How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?

http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2005/ 06/ how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/

Here are two simple introductions to detection and attribution studies -

Scientists Explain How They Attribute Climate-Change Data, Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/ public/ article/ SB114738549525950630-QqwFrCpeGpvAyVu_XA79Mm9vFKo_20070511.html

Global Warming 101 Fingerprints. Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/ global_warming/ science/ Fingerprints.html

Sadly, here in the U.S. a very large percentage of the population understands politics far more than science and casts everything in the framework of the former. While the public policy reaction to climate change is certainly a valid topic for debate within the public forum… the existence and cause of climate change is something that probably is simply out of the grasp of a majority of the population. Settling scientific debate in the public forum is simply a flawed concept.

Most of the public, on either side of the issue, form their beliefs not from understanding the complex science but from the opinions of the political party and political leaders that they trust. Unfortunately, this puts us in the perilous position of being dependent on our leaders on both sides of the aisle to act with integrity and due diligence in order to form the public consensus that will obviously be necessary to enact truly broad sweeping reform and decarbonization. Yikes! Pass me a flotation device, please.

An important part of science is understanding the scope and limitations of our current understanding and models of reality. We know we don’t yet know everything about gravity, however, we certainly know enough about gravity to use our understanding of it on a daily bases… such as building planes and rockets. Planes do quite nicely having been designed using the Newtonian physical models that we know to be incomplete.

A person’s belief that there is or should be a PROOF involved in climate change science is ample evidence that they don’t understand science enough to form a valid opinion. Proofs are really used in the domain of mathematics rather than science.

And it was certainly a case of deja vu all over again! Check out this thread… “okc” hits the jackpot as James Annan, Michael Tobis, Hank Roberts, Eli Rabbett and others patiently (eventually, after a rough start) try to answer his questions…
http://groups.google.com/ group/ globalchange/ browse_thread/ thread/ 76c9b8f14bbfd759/ 0a3c934048b1319c

“okc” introduces himself to the group as follows: “I defy anyone to prove to me that ‘global warming’ is irrefutably a predominantly anthropogenic process. The scientific method does not get you there, true facts on A.G.W. are few and far between. Please do not give me links to environmental activist sites like Real Climate. I said irrefutable evidence, not politics. ”

The subsequent exchanges are priceless, but eventually “okc” suddenly declares “Alright, the subject is too complex, so the question cannot be answered. That is fair enough to me. I understand that absolute scientific proof of anything is nearly an impossible task. Evidently, the scientific method should no longer be taught if not totally discarded since it has no purpose anymore.” and vamooses…

And you had to go it alone Joe! Oh well… onward!

Meanwhile, the DotEarth thread in the same vein appears to be turning into a perpetual motion machine, as it should pass 1,000 replies later today… http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 01/ 24/ earth-scientists-express-rising-concern-over-warming/

The single point the PO deniers rely on endlessly is this bizarre belief that there’s oceans of high grade, cheap-to-exploit crude oil out there, and the nasty ol’ US gov’t is the only reason why we aren’t tapping it and driving around on 50 cent/gallon gasoline.

Inspired by recent posts on climateprogress, I say let’s begin in Greensburg, KS. Let’s throw in together and get those people some alternate generating capacity. I’ll gladly put in the first $10 (the cost to install one watt). In fact, I’ll pledge to add $10 a month in perpetuity. Don’t be a delayer. Be a doer.

The only problem with not making the distinction between climate change and economic/security issues is that tar sands, oil shale, coal electricity or even coal to liquids might be perfectly reasonable solutions to the latter, but absolutely the wrong thing to do for CO2 emissions reductions.

I simply don’t see how relying on the security/economic argument will get us to a workable solution to avoid the risks of climate change. I certainly believe these issues are real and important. However, I think it is crucial to also appreciate the unique issues of climate change.

Isn’t it in Matthew somewhere that, “The deniers you will always have with you”, or something along those lines?

The problem with appealing to authoritative sources is that some people choose their own bogus authorities (e.g. the WSJ op-ed page or a fiction author). You have now suggested alternative authorities (the bibliography), but the denier can simply reject them as well.

I tend to ask deniers just where all that oil and coal and natural gas CO2 ends up if not in the atmosphere. Since many of them believe the CO2 increase is a natural thing and not anthropogenic, I ask them whether they think that fossil CO2 somehow magically migrates into outer space but nature’s CO2 somehow stays put on Earth? The oil, gas, and coal companies, and their governments, have kept records of what we have dug up and burned (and if anything the records are probably on the low side). Where do people think all that stuff has gone if not the atmosphere? Scientists know that some went from the atmosphere into the oceans (you can measure the pH change of the oceans), but not all. The denier usually simply switches arguments at this point, which tells you their state of mind. Of course the truly crazy skeptic might claim that CO2 doesn’t cause warming at all. What do you do when faced with someone who doesn’t believe in 1850s science? Such people are hopeless.

You may find it helps to find out just what science your denier does accept beforehand. Most will reject anything used to indicate global warming, but if they have accepted it beforehand, it is harder to turn around and reject it later.

I am not relying solely on the security/economic/environmental argument. I say there are several compelling reasons to replace fossil fuels. If I ask you is it a good goal to have alternatives be at least 40% of energy by 2030, you’d no doubt say yes. Your number one reason is global warming. Mine is economic viability. Other’s may be environmental concerns other than global warming. For some it’s national security. For most it’s probably a combination. So let’s get to it. I put the emphasis on replacing fossil fuel because I believe it the most efficient approach. We cannot reduce CO2 without first reducing our use of carbon based energy. I advocate methods that reduce the cost of alternatives rather than raising the price of fossils (the market is doing a pretty good job of raising prices now). I don’t understand Progressives’ eager promotion of viciously regressive carbon tax and regulatory regimes.

Trouble is, when you’ve got a handle on the antics of denialists for Climate Change, it comes up again for Peak Oil, then when people are getting a handle on Peak Oil you have to convince them about Peak Uranium, and that neither Tar Sands, Hydrogen Cells, Bio Fuels nor anything science has so far discovered or feels it is likely to discover soon enough, can fill the energy gap - and that rationing might be better than wasting your remaining precious fragments of fuel in fighting for even less fuel… oh, and then there’s Sea Rise… even the IPCC probably doesn’t go far enough… oh yes, and you realize that there are so many organizations now promoted to telling you about Climate Change, but even they don’t realize the possibility of sea levels rising 20 metres… er, was that right, Hansen? I’m still looking for backup info!… are you there, Hansen?

Do check out our website www,greenworldtrust.org.uk - and help us improve this as a useful friendly introduction to difficult issues

Actually it is staid, conservative economists who view a fossil carbon tax as the best means of solving the problem. Some progressives have suggested replacing other regressive taxes, such as payroll taxes, by fossil carbon taxes. I know of none who have suggested simply additional taxation. Maybe conservative economists do that.

Yes, the price of fossil fuels is going up and up; nearing peak oil with peak coal not much further down the road. One alternative is bioenergy from biomass, done responsibly and sensibly (i.e., not ethanol-from-corn). Follow

http://www.icis.com/blogs/biofuels/

and

http://biopact.com/

to discover many of the innovations in doing so.

Has it actually been done using focus groups or whatever they call it. Take 100 people who are indifferent or unknowledgeable about it, 100 who think it’s happening etc. and then see what messages works with each group. Obviously a better job has to be done with the message. What is the message that works? This is to important a thing to leave to lets see if this works, there should a little science behind it.

Or maybe nobody actually does change their mind. Is there anybody who was quite set against thinking that greenhouse gas global warming is bull, but came away now thinking that it is true? Ask them what message is needed.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

The reason I like it is because it lets me see the arguments against all in one place and there is some order to it. It lists how many times an argument comes up that they run across. I don’t know if all the explanations on this website are the best that is possible, but they are easy to read and quick to go thru.

The message of man-made global warming needs more something than it is getting now. Some advertiser might know what that is, but simply appealing to science when so many people are science illiterate may not work well enough. Sure science has given us so many things in medicine, heating, buildings, communication, etc. But for most people it is either it works or it doesn’t work, it doesn’t require a judgement call in changing their lives as reducing carbon dioxide does.

Joe,
My situation illustrates why consumers are unable to exert their normal power in the market. I am beautifully set up for solar - south facing shade free sloped roof, modest electrical needs and mandatory buy back from the utility. A $20,000 investment could zero out my electric bill and pay for itself in 18 to 25 years. Now if I were a rich man yada didi dada didi didi da, I would be PV’d tomorrow. Or if I knew I would stay in the house for those 18 to 25 years, I’d home equity the cost. We plan to move in the next year. I will have solar on my next house.

So I am out of the market this year. I’m a consumer wannabe; but I, like perhaps millions of others, have no way to get in. Then I had the inspirational thought that if I couldn’t have solar this year, maybe there’d be enough people willing to throw in together to see that at least somebody could. So that’s what I’m working on, a national association to install solar and wind technologies at no cost to the end consumer. I see Greensburg as ideal for an association project. Pick a building in Greensburg - a school or library or firehouse e.g. - and put some solar on top of it. Why if just 5,000 of us climate progress fans threw in $10, we’d put up some right fine PV. In fact, I think it would be wonderful if you would hold the money while I go about the process of registering with the state of Illinois, getting a federal tax number and setting up accounts. As I’ve said, I’ll be the first to pledge $10 a month.

I think this link helps too ….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio&eurl=http://www.uctv.tv/ search-details.asp?showID=13459

I understand your wanting to do something about global warming, but there is something I think you are missing. It is the allocation of scarce resources. Is putting in PV systems in other people’s buildings going to be the best place money that might be raised to fight global warming can be put to?

Let’s say that you were extremely good at raising money and you raised 5 billion dollars. Really. Would you spend that money to put in 5 billion dollars to put in PV systems on buildings? Would that make sense? I saw someplace that if the money spent in the Iraq war were put into PV systems, it would only give us the electricity of 3 percent of what we now use. That’s hardly enough to do any good.

But if instead you spent the money you raised, the 5 billion dollars, to run a global warming awareness campaign, where you bought TV, magazine, and newspaper commercials (or PDA’s) organized all other kinds awareness campaigns including political campaigns, that might be a better use of the money. Think about all the things that can be done with that amount of money in a ad campaign.

Some people think that the reason that Al Gore didn’t win the 2000 Presidential election is because of some problems counting votes in Florida. That not right, the reason Gore lost the election was because Bush outspent Gore by 60 million dollars. How much of a difference was 60 million dollars spent anywhere else in the 2000 economy that would have made as much of a difference as if Al Gore had had 60 million dollars more? Doesn’t matter who you may have been for, the example is obvious. We have to be ready to pay and work for any change we might want.

It not just about doing good, we have to be good for something. We need change on huge scales, not just a building here and there. We don’t just need drops of non-carbon energy and energy efficiency, we need buckets of it. The scale that’s needed is many times larger than a few PV systems. We need to get most people on board for a chance to succeed.

My criticism would also include putting in PV systems. If we spend money on something, we need the biggest bang for the buck and PV is one of the last things to put up. Energy efficiency is usually the first.

There are solutions. On-bill financing tied to property taxes, for example, enables three things — 1)longer payback, 2) lower cost money (since collections are tied to propoerty taxes, the loans become low-risk, and require little in the way of administrative costs for a lender to recover — they become de facto guaranteed loans, with lower rates) and 3) the value of the renewable energy system is embeded in the building, rather than being borne by the owner.

So what? Well, first of all, people don’t really care about cost per kiloWatt — they care about monthly bills. If that $20K PV system Paul wants were financed at 6% (instead of 9 or more as is typical) and amortized over 20 to 30 years (instead of 5-10) then the monthly cost would be about $120 a month (even less if Paul did an agressive efficiency up grade and could downsize his power needs). Best of all, Paul K. would only pay for the services he received, and the embedded value would remain for the next owner to receive and pay for. Oh, and an additional benefit — the energy prices for this house would be essentially fixed, while folks relying on conventional power would face ever-increasing prices for as far out as one could see.

It’s these kind of policy innovations that we need to look at.

Then the deniers would be arguing about angels on the heads of pins, because there would be little aditional cost associated with renewables.

But what criticism of Biopact did you have in mind?

http://www.targetglobalwarming.org/

It looked very good. We need more ads like this one, because some of the groups listed might have an affect on the most skeptical of global warming.

john,
I like the idea of on-bill financing. There a several start-ups trying to develop a market for rooftop PV leasing. I am open to anything that eases the burden of installation costs on the consumer and look for ways for consumers to exert downward pressure on price. I have the fanciful notion that one way to bring down the price to the consumer is to provide it at no charge. Therefore, I am asking everyone to join the $10 a month fossil fuel replacement association.

Ronald,
I’m a little surprised by your negativity regarding PV and have no idea what currently available alternative application gives the most bang for the buck. You say it is efficiencies and so I’ll amend the mission statement of the association to include efficiencies along with other technologies. The goal is to take away the need for fossil fuels.

“Let’s say that you……you raised 5 billion dollars. Would you spend that money to put PV systems on buildings?” Oh boy, if I had $5 billion, I’d probably put it in concentrated solar and/or wind farming. Using the example of an association project in Greensburg was just a way to explain the idea and, perhaps, rally climateprogress readers. Actually, I am trying to set up an arrangement with the local habitat for humanity to provide some alternatives to one of their projects.

I would not spend any money on a global warming education campaign. I am interested in the rapid structural transformation of our energy production and use. Sure, I am happy that this transformation is the surest way to eliminate CO2 and thinks those who want to eliminate it should eagerly join in association. I agree we need to get most people on board for a chance to succeed. If you combine all the people concerned about global warming with those with economic concerns with cheapskates and tech freaks with national security types with AGW skeptical environmentalists, you’ve got just about everybody.

But where would we be if instead of the money to have this website, the people who pay for this website decided to put in a pv system on their house(s). Which is a better use of the money? I’d go with the 5 billion for education, influence and propaganda before I’d use it to buy somebody else a PV system.

However, I would very much appreciate a copy of the full bibliography to fwd to a few of the cretins with a polite comment about eagerly awaiting their critique of each and every study … could you send that to me?

Thanks

That comment about a delayer is crap. I think it is possible to fail before you have even started by not developing tactics that can work. Spending money putting in PV systems when that money can go towards better influencing methods is a mistake.

We’ve written about this stuff before, but use the clean air acts of 1970’s and smog reduction from vehicles as an example. If those who thought that smog from vehicles was a problem and decided that they should spend resources; time and money, on installing clean air devices on vehicles one at a time, they would have failed. The only method that was going to work was to mandate that all cars/vehicles have pollution controls on them. Sure, the 1974 model year car sucked as far as engine performance before they had catalytic converters for the 1975 models, but that eventually was the only way to solve the problem.

Raising money to fix the smog pollution problem car/vehicle by car/vehicle conversion would have been a failure of reducing smog pollution because of bad tactics.

Raising money to fix the carbon/ non-carbon energy problem with house-to-house conversions to PV’s would be a failure of the larger global warming problem, also because of bad tactics.

Do we need 5 billion to do something? Nah, we could get by with a billion. ( joke ) Really, the place we have to start is where we are at which is here. You’re right we have to do something, but we have to come up with tactics that will be successful and reasonable people can disagree with what those tactics should be.

“However, I would very much appreciate a copy of the full bibliography to fwd…”

The url for those references was actually further above in Joe’s original post. The complete cited references are from pages 71-81 (733-743) here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ wg1/ Report/ AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

You’re also both masters of the cascading fallacy. You brush past a little lie and then chain a lot of suppositions on top of it, and say, so therefore, if you don’t believe the sun is yellow, which proves Global Warming, then your a fool.

The IPCC only cites models. There are no CO2 experiments in the real world. The models use techniques that have been discredited in all other sciences, but since “climatologists” are pretty close to the guys who took Rocks for Jocks as a science requirement, that’s not too surprising.

And if the effects on the environment aren’t enough (who really needs healthy food and water anyway) what do you suppose we’ll do when coal and oil run out? Who will we kill then?

Bigger, older, fatter, and harder to starve.

Feed the big ones even less than you feed the little skinny ones.

I don’t know why it takes so many words and so many links when the reasoning is so simple.

The AGW cultists position is this.

A. The temperature is rising.

B. The temperature rise is unprecedented in the last 1000 years.

C. CO2 causes temperature rise.

D. Man made CO2 must be responsible for the current unprecedented temperature rise because - well, what else could it be.

Regarding A, the anser is - so what! Climactic temperature has risen and fallen for the entire history of the earth.

Regarding B, the anser is that the reconstructions that show today’s climate to be unprecedented are fraudulent. And all of these hundered of studies rely on the fraudulent reconstructins as a part of their attribution. First, there are only a handful of studies that show today’s temps to be unprecedednted, and they all rely on the same faulty data sets. Most of these reconstructions are done by M. Mann, his students, and his associates. Most of them rely directly on proxy data that has been show to have virtually no temperature information at all because the proxies were primarily moisture limited as opposed to temperature limited. The hockey team all relied on bristlecome tree ring series produced by Graybill. And these series were more heavily weighed than any other proxies. But more recent and complete bristlecone series from the same locations show that not only do the bristlecones erase the medival warming period and the little ice age, but they also erase contemporary warming. In other words, the hockey teams most heavily relied upon proxy is useless. Then we also have temperature reconstructions by a multitude of other people that clearly show that 20th Century climate is not unprecedented. People like Moberg et al, Loehle and McCullough, Grudd et al, etc. have shown that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today. Of course there is no reason to limit ourselves to the last 1000 years when determining temperature “normality”. Within the last 10,000 years we have also has the Holocene optimum which was clearly warmer than today. So unfortunately, argument B is a fraud.

The claim that CO2 causes temperature rise may have some truth to it, but probably far less that the AGW cultists claim. First of all, sudies of climate sensitivity show a range of results that go from .2C to 9C per CO2 doubling. In other words, we have no clue at what climate sensitivity is and no one is able to provide a definitive proof for their answer. When you compare the level of temperature increase with the level of CO2 increase that has so far been experienced, you have to conclude that CO2 sensitivity is very low. Of course the warmers then remove things to one more level of abstraction and claim that it’s all built into the oceans. This is just so much handwaving that they are unable to prove. As always, their only response is “Oh, you will see that we are right in the future.” But so far, the ability of their models to predict the future has been absolutely dismal.

As far as issue D is concerned, if B is not true, then there is no need for that kind of conclusion at all.

Oh, I forgot to mention the contemporary surface temperature record. Here we have 2 sources, HadCrut and GISS. Watt has shown that as much as half of the 20th century temperature rise from these sources may also be fraudulent. But even if it is not, there is nothing unprecedented about 20th century warming.

The position of a vast majority of people that believe in the seriousness of climate change as a human induced problem is that they believe so because of the following line of reasoning… see if you can follow the complicated steps of logic…

1) An overwhelmingly vast majority of the scientists that actually study climate science hold this view.

at first glimpse, it might seem reasonable to say that “human beings are too small to have an effect on something as large as climate” — but then one might have said the same thing about extinguishing whole populations of bison (millions) and passenger pigeons (billions), the oceans w/ collapsing fisheries and hundreds of square miles of anoxic “dead zones”, etc. We’ve only HAD a visible environmental problem in the last 100 years or so b/c that was the time we crossed over into the billion plus numbers of industrially equipped humanity.

Humans have had continental scale effects on air, water, and wildlife — why not climate?

If the climate change deniers are wrong, there are dire consequences to human health, well-being, and life.

But if the environmentalists are wrong,then we’ve wasted our time curtailing emissions from the climate change perspective, but from the perspective of avoided oil spills, strip mining, Mid East wars, acid rain, petrochemical caused cancers, and oil price shocks, we’ve still come out ahead.

Better safe than sorry , I say. The precautionary principle demands we act on the reasonable presumption that there IS a problem w/ unlimited fossil fuel burning.

I know nothing more about them than is given at the links labeled

About Us

Our Goals

which appear to have been last updated in 2006 CE.

There once was overwhelming scientific consensus that the sun revolved around the earth.

I am a professional civil engineer, and though not a climatologist, my main university studies involved advanced physics….basically 5 years of it. Ever hear of the scientific method? One of the most important aspects of it is that a scientific hypothesis be challenged. Dissent is encouraged! Falsification of the hypothesis is encouraged. And what is the observed attitude today regarding anyone questioning AGW? It is absolutely beyond belief! Anyone disputing AGW is considered a “denier” with holocaust connotations. What’s next? Another Inquisition? Maybe Al Gore will be the Grand Inquisitor, weeding out all those AGW denying heretics.

I am a denier of bad science….and am not following the Pied Piper of AGW (Gore and UN)

Do you think maybe the U.N. might have some political agenda behind their report? Is the U.N trustworthy? (remember “oil for food” fiasco?)

I was a young student in the 70’s when all the rage was global cooling and the coming Ice Age. I began my University training in Environmental Studies but quickly saw the light……what a bunch of lunatic professors!

Have any of you stuck your head out the window for the last decade? The earth globally has been in a cooling mode. According to Hadcrutt Global Temperature Anomoly Data, the peak global temperature occured in 1998, and now in 2008 we are about 0.723 degrees Celsius lower (1.3 degrees F), with the 2007 year temperature drop being the largest ever recorded. ( and with C02 levels exploding) Whether the trend will continue is entirely unknown…..the faulty UN climate models would not predict this.

Fortunately there are a small minority of people out there who have learned to think for themselves…. who will not march in lock “goose step” to the global warming alarmists.

All it takes is some research into the history of the IPCC (no, I am not doing it for you) to see it was an activist endeaver from the beginning. One of the latest lead co-authors is Bill Hare, Greenpeace activist. I am sure he is totally without bias………not!

Speaking of irony, Joe repeatably calls those who question the AGW hypothesis “deniers”, a reprehensible term with Holocaust connotations. It is Joe and his alarmists doom and gloom buddies who brought about the 1972 ban on DDT, which created its own holocaust. Hundreds of thousands, and perhaps even millions (read the history) died in the decades that followed the ban due to horrific increases in malaria deaths. All those environmental do-gooders should be rounded up and put on trial for crimes against humanity.

My take on the whole issue is that even if the IPCC is wrong it makes sense to me that people try to reduce the impact they have individually and collectively on nonhuman systems.

Maybe you were asleep that day in your history class.

Best,

D

Here in the whole Southwest we’ve had water issue’s for ages, and we can’t even solve THAT!.

If one cares about biodiversity, and having plenty of clean water to go around..Then we should just stop building period…And limit people to two kids per family…

Good luck with THAT!…

I don’t take what the IPCC says as gospel just because governments say so. I don’t take the AMA or NAS at their word, either, if they can’t make a convincing case. Truth is not made by consensus, and I’m inclined to question the predictive reliability of any attempts to model a system as fiendishly complicated as the whole world.

The thing is, even if they’re wrong, it doesn’t mean the globe isn’t warming or that it’s all caused by cycles of the sun. “Wrong” could just as easily be “we are in deeper trouble than they realize”. The fact that carbon dioxide (and other gasses) can retain heat is not in the least controversial, nor is the fact that CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing. We should be concerned *even if there weren’t the slightest evidence of rising temperatures*.

As for global warming being caused by something other than us - we had better hope it IS us, hadn’t we? Not much we can do about the sun heating up.

Hint–global warming may atop!1 LOLOLOLOLOL

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ earth/ main.jhtml?xml=/ earth/ 2008/ 04/ 30/ eaclimate130.xml

1) Do not deny the existence of debate. There is ALWAYS debate on every issue. If the other side is truly wrong; debate them and win; there is no need to deny debate.

2) Never imply intentions, for we have no basis. You may think Willie Soon is funded by ExxonMobil; I may think that Jim Hansen is funded by George Soros, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is the science. Money ain’t evil; it provides incentive, and often it can provide enough incentive to make a scientific discovery. So once again, intentions should not be questioned.

3) Science is not the same in politics. If I’m liberal, I follow a certain dogma of collectivist thought. Any new issue that I stumble upon, I can legitimately evaluate through my pre-established understanding on the functioning of society. In science though, I can be a skeptic, believing that Miskolzci’s new greenhouse equations are correct, and find, scientifically, that the GISS’s temperature record is not exaggerated. Nothing prevents that from occuring. For that reason, science is necessarily skeptical, and I take issues with websites that follow an ideology rather than a skeptical view of science.

With that said, I would urge people to attempt to rectify the debate. It has become swamped in politics, accusations, and falsehoods. To fix this before the environmentalist community becomes completely bogged down in a bad scientific attitude of ideological denial of the debate, rather than constructive criticism of the debate, all followers of climate science should be extra careful to work in favor of a beneficial attitude towards science.

I enjoy this blog and the lively repartee, between opposing parties… I am absolutely no expert, and dont yet hold a firm view either way, but would like some help understanding something that has confused me for a while. If the increase in CO2 is driving temperature up as shown on lots of official graphs from both sides… why does the period 1940 to about 1970 show a decrease in temperature whilst CO2 levels continue to rise?

Cheers Chris

What science does this article refer to? Is the science UN report of non-scientist? Is it the report of a “scientist with a skewed objective - i.e. funding. I am sorry, but “scientist” are not necessarily the smartest group of people. They are supposed to be concentrated in a specific field, but offered suffer the same corruption of their work as in any industry. The mighty dollar skews result of many reports. If you remember scientist used to be railing about sea level rise. Funny it has not happened yet. I guess that theory waned after a number of geologists (real scientist – what is a climate scientist – who gives that degree away?) reported that tectonic plate movement was the cause of sea level rise not polar melt.

This discussion on Global Warming is crazy. It seems that you are offering “scientific data”, but in reality it is not accurate. The Earth is always changing there have been cycles of warmth, and cold throughout this planets history. Everything is not centered on the earth. The biggest generator of heat is the sun. The oceans if you can believe compromise 75% of the earth’s surface. It takes a significant amount of energy to raise, or lower the temperature of the earth’s oceans. Can you imagine heating water at a depth of 4000 feet or greater. This all has an impact on the atmosphere. The current “global warming movement” is really a political movement to control people. Look at the price of gas, food, and energy. For years the powers that be have been trying to convince people to move closer to the cities, and develop public transportation. Humm - looks like the mew tactic is working. The theme seems to center it self around live in an agrarian society, but let me keep my 30,000 sq ft mansion with all the amenities.

Apparently, the average person does not really understand the process of climate model validation and climate model-based predictions. And that causes a lot of this kind of yelling and screaming that there is “no proof”. The science writers in the media need to do a better job here.

p.s. RhapsodyInGlue had some excellent comments.