearly shows phases of warming and cooling, none of which have been caused by humans. Or animals. Or other inhabitants of this planet.
Focusing only on the carbon cycle as the single cause of warming is mechanical reductionism. The universe is far more complex than your model.
sted by: ron in kelowna at September 27, 2007 12:15 PM
“1) Correction; a very, small part. (natural warming causes CO2 conc to rise. Has been happening since time began)”
One has to remember that the CO2 that has increased in the atmosphere has an isotopic signature that indicats it’s origin is from the burning of fossil fuels.
2)Correction; very, very little warming.(In reality, will it matter if a winter day in Canada in the year 2097 is -22C instead of -22.5)
It’s not so much the temperature of the atmosphere as it is the amount of energy being stored in the atmosphere, which brings with it the altering weather patterns and rising sea levels.
Speaking of energy, I’ll add one more to John Cross’ list
3) There is a measure energy imbalance in the atmosphere. There is more energy entering the earth’s atmosphere than there is escaping.
“Held up for moderation” JC
You are thinking of the G&M, CTV, ect.
“Stephen at September 27, 2007 1:24 PM
I do wonder what will happen if we do see temperatures start a decline over the next 5 years.”
Considering the science, if that were to happen I would be looking closely at India and China and the amount of aerosols they are pumping into the atmosphere.
John:
To echo Stephen’s last comment – that humans add CO2 to the atmosphere is not in doubt.
What is also not in doubt is that anthropogenic CO2 is significantly less than 1% (less than .1%?)of GHG’s thus assuming solar forcing activity and other factors remain constant we would expect significantly less than a 1% change in temperatures over say, a century. If the avg temp is 20 degrees that would mean an increase of 0.2 degrees every 100 years, hardly anything to get concerned about, especially when other non-human variables are added-in particularly that of solar activity.
Catastophic AGW theorists are swimming upstream against the above facts.
albatross – I should hope that there is more energy entering the earth’s atmosphere than there is escaping. If there were more escaping, our biotic organisms would be reduced to less complex energy forms. We’d reduce to simple bacterium.
“We’d reduce to simple bacterium.”
Freeze-dried bacterium at that…
Not only is science settled, but there will be big green profits and no costs associated with Kyoto either. I know this because Stephane Dion told me and he is very sincere and not a caricature of himself.
What to do when confronted with a perceived danger;
First of all;
There is ‘clear and present danger’.
There is ‘playing it safe’.
There is ‘error on the side of caution”.
There is ‘being paranoid’.
There is ‘worrying for the sake of worrying’.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher now than a few years ago. (50 years out of 4 Billion) That is a given. Lets have a look at how we should react.
Have levels been higher before ? Yes. Much, much higher. It has happened before mankind arrived.
Lobe off 25% of the concern.
Does the earth have the capacity to absorbe CO2 ? Yes. Massively.
Lobe another 25%
If they stay higher, will higher CO2 levels warm the planet ? Probably very little, if any.
Another 20%
Can mankind control CO2 levels in any meaningful way ? Not likely.
Another 10%
If the Earth does warm some, is it a worry ? Probably not. Especially NOT for Canadians who freeze their collective asses off for 4 months of each and every year.
Another 15%
In the whole world scheme of things, is Canada’s CO2 contribution significant ? Not really.
The last 5%.
Don’t worry —- be happy. Unless you are a dead-ending Gore Suzuki desciple —- then you will have to get a real job like the rest of us.
Further to the AGW debate does anyone on site remember a theory that was discussed in the Sixties. It was along the lines that the Vikings had settled in North America around 1000 AD. approx 500 years before Columbus. Columbus supposedly found a Viking map which put him on the course to history. The theory continued that the Vikings had settled in NA because the climate at that time was more temperate and had indeed found a route through the Great Artic Sea. Unfortunately the climate began cooling and the Medieval mini ice age (Not recognized in some circles but was responsible for the Frost Fairs in London till around the late 1700’s)set in. The Vikings vacated NA, around 100 years before Columbus made his voyage, due to the change in climate. The English began looking for the route through the Great Artic Sea (the NorthWest Passage) about 100 years after the Columbus voyage, however by that time Artic due to a colder climate had ceased to be an open waterway. Just a thought, any discussion?
ET at September 27, 2007 5:20 PM]
I refer you to the article
“Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmations and Implication” James Hansen, et al, Science 1110252V2 (2005): DOI: 10.1126/science. 1110252
Don’t worry be happy — don’t waste, use energy wisely. It may run out some day, but I suspect, not for a long, long time. (If you were an oil company, would you admit there is lot’s left ?)
I also suspect that some people, early on in the United Nations IPCC process were truly concerned. They wanted the world to slow down a bit.
But as happens with many endevours, including religious, it was taken over by the wacos. The fanatics started to hyper ventilate and could see a scam ready for the picking. ($100 Mil in Gore’s case) Who would argue with being nice to the earth ? And who would notice when we stack the IPCC committee ? Or cook Hansen books ? Or try to pass off mistruths as documentaries ??
Who will ? The ones paying the bills, thats who.)
I had an early dinner – at my desk, which is becoming entire too common. However, it gave me a chance to check a few numbers. Over the past 50 years the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by ~70 ppmv (parts per million volume). 1 ppmv = 2.135 PgC (petagram carbon = 10^15 gC), or 7.83 PgCO2, so the total mass of CO2 added to the atmosphere is ~550 PgCO2, or 550 billion tonnes of CO2 in the last 50 years.
Global CO2 production is presently about 26 billion tonnes (2004 value). 50 years ago it was about 5 billion tonnes. Assuming a roughly linear rise (good enough for out purposes), this means we added ~525 billion tones of CO2 from fossil fuel sources in the last 50 years ((26-5)/2).
These two numbers agree quite well. It is reasonable to suggest that fossil fuel burning directly caused the increase.
Almost no one disputes this.
Whether CO2 directly and significantly drives planetary heating at these concentrations (and distributions) is as yet unclear.
Right, gord tulk – we’d reduce to freeze-dried bacterium.
albatross – Hansen is a hard core believer in AGW. So?
You are ignoring that thermodynamic energy is readily transformed into various biotic morphologies on our planet. This energy and this planet’s biotic capacity to transform it into various morphologies is basic to the complexity of life on our planet. Without it, we wouldn’t exist. So, don’t feel bad about this ‘imbalance’; thank the stars, esp. the sun, for it. And thank the devt of the biological realm on this planet for its marvellous capacity to use this energy.
albatros39a @ 5:11 PM said “There is more energy entering the earth’s atmosphere than there is escaping.”
ET @ 5:20 PM said “I should hope that there is more energy entering the earth’s atmosphere than there is escaping. If there were more escaping, our biotic organisms would be reduced to less complex energy forms. We’d reduce to simple bacterium.”
Must…
resist…
scream…
of…
anguish!
Aaaaargh!!!
Have either of you ever tried to boil water?! The reason that happens is that energy goes into the pot faster than it goes out. If the earth were to get more in than it puts out, we would soon melt the planet!
The reason we don’t melt is that output is GREATER than input, not equal, because the earth also warms itself up by radioactive decay.
“The scientific dark ages, in which opportunists have gained a louder voice over pure scientists, has been unquestioned for a nearly couple of centuries.”
You have to be a special kind of idiot to believe that.
Ultimately AGW isn’t going to ever gain 100% acceptance. We have people who think evolution is some kind of hoax who reject AGW for similiar reasons. It’s not a stance based on logic or reason and no amounts of evidence or rational argument is going to sway them.
Right, tenebris, and the point is that the water, which is abiotic rather than biotic by the way, transforms the energy into something else (steam); or, the heat cooks vegetables. Or, the heat incubates turtles in the sand. Or…
The enormous biological capacity of our planet to transform energy from its thermodynamic nature to organic mass means that the biotic mass on this planet, unlike water in the pot, won’t boil away. It will simply carry out its transformational tasks.
Whoosh, jose, let me get this straight. You are saying that people who reject AGW (and I do) have similar thought processes as those who reject evolution?!! Heh. Try again. There’s no comparison between the two.
ET and Tenebris
U 2 raise intresting questions concerning the input/output of energy on a world scale
as ET points out, energy is being transformed, but at what rate??????
ET is right, the energy converted into various forms of organic and inorganic carbon – starch, sugar, methane, co2 etc – as well as carbon. means that we lose far less energy than we absorb from the sun. The oceans are especially huge heat-sinks.
Did you read the article ET?
Hey Jose:
AGW is faith-based, with a detailed scientific superstructure resting on that rickety foundation. Creation “science” is also faith-based with a scientific superstructure resting on a rickety foundation. Either “could” be true but, as a scientist, I prefer theories based on solid data.
Hansen, Mann, Weaver et. al. can produce all the weird and wonderful projections they care to but, if the basic premise is wrong, what’s the point?
Hell, if you really believe in extra terrestial visitations or paranormal communication, you can throw a bunch of “proofs” together for those too, and probably find a Gore or a Suzuki to evangelize for you, if the money is good enough.
Right, gord tulk – we’d reduce to freeze-dried bacterium.
ET at September 27, 2007 6:44 PM
“Have either of you ever tried to boil water?! The reason that happens is that energy goes into the pot faster than it goes out. If the earth were to get more in than it puts out, we would soon melt the planet!
The reason we don’t melt is that output is GREATER than input, not equal, because the earth also warms itself up by radioactive decay.”
Tenebris at September 27, 2007 6:50 PM
“Right, tenebris…”
ET at September 27, 2007 7:19 PM
Which is it ET? Freeze dried or roasted? Are you sure you’re not confusing global warming with your morning coffee?
I see Climate Audit has a graphic up showing basically a flat trend for hurricanes for the last hundred years or so.
I see Climate Audit has a graphic up showing basically a flat trend for hurricanes for the last hundred years or so.