Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Most climatologists remain silent on global warming

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:00 pm

The art of science has certainly changed since I was in school. Back in the old days, it was a hypothesis that was tested and proved by controlling variables, along with repetition of experimentation, producing similar results. Hypotheses or theories were always subject to challenge and skepticism.

Today, one does not even need to be educated in a designated area to declare himself an expert in a specific subject matter.

Take global warming, for example. One would think that a climatologist would be the most qualified to discuss this area of expertise. There are only about 80 Ph.D. climatologists in the entire country, and most remain silent on the subject. You see, to speak out against the state's new religion could lead to a reduction in grant money, and no one wants to be in that position or be declared a heretic (Ref: Hansen - pretty good, eh?)

The following are the rules of the "new" science:

First of all, expert training is unnecessary. As a matter of fact, no scientific background may actually be an advantage in declaring one's expertise. A college dean, a politician who dropped out of law school, a movie actor - even a landscaping engineer will do just fine.

As long as one believes that humans are the cause of climate change, their credentials are impeccable.

Secondly, correlation is now causation.

For example, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere, and the earth is supposedly getting warmer, although some climatologists have been disputing that this is still happening since 1998.

Therefore, one causes the other.

Those of us from the old school know that correlation is not causation, and that this type of reasoning can lead to faulty conclusions.

For example, did you know that 99.8 percent of convicted murderers in San Quentin, as children, chewed bubble gum and drank water from a glass? One must conclude that these activities cause violence in adulthood!

Thirdly, one does not need to support conclusions with facts. Simply quoting an organization that sounds authoritarian will do. How about: "The World Council on Global Climate Change" or the "Intergalactic Body on Planetary Warming?"

The titles are enough to make anyone look foolish who tries to question the credentials of those behind such lofty organizations.

Fourthly, "consensus" is now indisputable proof. If "most scientists" agree, then the premise under discussion is a fact. Did you know that "most psychiatrists agreed" that homosexuality was a "sexual orientation disturbance" during the 1970s?

Or that "global cooling" was the consensus during the same time period? How times change!

The whole basis of "old school" science was to remain skeptical, and those who made the outlandish claims held the burden of proof - but no more.

Actually, the "new science" is so much easier to do. Just make your claims and call those who disagree with you "deniers."

Maybe the new system is superior. To prove it, all one has to do is: "follow the money."

Steve Hansen is a Lodi Writer and satirist.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

128 comments:

  • posted at 12:09 am on Tue, Nov 13, 2007.

    Posts:

    Has your car been smogged?

     
  • posted at 12:57 pm on Mon, Nov 12, 2007.

    Posts:

    Leonard, my friend. Of course it's Ann Coulter. It certainly wouldn't apply to you -would it?

     
  • posted at 11:34 am on Mon, Nov 12, 2007.

    Posts:

    Thank God for Steve Hansen. Living in San Francisco is Hell. I'm called a polluter here because I have an eighteen year old car that I drive once a week.I take the bus to work. The accuser drives a SUV to work and never uses public transportation.Of course I don't believe that it is all George Bush's fault. I'm doomed.

     
  • posted at 8:39 am on Mon, Nov 12, 2007.

    Posts:

    Historian: I think that is actually Ann Coulter's creed.

     
  • posted at 5:59 am on Mon, Nov 12, 2007.

    Posts:

    The creed of the "true believer." If you can't fight facts with facts, call the messenger negative names or change the subject. If that doen't work, have people who disagree with you banned from the airways. This is a sign of "true" diversity and model of free speech for all.

     
  • posted at 2:22 am on Mon, Nov 12, 2007.

    Posts:

    I agree with you 548.99%!!! It is only on the Right that one sees true civility. What better models of decorum could anyone want than Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly? I mean, it takes real talent to accuse your political opponents of treason in a polite fashion. You have certainly hit the nail on the head!

     
  • posted at 2:19 am on Mon, Nov 12, 2007.

    Posts:

    Didn't you hear me? I don't want to hear the other side of anything. That's why I LOVE Talk Radio. I don't want to have to think. Gosh, I would think that would be easy for a Fox News watcher like yourself to understand.

     
  • posted at 2:03 am on Mon, Nov 12, 2007.

    Posts:

    Fair and Balanced, Dixon and many others don't understand the loss of readership the newspapers are experiencing. The new media IS Townhall.com, realclearpolitics.com, and the blogosphere, just to name a few.
    Thanks for your input. :)

     
  • posted at 2:10 pm on Sun, Nov 11, 2007.

    Posts:

    Hey, Dixon: If you want to hear the "other side" of the story, just tune in ABC,CBS, NBC, NPR, and 90% of America's newspapers. They've already told you how to "think."

     
  • posted at 8:16 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2007.

    Posts:

    It doesn't make sense to report any more bad news when the majority of what's happening over there is good news. Nice try Ivan. It doesn't do any good to dwell on the negatives of war.
    Our soldiers have enough on their plate as it is. The last they want to hear are a bunch of asinine comments from an asinine person.

     
  • posted at 8:10 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2007.

    Posts:

    Ivan Dixon, Thanks for your asinine comments. Many times have I heard conservative radio hosts corrected
    by callers or people they are interviewing. They have the courage to admit when they are wrong or just not
    knowledgable enough on a given issue.
    The essence of conservatism is the ability to debate with civility. Unlike the left, which has doomed the war in Iraq from the start, the right has stuck to their guns. We are not hearing much from the MSM about Iraq any more. cont.

     
  • posted at 5:22 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2007.

    Posts:

    Brian is so right. Back when I sampled a variety of media I use to hear all sorts of military officers who either supported the War or opposed it. Now that I just listen to Talk Radio, I can only listen to conservative military officers whose opinions are the same as those I read on conservative blogs which are the same as the ones I hear from conservative politicians. Its so much easier to make up your mind when you only have to listen to one side of the story.

     
  • posted at 5:17 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2007.

    Posts:

    I love Talk Radio. I use to read the Wall Street Journal, the LA Times and a couple of foreign papers but I was occasionally exposed to ideas that I did not agree with. Now I just listen to Talk Radio and they tell me exactly what I should think. I'll bet it's been at least two years since I had to hear an opinion that was different from my own.

     
  • posted at 1:11 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2007.

    Posts:

    The old media is the NY Times and the alphabet channels. How do you know the things you hear about Iraq aren't from military bloggs, I ask you? Perhaps your vet friends are a little smarter than you when it comes to getting info about Iraq. Leonard, you need to get up to speed on the wealth of info military bloggs provide.

     
  • posted at 1:04 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2007.

    Posts:

    Leonard, It's funny you would say talk radio provides no facts even though they get interviews from top commanders in Iraq on a regular basis. And Michael Yon provides good info on Iraq whenever he is on Hugh Hewitt. Obviously you are too stubborn to listen to talk radio. It's also funny that much of what I hear on talk radio
    about Iraq is echoed on many military bloggs or visa versa. Talk radio and the blogosphere is part of the new media. cont.

     
  • posted at 12:41 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2007.

    Posts:

    You guys don't get it. I'm happy we happy Democrats because they create so many great government plans for guys like me to rip off. GW is manna from Heaven! Let's face it. With GW you've got two choices - rip off the system or pay more taxes to support guys like me. Some want to pay the tax so they can feel they are "saving the world.". For me,the choice is a no-brainer!

     
  • posted at 7:20 am on Sat, Nov 10, 2007.

    Posts:

    Weather channel founder: GW is greatest scam in history: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

     
  • posted at 4:47 am on Sat, Nov 10, 2007.

    Posts:

    Why do you say thank God for Democrats, Skeptic? Democrats are the cause of all of our debt and woes in Washington. America and the world would be better off if the Democrats had never happened. All they do is cause trouble and distract from the real message George W. Bush is trying to say. They need to be quiet and let him lead us where he wants us to go.

     
  • posted at 4:26 am on Sat, Nov 10, 2007.

    Posts:

    Skeptic: I am glad to see that you are throwing in the towel. A lot of conservatives are just too stupid to know when they have been beaten.

     
  • posted at 2:28 am on Sat, Nov 10, 2007.

    Posts:

    Global warming or global cooling, it makes no difference to me. As long as there is government involvement, there is money to be made! As Tony Soprano says: "Thank God for Democrats!"

     
  • posted at 11:02 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2007.

    Posts:

    If the best advocate the Cons can find is a has been weather man from the second rated local TV station in San Diego, that means we've won, right?

     
  • posted at 4:35 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2007.

    Posts:

    Yeah, you're probably right. About the same training as Al Gore and big Arnie Swartz. The "truth" should be obvious - except I still don't know what caused all that global warming in the 1930's or the cooling in the 1970's. Weird eh? Wonder why Al owns part of that "carbon credit" co? I guess he plans to make a "killing."

     
  • posted at 4:35 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2007.

    Posts:

    Ha! That's rich! Daniel H. peeking out from under his foil hat long enough to make some half-baked implication Leonard and conspiracy books! That is a real knee slapper! I'm going to chuckle about that all day!

     
  • posted at 3:44 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2007.

    Posts:

    Leonard, Al Gore is making allot of $ off of "global warming"....

     
  • posted at 3:41 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2007.

    Posts:

    Skep: Nah... he's just aTV weatherman with a high school education, a Walmart toupee and a neo con's disregard for the truth. From what I've read on line, the man has no formal training in climatology.

     
  • posted at 2:35 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2007.

    Posts:

    Leonard: Why don't you rate conspiracy theory books at Amazon?

     
  • posted at 1:26 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2007.

    Posts:

    Hey,Leonard: What do you think of the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, calling global warming the
    "greatest scam in history?" Must be part of the right wing conspiracy -right?

     
  • posted at 7:41 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2007.

    Posts:

    Skeptic: For you, it seems that there simply are no facts.

     
  • posted at 1:01 pm on Wed, Nov 7, 2007.

    Posts:

    There are no facts unless they are. "Leonard Approved." Ignore what we don't like, promote what we do. Now that's science!!

     
  • posted at 8:00 am on Tue, Nov 6, 2007.

    Posts:

    Leonard: Companies claiming to be able to work toward a solution or a reduction to G.W., the lobbying firms hired by the companies to secure funding for their research. Politicians getting rich with excessive power and influence by being on the popular side of G.W. The U.S. seems poised on spending countless $$$ on G.W. Someone will be on the receiving end the government trough.

     
  • posted at 7:08 am on Tue, Nov 6, 2007.

    Posts:

    Leonard, it's obvious the liberals are growing fabulously wealthy on this global warming scam, otherwise they would never buy into it like they have. Only true conservatives who have no profit motive like our president, George W. Bush, should be allowed to speak on the topic of global warming.

     
  • posted at 5:29 am on Tue, Nov 6, 2007.

    Posts:

    Metric Time System....Thanks for bringing some rational thinking to this site. Unfortunately, many of those posting here have little regard for rational thought.

     
  • posted at 4:11 am on Tue, Nov 6, 2007.

    Posts:

    Metric: Just out of curiosity, who do you think is making money off of global warming.

     
  • posted at 1:44 am on Tue, Nov 6, 2007.

    Posts:

    We all must be good stewards of our planet and we must always be looking for ways live cleaner and more efficiently, but to whip up an Earth-ending frenzy based on, at best, speculation - and at worst, calculated lies for monetary and/or political gains; accomplishes nothing of value.

     
  • posted at 1:13 pm on Mon, Nov 5, 2007.

    Posts:

    McIntyre has done what scientists should do in analyzing the "hockey stick" graph methodology and he has legitimately identified problems with that study. But even he admits that he has not done detailed analysis on the many other studies that reinforce the evidence that people are most likely contributing significantly to the warming of the atmosphere by the way we produce carbon dioxide. McIntyre has not published critiques of the many other studies the IPCC relied on to come to its assessment.

     
  • posted at 1:10 pm on Mon, Nov 5, 2007.

    Posts:

    There has been too much attention focused on the "hockey stick" graph. It never was the only relevant or essential study and since it was published there have been many more studies that have show the same general pattern.

     
  • posted at 12:46 pm on Mon, Nov 5, 2007.

    Posts:

    There are no facts on Talk Radio. Guys like Limbaugh are media whores who will say literally anything for ratings. Anyone who thinks that they are getting facts from Talk Radio is a chump.

     
  • posted at 10:50 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2007.

    Posts:

    Lets get one thing clear..

    Most people of this world do not care enough to do anything about pollution, right or wrong, most people take the path of least resistance... This has become a society of entitlements.

     
  • posted at 10:09 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2007.

    Posts:

    Of course, the fact that the USSR shut down it temperature reporting stations in the 1990's has nothing to do with the rise of the hocky stick graph - right? What's all this hatred toward talk radio? Attack their facts with facts, not: duh "Liberals good, coservatives bad." That's for ameteurs guys.

     
  • posted at 9:18 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2007.

    Posts:

    (cont.) and their grandkids are going to have o wear respirators? Just because they hated the name Al Gore so vehemently they would do anything and stop at nothing to at least slow the toxic dumping? What is behind their "logic"? Why is treading lightly a bad thing? Why is it stupid to stop dumping toxins in water or tons of smoke into the air? Is that what they long for and want to see return? The brown air?

     
  • posted at 9:14 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2007.

    Posts:

    Al Gore has apparently caused "conservatives" (I hate that term) to lose their collective minds. It seems they will intentionally pollute even more, at an ever more frantic pace, just out of spite. I mean, read these blogs for yourself, the right wingers are really out there. But for what? Don't they know their kids are going to have to pay for water treatment plants?

     
  • posted at 7:06 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2007.

    Posts:

    2XLT: This is a really good point. Regardless of whether the planet is warming or not, why not take action to reduce pollution? We know that pollution has all sorts of other negative effects from asthma to cancer, do we really need a global crisis to motivate us to action?

     
  • posted at 5:49 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2007.

    Posts:

    Skept: A number of the predictions regarding the end of the world have only been avoided because people took action. There is the famous story about Ronald Reagan that, after watching The Day After, the President gathered his advisors and told them that they HAD to find a way to avoid that fate. If Reagan had taken a different course of action, the world could easily have ended in the mid 1980s.

     
  • posted at 5:46 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2007.

    Posts:

    I don't understand the hyper-resistance to cleaning up our act that is put forth by the fundies, as if consumption of anything and everything is their God-given birthright. Why anyone would oppose environmental sensitivity or economical consumption of energy is beyond me. They flatly oppose wind power, they oppose and mock fuel efficient cars and are contemptuous of those who are eco-friendly. Why is this?

     
  • posted at 2:58 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2007.

    Posts:

    Here's a question for you "true believers." When you look at history and the topic is predictions for the end of the world, whose been right 100% of the time - The "prophets" like Al Gore or the skeptics?

     
  • posted at 3:08 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2007.

    Posts:

    Without a viable alternative theory to explain the warming (just saying "it may be a natural variation" doesn't cut it as a theory - in fact, that isn't a theory but mere speculation until a physical mechanism is posited) it is reasonable to make decisions based on the theory that has been put forward that does best explain why we are having the warming that we are having; especially because the consequences of not doing something if the theory is correct could be so catastrophic for future generations.

     
  • posted at 3:08 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2007.

    Posts:

    It is the case that there are so many variables related to the dynamics of the atmosphere that it is difficult to produce a model that doesn't rely on some assumptions that are debatable. But it isn't as though those assumptions are made completely ad hoc with no foundation in previous knowledge.

     
  • posted at 3:06 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2007.

    Posts:

    The only legitimate question of science that has been raised with respect to the relationship of human released carbon dioxide and global warming is the question about the modeling techniques used - and even those issues have not been properly expressed. The modeling is based on well known and understood chemical and physical phenomenon and measurements that correctly "predict" trends that have already been observed.

     
  • posted at 12:09 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2007.

    Posts:

    J. Springfield, fitting your screen name is from a cartoon. Only in that world are conservatives the ones who do not think for themselvs. Ever seen a union meeting or a liberal with an idea that works. Nuff said.....

     
  • posted at 11:14 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2007.

    Posts:

    So, what we really have is a 8 total years of records, none of them taken at the same site. For all we know, temperatures at the Viking landing zones are 10 degrees cooler today than they were in 1976. If you had read the actual reports from NASA you would know all this but instead you simply repeated what you heard on talk radio which was, as usual, wrong.

     
  • posted at 11:09 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2007.

    Posts:

    First it was 100 years of Martian weather and now its just 30 years? But wait!We can whittle that down even further.When it come to Martian temperatures, what you really have is a set of readings from two sites from 1976 to 1982.Then we have nothing for 15 years until 1997 when we have 2 months worth of readings from a site thousands of miles away.Then, again, nothing for again for another 7 years until 2004 when we finally readings are resumed, again at completely different sites.

     
  • posted at 6:48 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2007.

    Posts:

    No human causes... PROVEN.... driven by Dollars... PROVEN...

    that is all..

     
  • posted at 4:47 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2007.

    Posts:

    "Whatsamatter" with you guys? Don't know that the temperature on Mars has increased .5 degrees over the last 30 years? How do I know? "all the scientists" say so at NASA. Don't believe me? Look it up! Must be those Martian SUV's-right?

     
  • posted at 3:42 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2007.

    Posts:

    If man could change the atmosphere we would see large clouds of pollution hovering over cities like Beijing and New Delhi.

     
  • posted at 5:10 pm on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    If these comments offer any clue, the collective scientific spark of this community is not enough to light a fart. Read, educate yourself, please. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and your fundamentalist pastor are not climate scientists (nor rocket scientists, for that matter!)

     
  • posted at 5:03 pm on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    Whoever is posing as "Billy Rubin" is hilarious--great satire!

     
  • posted at 12:39 pm on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    The Bible tells us about the Hot Place and its not the Garden of Eden.

     
  • posted at 11:43 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    I love the tropics: I thank you for your support for the God-determined climate. Radical counter-culture would have us frightened into surrendering our productivity and tax revenue, in order to chase a fictitious creature.

     
  • posted at 11:41 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    Chicken little paranoia about the earth's ozone layer started out of the British Antarctic Survey, which correlates to the Royal Institute of International Affairs. A shadowy organization that is sister to America's Council on Foreign Relations, and controls British foreign policy just like the CFR does America's.

     
  • posted at 11:37 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    Veteran of the Malabar Front: How much protection from the sun's ultra violet rays does any animal species require on the South Pole? What is the angle of solar impingement at the south pole? Well, it varies with the seasons. Maximum solar incidence equals the angle between the ecliptic and equatorial planes. Did man put the hole in the ozone, or was it always there?

     
  • posted at 10:26 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    To Daniel Nov 3, 2007 11:03 AM: Game, Set, Match to you!

     
  • posted at 10:24 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    Big deal! Let it warm up. Are all of you so arrogant to think you personally know what the optimal temperature of the Earth should be? Maybe we'll have The Garden of Eden everywhere with a few more bumps to the thermostat. Bring it on!

     
  • posted at 9:46 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/Publications/journal/volume13/no2/content/alum_profile.html

    The hole in the ozone layer does not appear to be growing. The best estimate is that it has stabilized and will soon begin to get smaller. It is reasonable to infer that this is not coincidental with the restrictions on the use of chemicals that break down ozone molecules, but is likely because of those restrictions.

    Notice that the alumni profile is about a person who is an atmospheric chemist. To limit the discussion to climatologists only is misleading since there are a great many associated relevant fields of expertise.

     
  • posted at 9:28 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    Arguing with rank and file conservatives is pointless. These people are just pawns of the Republican elites. They will believe whatever talk radio tells them to believe and nothing is going to change that. If they were able to think for themselves, they wouldn't be conservatives.

     
  • posted at 7:06 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    The last time I checked, the world is overpopulated, we are running out of gas ($96 a barrel!!!) and the hole in the ozone over the South Pole is getting bigger every year.

     
  • posted at 6:46 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    Danny: The debate over the information used in the graph has been thoroughly carried out in the scientific journals and, guess what, the good guys won. I have to say that, given your complete disregard for facts, evidence or scientific methodology, I am rather surprised to see that you even care.

     
  • posted at 6:03 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    Leonard: When you criticized the "hockey stick" (neo-scientific graph), you didn't address anything about the origins of the data that made the graph. You only picked out a person who you could criticize. You attacked his integrity, although your own isn't very good, and you treated your own personal opinion as a scientific proof against the graph. This is your trademark methodology. The hockey stick graph is criticized by more than one person. Of course you aren't going to respect anyones opinion if they oppose your global warming politics.

     
  • posted at 4:42 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    These blogs look like the age-old conflict between the "true believers" and the "skeptics." To quote historian G.R. Gores: "Man does not change, Only his technology does."

     
  • posted at 3:42 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    Every generation needs something to fear, after all! When I was a kid we had bombing drills where we hid under our desks in order to be prepared for Russia's attacks. It never happened. My kids have global warming, their kids will have.....

     
  • posted at 11:38 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Sorry Kilio, that bit about you purposefully entering false information into models was a cheap shot. I have no reason, other than political sentiment, to believe that you would do such a thing. Of course, the same could be said about your claim about the scientists working in climatology.

     
  • posted at 3:43 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Leonard: When you can't defend the fallacy of the hocky stick graph, always attack the messenger. It's a great move. Another is to change subjects.

     
  • posted at 3:34 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Climatologists who say "bull?" How about
    Singer, Gray, Howard and Bastardi for starters?
    Leonard will have to have the last word, so here's mine. A history of hype:
    1950's-Nuclear tests change weather patterns. 1960's-starvation and over population. 1970's-global cooling. 1980's-no more oil. 1990's ozone holes.
    2000-global warming. 2010? Time will tell.

     
  • posted at 2:34 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Historian said: "explain why the temperature on Mars has also increased during the same time period" That's rich irony after just one sentence before trying to impeach the conclusions of scientists on the basis of them supposedly invalidly seeing causation in correlation. Can you cite a reputable scientist who explains what the physical mechanism would be that is currently heating up both the Earth and Mars (if Mars is heating up)? There certainly is a well explained mechanism for how carbon dioxide from human activity could be heating up the Earth's atmosphere.

     
  • posted at 2:09 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    The controversy I am talking about is the removal of an entire epoch in history and the distortion of what is occurring now. Not sure what you are talking about...

    Done with you, because you will believe what ever you want and I will believe what I want, time will be the ultimate judge, and I believe in the next 30 years we will be at global cooling again.

     
  • posted at 2:07 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Ah Leonard, twist my word and make me a villain. Not going to work. My models were as clean as the pure driven snow. It was the people that demanded the answers that were corrupt and because I am human I gave them the answers they wanted. Which is pretty much what climate modeler are doing now.

     
  • posted at 1:21 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Similarly, Ross McKitrick, Mann's other major critic is an authority in wing nut circles because of his formal training in....economics. And people say that Al Gore is unqualified to speak on this subject!

     
  • posted at 12:43 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Kilio: As for the so called "hockey stick controversy" I don't find anything remarkable in the fact that Stephen McIntyre, the head of a oil exploration company, would attack the global warming thesis by any means at his disposal, including intellectual dishonesty. The only thing I do find remarkable is the fact that the ranting of an individual with no background in climatology would receive SO much attention on right wing Talk Radio.

     
  • posted at 12:42 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Kilio: I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim that, just because you once made dishonest models that all modelers are dishonest.

     
  • posted at 12:26 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Leonard, we have tried. Amongst the bloggers here it seems to me we are trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. There is always hope. Miracles do happen on occasion.

     
  • posted at 10:09 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    How do they even know what the temperature on Mars was 100 years ago? Did they ask the Martians?

     
  • posted at 9:33 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Historian: Again, I will point out that while I have cited specific, peer reviewed articles and referenced thousands of other articles which confirm my thesis, you have failed to provide any evidence to support your position.

     
  • posted at 9:30 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Historian: Chuckle... as it happens, two of the three scientists I cited are under 45. As for the arguments, most of these articles are available on the web. As a non expert in this field, I am not qualified to judge them on their merits. Instead, I trust in the century old system of peer review and the knowledge that their publication in journals of this caliber means that their results have been checked and verified by the leading scientists in their field.

     
  • posted at 9:16 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Hey, Leonard: Kind of interesting that your boy, Mike Mann and his famous "hockey stick" graph, totally ignored the warmest decade ever recorded, which was the 1930's, do you think? He also doesn't explain very well why things were so hot in the 1400's either. Anyway, I must give you credit for at least knowing some of the literature, even if "thousands of studies" is a slight exaggeration.

     
  • posted at 9:04 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    O.K. Leonard . you've cited a few graybeards. Now where are the facts? Show me one study (that's not correlation)that demonstrates man is causing climate change or that Co2 increases the Earth's temperature. Any of your graybeards explain why the temperature on Mars has also increased during the same time period?

     
  • posted at 8:44 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    M.E. Mann - discredited for producing the "hockey stick" graph
    Pierre Friedlingstein - climate modeler - GIGO
    Cox, P.M., R.A. Betts, C.D. Jones, S.A. Spall, and I.J. Totterdell see above.
    All of these people are modeler. The problem is that they are not honest with their inputs.
    I used to create computer model and basically could get any result I wanted by cooking the inputs.

     
  • posted at 8:35 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Daniel, only if I let him suck me into an argument. I find arguing with children or those with the mentality of children to be a waste of time.

     
  • posted at 8:34 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Ah Leonard the difficultly of proving a negative. Writing papers with questionable data proving something is happenings is a lot easier that writing a paper proving something doesn't exist. Most of the scientist haven't spent any time on this issue because it was clear it wasn't an issue until the last few years. Now they are finally addressing the fallacies put forth by the scaremongers.

     
  • posted at 7:50 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    If you knew your house was going to burn down, would you bother clearing the dishes from the table or vaccuuming the floor? No! Jesus will restore the Earth to perfection like it says in the Bible and all of the non-believers and liberals Democrats will be purged from the earth. We true American believers will have all the free gas we need and there will be no fake global warming scares. And best of all, there will be no Al Gore!

     
  • posted at 7:17 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Conservatives know that the way to speed Jusus' return to earth is to bring about the Apocalypse. Then he will descend from the sky and we Republican True Believers will be raptured.

     
  • posted at 6:46 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    The articles I cited, on the other hand, are just three out of thousands.

     
  • posted at 6:45 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Historian: I should also point out that you and your ditto heads have not presented any scientific evidence to support your position what so ever. Zero peer reviewed articles.

     
  • posted at 6:43 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Professor P.M. Cox is the Chair of the Climate System Dynamics Division at University of Exeter in England. Until September 2006, Prof Cox was the Science Director Climate Change at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and prior to that he was at the Hadley Centre for Climate prediction and Research (1990-2004).

     
  • posted at 6:43 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    M.E. Mann is an American climatologist and author of more than 80 peer-reviewed journal publications. In August 2005 he was appointed Associate Professor at Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and Director of the university's interdepartmental Earth System Science Center. He previously taught at the University of Virginia, in the Department of Environmental Sciences (1999 - 2005).

     
  • posted at 6:43 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Pierre Friedlingstein is a researcher at the French National Research Centre (CNRS), working at the Laboratory of Climate and environment Sciences (LSCE, Paris). He is a specialist in climatology and bio-geochemistry.

     
  • posted at 6:29 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Historian: The fact that you don't know that articles in reputable journals are reviewed anonymously is quite telling. As for the identities of the authors....

     
  • posted at 4:31 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    To Leonard: Nice try, but quoting footnotes off of the internet does not do the job. What are the qualifications of the authors? Who reviewed them? What are their qualifications? What are their special interests? Who employs them? What methods are used in the studies? Let's deal with facts, not "my scientists can beat up your scientists."

     
  • posted at 2:49 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Steve Hansen: Thank you for a good article.

     
  • posted at 2:49 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    killio: I see Leonard has a new argument partner. I could get the "Peer Review? What peer review?" reference for you. Did you see my letter 6 months ago on the orgins of the global warming hoax, in "Report from Iron Mountain"?

     
  • posted at 2:47 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Leonard: Have you seen my reference, "Peer? What Peer Review?" They examine the number of peers that reviewed the IPCC. Not very many.

     
  • posted at 2:38 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2007.

    Posts:

    Here we go again. Let's bring all the scientists together who will confer that global warming is human caused and ask them what their political affiliation is. I doubt any of them
    will say they are influenced at all by
    any political party. To them, this is such an important issue. It is the politicizing of this issue that has cast doubt. The right is in denial.
    The left makes the right's denial that much worse. Let's leave it to science and not politics.

     
  • posted at 4:10 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Liberals are great at preaching "tolerance." But when it comes to Christians, then bigotry abounds!

     
  • posted at 3:51 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Dr. Zhivago is on the money. Unfortunately, Billy Rubin is another
    "Real Facts" with this wierdo religious garbage. If the Republican Party loses the election it will be because of screwballs like Rubin and Real Facts. Maybe it's just the Halloween season that brings these people out.

     
  • posted at 2:37 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Another quick note: there IS a consensus on the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming amongst scientific experts in the relevant fields: (from the American Association for the Advancement of Science):

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686

    (Of course, those scientists are aware they could be wrong - as you can see in the article cited above, so to imply otherwise is disingenuous.)

     
  • posted at 2:11 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Kilio: Perhaps, given enough time, YOU could count all of the peer reviewed articles documenting global climate change but, in doing so, you would only prove my point.

     
  • posted at 1:36 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Historian: I could go on and on and on and on and on but I think you get my point. "Countless" articles and more! The scientific evidence to support your position, on the other hand, is, at best, negligible.

     
  • posted at 1:35 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Historian:Mann, M.E., and P.D. Jones (2003) Global surface temperatures over the past two
    millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (15).

     
  • posted at 1:34 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Historian:Friedlingstein, P., L. Bopp, P. Ciais, J.L. Dufresne, L. Fairhead, H. LeTreut, P.
    Monfray, and J. Orr (2001) Positive feedback between future climate change and
    the carbon cycle, Geophysical Research Letters, 28 (8), 1543-1546.

     
  • posted at 1:33 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Historian: Cox, P.M., R.A. Betts, C.D. Jones, S.A. Spall, and I.J. Totterdell (2000) Acceleration of
    global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model (vol
    408, pg 184, 2000), Nature, 408 (6813), 750.

     
  • posted at 1:03 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    That is an oversimplified version of science. If scientists always had to rely on controlled experiments to provide evidence of cause and effect over correlation then archeologists could not make judgments about cause and effect relationships (no controlling of independent variables that are in the past) and big chunks of sciences like astronomy would be deemed invalid. Everything that was said by Mr. Hanson would apply to the relationship between ozone depletion and release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere. If we had applied the same reasoning used in the article we would not have banned the widespread use of chlorofluorocarbons.

     
  • posted at 11:49 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    MEGA DITTOS STEVE!!! Why should I listen to these pointy headed scientists when I have Rush Limbaugh and Bill OReilly to tell me what I should think?

     
  • posted at 11:41 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Once our cash has been spent trying to clean up Al Gores imaginary mess that wasnt there, the cash is gone forever with nothing to show for it. All conservatives know we are in the end times and Jesus return is imminent literally any day now. There is no need to panic and attempt to keep air clean or water pure. There is too much water on earth for puny man to worry about contaminating anyway and how much clean air and water do we really need?

     
  • posted at 11:41 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Now is the time for all true conservatives to rally round our Republican leaders and reject the lies told by the lying liberal scientific community. How do they think we can pollute our air? Everything they claim we are polluting our air and water with came from right here on earth! Where do they think those green house gasses came from? Venus? No! Theyre from right here on Earth. All of that stuff has always been right here.

     
  • posted at 9:04 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Some of you are missing the point of Hansen's article. It's not whether you believe in global warming or not, it's are you using true scientific inquiry to draw your conclusions, or are you simply being emotional because someone with a fancy title or a celebrity said it is so? Drawing from the comments, it apprears the emotionists are winning hands down!

     
  • posted at 8:18 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    "Countless peer review articles?" NAME ONE!

     
  • posted at 7:38 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Actually Leonard, the "countless" (can't be true - but I digress) article do mean a lot to me. They mean that there are a lot of scientists that have a theory on this subject. The other articles that disagree are just as valid and I believe have better data to support their arguments. The information is out there for you to look at, don't just believe the hype.

     
  • posted at 6:24 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Way to go, Steve! Call it like you see it. What caused the ice to retreat during the end of the Ice Age - with no cars or combustible engines? All science now undergoes the media test. If it's sensational, it must be true.

     
  • posted at 6:14 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    How does a job as a "writer and satirist" make this guy an expert on science and climate? If we should dismiss everything that Al Gore says on this topic shouldn't we also dismiss everything that Steve Hansen says? That would, of course, only leave us with the clear consensus of the scientific community and we all know what that is.

     
  • posted at 4:39 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    We conservatives spend more than we have and use more than we need because there is no reason to conserve. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is coming to rule the Earth and make it new again and we will live happily ever after.

     
  • posted at 4:37 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Right you are, killio. True conservatives know that man cannot change the earth. He cant poison the dirt, contaminate the water or pollute the air. The Earth is indestructible the Bible says so. Being a conservative isnt like being a liberal conservationist.

     
  • posted at 4:28 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Kilio; The countless peer reviewed articles on this subject mean nothing to you?

     
  • posted at 2:38 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    This is going to strike to close to home for the mushskulls who believe in this tripe. Look at the comments already....they irony of the Global warming hoax is lost on those that NEED to believe in the bogeyman and the great saviour UN/Government.

     
  • posted at 1:37 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Mr Steve, thanks for a laugh, you didn't mention that Al needs to be riding his bike to the Intergalactic Body on Planetary Warming's board meetings.

     
  • posted at 10:14 am on Wed, Oct 31, 2007.

    Posts:

    Global Warming...Have "No Fear" Underdog is Here...$$$ Ya know it's most always difficult remain positive with a one track mind and your pants on fire...$$$

     
  • posted at 9:16 am on Wed, Oct 31, 2007.

    Posts:

    Where does it say that this particular piece is a "satire?" I guess that's how they teach reading these days: Just see what you want to see.

     
  • posted at 6:31 am on Wed, Oct 31, 2007.

    Posts:

    This editorial is about as funny as it is factual.

     
  • posted at 5:50 am on Wed, Oct 31, 2007.

    Posts:

    Isn't satire supposed to be funny?

     
  • posted at 5:20 am on Wed, Oct 31, 2007.

    Posts:

    Overwhelming observational evidence indicates that the earth is warming, and that the cause of that warming is mostly anthropogenic (caused by humans) in nature. Further, the vast majority of scientists that study climate change believe that warming will continue for the foreseeable future

     
  • posted at 5:13 am on Wed, Oct 31, 2007.

    Posts:

    How about: "The World Council on Global Climate Change" or the "Intergalactic Body on Planetary Warming?" That or, perhaps, the National Academy of Sciences? Yeah, what a bunch of jokers....

     

Recent Comments

Posted 7 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: People need to respect police o…

Taser? Baton? Pepper spray? Evasion? Swarm? Any of these familiar? How about falling back and deescalation ? Call for help? Why d…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: Letter: Evil is always present

Tillett: Actually I was wrong both ways, neither Soul or Sole are correct. A book written by Marcus Luttrell that was tilted "Lone Su…

More...

Posted 10 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Voters should focus on a new di…

Goodness knows I'm on your side, Kevin. I think proportional representation is a great idea, but I'm not sure how it would work in the U.S…

More...

Posted 11 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: California adds new rule for passing bi…

Would just hate to see you paying those fines Ed. You know Ed big rigs pay far more in road taxes than a car does, do you feel you should g…

More...

Posted 11 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: Letter: People need to respect police o…

I don't know Mike, seeing the rash of BAD choices from drivers lately has got me siding more and more with the cops needing STRICTER enforc…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists