« Gitmo Lawyer Prepares for Debriefing | Main | BHO Complains That New Yorker Cover Is Offensive to Muslims »

You stupid wingnuts. The fact that Global Warming isn't happening only PROOVES Global Warming is happening.

It's good to hear that the sky ISN'T falling. That the Antarctic ice sheets AREN'T melting.

But wait. The source cited in the article, the Republican-sponsored "Science and Public Policy Institute", founded for the express purpose of casting doubt on human-caused climate change includes the conclusion that human activity WILL contribute to global warming:

"Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F."

So, the article in essence states taht humans ARE contributing to global warming. We're just arguing about how much.

It's good to hear that the sky ISN'T falling. That the Antarctic ice sheets AREN'T melting.

But wait. The source cited in the article, the Republican-sponsored "Science and Public Policy Institute", founded for the express purpose of casting doubt on human-caused climate change includes the conclusion that human activity WILL contribute to global warming:

"Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F."

So, the article in essence states that humans ARE contributing to global warming. We're just arguing about how much.

We're just arguing about how much.

Not quite. We're arguing about whether it is a catastrophe that warrants gutting our economy to correct. We're also arguing the plausibility of the doomsday scenarios painted by the Warmers if in fact their warming models are true (which they aren't). We're further arguing against the continued intrusion of the government into the lives of private citizens, using the environment and global warming as the means to achieve that end.

So you are correct, the sky isn't falling, the polar bears will live on, and Al Gore is still a con artist and a fraud.

Not quite. We're arguing about whether it is a catastrophe that warrants gutting our economy to correct.

Correct.

the sky isn't falling, the polar bears will live on, and Al Gore is still a con artist and a fraud.

Also correct.

You are correct that understanding the rate of global warming should inform policy decisions. This particular paper, however, should not be taken as the final word on the subject. He starts off the paper with a global surface temperature plot with an inadequate description of its inherent errors, limited global coverage, and variability over a more meaningful time period. The second plot compares actual global warming to estimates made in 1988. Using such an old prediction is silly. Finally, figure 7 shows an apparent non-correlation of CO2 to global temperature over the last 600 million years. Our understanding of climate and its measurement may well be on shaky ground. But ignoring the much better and pertinent data over the last 420,000 years (corresponding to ice core data) is an obvious problem.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

^the final word, proving this hoax one temperature station at a time.

So, basically, Democrats (and John McCain) are willing to devastate the economy because it might shave half a degree off the temperature in a hundred years... but they won't let us drill for oil because the benefit would not be "immediate."

I think some people are truly too stupid to realize how truly stupid they are.

I dont believe much of what McCain says in regards to fighting global warming. He is probably saying what he says because he thinks it might get him a few extra votes from followers of the Goracle. Obama on the other hand believes all the GW BS heart and soul and would rubber stamp whatever the Democratically controlled Congress sends him.

Anyone else getting sick of seeing those TV ads for T Boone Pickens trying to pump up the stocks for his investments in windmills and solar panel companies?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu-t-boone-pickens-jul10,0,5676645.story
""Part of this play is to create his legacy. It's also a part of his strategy to fill his own pocketbook."

$2 billion invested"

Pickens has his good points but he is off base on this one. Does he really think we are going to be running our cars on solar and wind power any time soon? He should be promoting offshore drilling.

Anyone else getting sick of seeing those TV ads for T Boone Pickens trying to pump up the stocks for his investments in windmills and solar panel companies?.

Yeah, I figured it was something like that... Like NBC's "Green Weeks" intended to prime the market for General Electric's windmills.

The drop in oil prices lately is interesting. I think Soros and the Saudis/Iranians are getting nervous that Republicans have a campaign issue and the US might be serious about energy independence.

@Dan Packman

The second plot compares actual global warming to estimates made in 1988. Using such an old prediction is silly.

Why is it silly? All we have to work with now are more estimates. How do you guarantee they're any more accurate than the old ones? What will you have to say when 20 years from now the current estimates don't pan out either?

>...computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity"...>

Is this the same "scientific method" they used to determine that cigarettes cause cancer by forcing lab rats to smoke the equivilent of FIVE CARTONS a day?

Hello to all my US mates,

Just spoke to the senator responsible for introducing a carbon trading scheme here in Australia. (Talk back radio is a wonderful thing...) I asked her what the government's target was for CO2 reduction. The answer? I still can't work out due to her 'spin'.

But, they are going to tax fuel, and offset the tax with a reduction in fuel excise for three years. After that, who knows?

Save us all from lefty governments.....and greenies..

John in Australia: I hate to say it, but it looks like we're going the same route as you all, now. Just about everybody here in the USA has "bought into" this absolute garbage (politicians, I understand, since they have to be seen as current and on top of the latest trends, though that's no excuse for being a moron). But the AGW'ers would seem to have a problem, since all indications are it's actually getting colder.

The best finding of the SPPI report: "Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon [Triton], and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed . . ." Uh, oh! The AGW'ers may actually have to acknowledge the existence of the Sun! Big, big trouble for the "man-made" global warming crapola, since they seem to believe that the Sun has no effect whatsoever on the Earth's climate, as incredibly stupid as that sounds.

John, the assumption that observed changes on "Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon..and Triton" are warming are unwarranted. Total solar irradiance is difficult to measure, but doesn't seem to be increasing.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/on-veizers-celestial-climate-driver/langswitch_lang/index.php?p=192

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/langswitch_lang/de

The problem with this article by Chris Monckton is that a) he isn't a scientist or a mathematician, let alone a physicist capable of making these mathematical predictions with any sort of credibility, and b) this article was published in the *forum newsletter* of the APS, called FPS. It is not a peer-reviewed article, nor was it actually published in the APS journal.

Lastly, Monckton is an infamous and well-established climate change skeptic, while the SPPI is a biased establishment funded by ExxonMobil.

jc14 said:
" the assumption that observed changes on "Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon..and Triton" are warming are unwarranted. Total solar irradiance is difficult to measure, but doesn't seem to be increasing. "


How is observed data unwarranted? As to the sun, it dropped off in sun spots and the earth temperature leveled off and then dropped. Sun spots are a scientific indicator of solar output. Less spots, less output. Earth temperature dropping at the same time is not a coincidence.

Packman

Wow, where to start. If all else fails (and this seems to be the case) pull out the "money from big oil" card, even if you can't prove Mr. Monckton personally received funding. Typical. Next, throw the scientific method out the window and discount anything he says because he's a skeptic. Nice.

If there were no merit to Mr. Monckton's arguments would Physics & Society publish his paper and also state "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." Some consensus...

RE: observed changes on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune etc.
If you read the references I posted, you will find that the changes on these bodies are not obviously warming nor do their climate systems have such similarity to earth that we can immediately make an generalities to other bodies.

As to Monckton, I addressed a few of his points directly. It was another poster who raised other issues. Just because he is in an increasingly small group questioning global warming doesn't make him right.