D4P wants me to state my position on global climate change. I haven’t done so because normally I take positions only on subject about which I have a lot of expertise. t g rightly guesses that I focus on the political question rather than the scientific one.
But if I have to take a position, I would say I am still skeptical about climate change. I am skeptical about any policy position that depends so heavily on computer models. I’ve spent years analyzing computer models and I know they are most often used as black boxes to confuse and dismay the public. Climate is a complex if not a chaotic system that is not amenable to modeling.
I am skeptical about the interpretation of the last century’s climate data. The data show that the earth was warming from about 1900 to 1945, when the computer models say humans were not emitting enough greenhouse gases to influence climate. Then the data show the earth cooling from 1945 to 1971, when the computer models say humans were emitting enough greenhouse gases to influence climate. Then the data show the earth warming from 1971 through the present day (although some say it peaked a few years ago). This sounds to me more like the temperatures are cyclical than that the earth is warming.
I am skeptical about any movement that people jump on because it supports their preconceived notions. “The suburbs cause traffic congestion. Oh, they are the remedy for congestion? Well, the suburbs reduce people’s sense of community. Oh, the suburbs have a higher sense of community than the cities? Well, the suburbs cause obesity. Oh, they don’t cause obesity? Well, the suburbs cause global warming. A ha! Gotcha now.”
I am skeptical of the anecdotal evidence used to support climate change. It goes from “there were some big hurricanes in 2006,” to “Big hurricanes are consistent with climate change,” to “Big hurricanes prove the climate is changing.” It sounds like the evangelicals who used to argue that every earthquake and tornado proved that Armageddon was about to take place.
A medical weight http://www.donssite.com/truckphoto/super_shockwave_jet_truck.htm viagra on line loss center can personalize a program that many people attended, and achieved goals. Transmits Dopamine in the body Dopamine is a neurotransmitter cost of prescription viagra that plays a role in sending nerve impulses (including those relating to ejaculation) in your body. Thus the blood flow to male reproductive system is being damages slightly, but as the time passes the need of human health pfizer viagra tablets enhanced, which again includes many improvement in lifestyle and relationships. cialis get viagra Causes The disordered neuroendocrine function. Likewise, I am skeptical of claims about glaciers. “Glaciers are receding in Glacier National Park. That proves the climate is changing.” The glaciers have been receding in Glacier National Park ever since the park was created in 1910.
I am skeptical of a “scientific consensus,” especially when most of the scientists in the consensus are not climatologists and when the state climatologists who don’t share the consensus are fired by politicians who do. Science doesn’t work by consensus and it certainly doesn’t work by having scientists who aren’t experts in a particular field drown out the voices of those who are. Over the past 35 years, I’ve watched science become increasingly political, and when it becomes political it is no longer science.
I am skeptical of any system that rewards people for taking one position and penalizes them for taking another. The United States alone spends $2 billion a year on climate change research. Researchers who believe in anthropogenic climate change get research money, who those who don’t get nothing. Back when acid rain was the big scare, I met a scientist who told me he had the perfect set up. “I tell the electric companies that I can’t prove their plants are causing acid rain and I tell the environmentalists that my data are consistent with the hypothesis that the plants are causing acid rain. They both help me get more research money.”
I am skeptical of any problem in which the high-cost solutions get all the attention while the low-cost solutions are ignored. When Obama says high-speed rail will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, everyone applauds. Meanwhile, for about 5 percent of the cost, we could install the most up-to-date coordinating systems at every signalized intersection and have a much bigger effect on emissions.
I am skeptical of any problem in which the solution Congress prefers — cap and trade — just happens to give Congress the opportunity to provide huge political favors to rich corporations.
I am skeptical of any problem where we are stampeded into taking action for the sake of action when the costs of not taking action are many decades into the future, which means, first, that discounted back to the present those costs are very low and, second, that we may find much less expensive solutions in the meantime.
Those are just my opinions. Since the fundamental question of whether anthropogenic climate change is really happening is beyond my area of expertise, I don’t have a definitive opinion. The hysteria I see over this question reminds me too much of other threats that proved to be false, which leaves me skeptical about this one. But if the political dynamic requires that we do something, we should at least do things that are cost effective and produce other benefits as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.DebunkingClimate.com has a lot of good information and links to peer reviewed papers.
You may want to take the quiz:
Do you know enough to have an opinion of Global Warming? debunkingclimate.com/co2quiz.html
It is really simple:
1. What gas is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect?
2. Of the total greenhouse effect, what percentage can be attributed to CO2.
3. As you know, there are natural sources of CO2 emissions. Of the world total CO2 emissions, what percentage is due to man’s activities?
4. As you know, Al Gore showed the temperature and CO2 analysis from Antarctica ice cores in his film. Which came first in the ice cores – temperature increase or CO2 increase?
Or you may want see the evidence of Al Gore’s profits from the scare he is creating. Don’t miss his $100,000 fee.
There is a nice page about those who say it is ok to lie, including Al Gore.
There is enough to finally educate this blog’s smart growth zealots about another false god most of them follow.
Also see:
icecap.us,
climateAudit.org,
wattsupwiththat.com
junkScience.com
If you happen to think that we have accurate data, be sure to see surfacestations.org/
Thanks
JK
Thanks for doing this.
The data show that the earth was warming from about 1900 to 1945, when the computer models say humans were not emitting enough greenhouse gases to influence climate. Then the data show the earth cooling from 1945 to 1971, when the computer models say humans were emitting enough greenhouse gases to influence climate. Then the data show the earth warming from 1971 through the present day (although some say it peaked a few years ago). This sounds to me more like the temperatures are cyclical than that the earth is warming.
This analysis ignores the actual magnitudes of cooling and warming. You act as if temperatures just go up and down over time, with nothing anomalous about the warming from 1971 through the present day. A strictly “cyclical†interpretation would be much more compelling if, from 1940 the temperature eventually cooled to roughly 1900 levels, then eventually warmed to roughly 1940 levels. But what kind of “cycle†shows warming that not only increases to unprecedented levels but does so at unprecedented speed? Unprecedented temperatures and increases don’t disprove a cyclical interpretation, but they’re better considered “evidence in support of an alternative explanation†than they are “evidence in support of a cyclical interpretationâ€Â.
I am skeptical about any movement that people jump on because it supports their preconceived notions.
Me too. From the report linked by DS the other day, we see that the subset of the US population that is most skeptical of climate change are “more likely than average to be high income, well-educated, white men. They are much more likely to be very conservative Republicans. (They) are civically active, hold strongly traditional religious beliefs, and are the segment most likely to be evangelical Christian. They strongly endorse individualistic values, opposing any form of government intervention, antiegalitarian, and almost universally prefer economic growth over environmental protection.â€Â
Precisely the type of people I would expect to deny that human beings have any negative effect on the earth or the environment, and only grudgingly acknowledge any particular negative effect (e.g. pollution) when they feel they have virtually no choice but to do so. Precisely the type of people who feel they have a right to live and consume however and whatever they want with no corresponding responsibility for the impacts of their choices on other people, the environment, etc. Precisely the type of people who explicitly/implicitly support “industry†in its efforts to convince the public that industrial activities have no negative environmental impacts and that people who argue otherwise are just using anti-American scare tactics because they’re jealous of your wealth and prosperity.
Like I said the other day: I have no doubt that the same types of people who are the most skeptical of climate change were the most skeptical that factories were causing illness and death in nearby residents in the late 1800s/early 1900s, most skeptical that industry was polluting the air and water in the 1960s/1970s (and that the pollutions were harmful), most skeptical that human activities were contributing to a hole in the ozone layer throughout the 20th century, etc.
Don’t get me wrong: it’s much nicer to believe that humans can do whatever they want with no negative consequences than to believe the reverse. But the former is a fairy tale, promoted in part by the groups that benefit the most from it financially.
Well, the suburbs cause global warming
See: Edward Glaeser’s recent report in which he found that “Americans who settle in leafy, low-density suburbs will leave a significantly deeper carbon footprint, it turns out, than Americans who live cheek by jowl in urban towers.â€Â
I am skeptical of the anecdotal evidence used to support climate change. It goes from “there were some big hurricanes in 2006,†to “Big hurricanes are consistent with climate change,†to “Big hurricanes prove the climate is changing.â€Â
The stuff I read on the subject says that we should expect larger and more frequent weather-related incidents associated with climate change, but that any given incident does not prove the climate is changing. Maybe you’re reading mostly puff pieces in newspapers and such. Respected peer-reviewed journals would not likely allow the kind of language (e.g. “Big hurricanes prove the climate is changing†you’ve posted here to be published. The journal articles I’ve seen treat anecdotal evidence as anecdotal evidence.
The glaciers have been receding in Glacier National Park ever since the park was created in 1910.
Again, you’re ignoring scale and speed, especially in recent decades. From Wikipedia:
The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. However, since 1980 a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether
I am skeptical of a “scientific consensus,†especially when most of the scientists in the consensus are not climatologists
From what I’ve seen, most antiplanners don’t have economics degrees, but that doesn’t seem to stop them from claiming to be experts on economics. Should we discount (for example) your comments on economics, given that you’re not an economist?
Stating that most of the scientists in the consensus are not climatologists is not the same as stating that most climatologists are not in the consensus. Do you have evidence that the majority of climatologists are not in the consensus?
Science doesn’t work by consensus and it certainly doesn’t work by having scientists who aren’t experts in a particular field drown out the voices of those who are
Science also doesn’t work when the industries who benefit most financially from denying the existence of pollution, holes in the ozone layer, climate change, etc. etc. etc. use their billion-dollar bank accounts to pay “scientists†to argue that the groups aren’t causing any harm. I would guess (for example) that the typical oil company scientist makes a lot more money for arguing against climate change than the typical university scientist does for the reverse. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
The United States alone spends $2 billion a year on climate change research. Researchers who believe in anthropogenic climate change get research money, who those who don’t get nothing.
Is it your belief that researchers who don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change can’t get any research money from other sources, e.g. industry?
I am skeptical of any problem in which the high-cost solutions get all the attention while the low-cost solutions are ignored
Sounds to me like your skepticism relates to the solutions, not the problem. If the government decided it wanted to fight the problem of rape by having all males castrated, would you then be skeptical that rape was a problem?
I am skeptical of any problem in which the solution Congress prefers  cap and trade  just happens to give Congress the opportunity to provide huge political favors to rich corporations.
Again, sounds like you’re skeptical of a particular solution, not the problem itself. And BTW: it’s not as if technological solutions (including some you appear to favor) couldn’t possibly give Congress the opportunity to provide huge political favors to rich corporations. (And also BTW: you should keep in mind that there are plenty of “rich corporations†out there who are benefiting from skepticism about climate change)
I am skeptical of any problem where we are stampeded into taking action for the sake of action when the costs of not taking action are many decades into the future, which means, first, that discounted back to the present those costs are very low
A-ha! I think we’ve reached the crux of the matter. University of Oregon economist Ed Whitelaw used to joke, “Why should we care about future generations: what have they ever done for us?â€Â
I think this is ultimately the primary motivator for skepticism (or rather, denial). People (understandably) discount the interests of future generations, and are (understandably) unwilling to make sacrifices in their own lifestyles, standards of living, behaviors, etc. on behalf of the future.
I am going to go ahead and conclude that all of your previous arguments are ultimately motivated by this issue. If you felt differently on this issue, I think your previous positions would modify themselves to be consistent with this one.
Don’t get me wrong: it’s much nicer to believe that humans can do whatever they want with no negative consequences than to believe the reverse.
d4P
——————
The only people that I know that believe the above statement, are the side that believe, global warming is caused by mostly or total by Man.
I think that big yellowish orange thing in the sky has a lot to do with warming. It is 100 times bigger than the earth and it seem to put out a lot of heat. Maybe the thermostat has not been regulated lately
Who cares.
Save TI’s bandwidth, everyone.
There is no point trying to change denialist’s minds. About 15% of the population refuses to listen, for psychological reasons. Even the denial industry’s own scientists know the facts, and Bjorn Lomborg admits to the fact of man-made climate change.
Denialists have been left behind by reality, and human societies are no longer debating known facts, but discussing adaptation and mitigation.
DS
I think that big yellowish orange thing in the sky has a lot to do with warming
Yes: that’s the point. Greenhouse gases trap the sun’s heat. Without greenhouse gases, we wouldn’t be here because it would be too cold.
Who cares.
Save TI’s bandwidth, everyone.
There is no point trying to change the global warming supporters minds. They have decided for everyone the debate is over. While they use Global warming to force us to live our lives they demand and cap and trade us into the poor house, so they cam make millions on the deal.
If they are unable to convince us, we are told by them, we must have a psychological Problems!
Yep, I’m convinced DS.
So the Sun never changes and never gets warmer or cooler. Can you show proof of that?
So the Sun never changes and never gets warmer or cooler. Can you show proof of that?
Can you show proof the sun even exists?
No. You can only tell me that you see it, and that others see it. But how do I know you’re not making that up?
“Proof” is ultimately an illusion, and a term that is most often used when someone doesn’t want to believe something and wants to shut down a discussion by challenging someone else to prove the thing they don’t want to believe.
Here’s what I understand:
1. The sun puts out heat
2. Some of that heat makes its way to the earth
3. Gases in the earth’s atmosphere trap some of that heat and keep it close to the earth’s surface
4. The rest of the heat returns back into space
5. There is a positive relationship between the quantity of such gases in the earth’s atmosphere and the amount of heat that is trapped near the earth. In other words, if the amount of such gases were to decrease, the amount of the sun’s heat trapped near the earth would decrease (eventually to a point where life would not exist on earth). If the amount of such gases were to increase, the amount of the sun’s heat trapped near the earth would increase.
Anyone want to disagree with any of that?
Moving on, we have seen both a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions in the 20th century, along with a dramatic increase in temperature. Given that CO2 is a gas that traps some of the sun’s heat close to the earth (even the Antiplanner labels CO2 a “greenhouse gas”), we would expect a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions to have a positive effect on temperatures.
Seems to me that one would have to be pretty motivated to conclude that the dramatic increase in temperature was completely unrelated to the dramatic increase in the amount of gases that trap the sun’s heat being emitted into the atmosphere.
Seems to me that one would have to be pretty motivated to conclude that the dramatic increase in temperature was completely unrelated to the Sun.
I’m done BYE!
D4P loves to play the games. Prove the sun exists? That my friends is a sign of someone losing an argument.
One of the great hallmarks of real science is skepticism. Questioning preconceived notions of any kind or from anybody should be hailed as courageous. The minute skeptics were vilified by global warming, I mean AGW, I mean, climate change proponents I knew something was wrong. When Saint Al declared the debate over I knew something was wrong. When Mann was proven to be something less than a credible scientist I knew something was wrong.
As the antiplanner says, any predictions based upon computer models of complex systems is suspect. If any sort of science should be subject to skepticism this is it. In an effort to leave more space for D4P I won’t even get into the politics of the topic.
Um, can we take a breath here.
Randal writes in today’s post that he is sceptical. Scepticism is not denial. Karlock denies. Randal is sceptical. Scepticism is the engine of scientific falsification. It is the height of rationality.
(Obligatory Off Topic Remark: Now if Randal could be as sceptical about Milton Freidman and free-markets…)
Yes. At some level, skepticism is better described as denial.
For example: if I don’t believe that smoking cigarettes can be harmful, am I better described as being skeptical or being in denial? I say the latter.
The point at which skepticism about climate change etc. becomes denial is subject to opinion, but tg makes a good point: the Antiplanner’s current position on the issue is clearly different from (e.g.) Jim Karlock’s, which is something I’ve been conjecturing for some time now. And I appreciate him (the Antiplanner) clarifying that through today’s post.
When global warmism became a religion, I became a doubter. I’m as skeptical of High Preist Al Gore as I am of those religious nuts who preach “intelligent design.” At least Lomborg admits that many of the political solutions to global warming won’t give much bang for the buck.
Then Libertarianism is pretty much a religion too.
With a worshiping to Ayn Rand.
So, “Highwayman,” what’s your point?
Um, can we take a breath here…Randal writes in today’s post that he is sceptical. Scepticism is not denial.
Then you don’t know the key phrases denialists use to deceive and delude themselves (e.g. #13 is nothing but such phrases and delusion). If you are still skeptical, either your name is Rumpelstiltskin or your complete avoidance of science classes since 1st grade has made you a functional ostrich walking around.
Come now. Simple psychology to explain 1/6 of the population, most of whom are in one narrow particular demographic.
DS
Randal admits in the first few lines that he takes positions only on subjects which he has expertise. This is uncommon in Man.
I frequently call environmentalism a faith-based culture. Most people on the street don’t know science. They hold their scientific truths, not because they have themselves tested them, but because they learned a rudimentary theory of it in grade school. Their theories might be correct, but the mass of individuals holding them wouldn’t have the slightest knowledge of how to prove it (e.g., demonstrating the earth is spherical by the trigonometry of distant shadows).
It is suggested that we cannot justify our theories with evidence, for there may always be one not-yet-experienced event which could contradict our theory. This is Karl Popper’s falsification: that evidence can only disprove a bad theory, but it cannot justify a good one. That is rational, but people are not rational. Consequently, society demands a hard and fast theory on how things work and a hard and fast theory is what we get, right or wrong.
It seems Randal’s scepticism derives partially from the science, but just as much from an inability to trust the messenger of the results of that science. We get our scientific knowledge from a complex cultural comprised of private, public, profit and non-profit actors, and that culture is not always scientific. Many of Randal’s criticisms (like of the constant accretion of purportedly justifying evidence like hurricanes) is valid. But it is confusing the social issues of media with the scientific issue of research.
Ben Goldacre runs a <a href=”http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/badscience” blog looking at media and scientific claims. It’s worth reading. It is an example of how to distinguish between the popular dissemination of information by the press and the actual science before the press gets hold of it.
We should look at Randal’s points as falling into one of two categories:
  (1) critical of a theory because of the data and the methodology, that is a scientific criticism
  (2)critical of the social consequences of that theory, that is a political/cultural criticism
Two of his points appear scientific: his first point on temperature variations and his fourth point on glaciers. I don’t necessarily agree with his scepticism on these, as it may be a matter of the time scale. But I don’t want to get into that.
The remainder are cultural, and I agree wholeheartedly with Randal on these.
Two of his points appear scientific:
“Seems, madam? Nay, it is; I know not ‘seems’.” [ *]
That is: only if you don’t know the facts. Or don’t want to know.
DS
JK:”
1. What gas is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect?
2. Of the total greenhouse effect, what percentage can be attributed to CO2.
3. As you know, there are natural sources of CO2 emissions. Of the world total CO2 emissions, what percentage is due to man’s activities?
4. As you know, Al Gore showed the temperature and CO2 analysis from Antarctica ice cores in his film. Which came first in the ice cores – temperature increase or CO2 increase?”
ws:
1. Water Vapor is just water vapor. It is self regulating. It can go up into the atmosphere all day, it comes back down as precipitation a few days later. Co2 does not do this – it can linger for many years (same with Methane).
2. 2%, but that’s because water vapor accounts for the most (see the above explanation).
3. I’ve heard wildly different explanations, but this too is irrelevant because any drastic deviation can have an effect, and if you didn’t realize, the world is urbanizing at a quick rate (India, China).
If you’re using the junkscience.com Steven Milloy explanation / graphs (he doesn’t believe in second-hand smoking being bad for people), then you’re completely misguided
4. We actually don’t know fore sure, but even if large emissions of co2 comes after temperature rise in historic model reconstructions, that does not mean that co2 still does not have a warming effect and cannot play a role in AGW.
It is a proven fact that co2 traps heat. Rudimentary science, Jim. I know you’re not interested in that.
D4P: Can you show proof the sun even exists?
Absolutely. It has been seen, measured, the data evaluated, etc, for generations. Look here for just one of many repositories of such gathered information. It is possible to prove that the sun exists because it is possible to rationally perceive and measure its properties. You’ve been reading too much Immanuel Kant if you’re still stuck in the postmodern rut of believing that reality is unknown and unknowable.
I won’t do a point rebuttal of the rest of what you and DS have posted, because you make it clear you’re not listening anyway, so it would be a waste of my time. (You wrote: I am going to go ahead and conclude that all of your previous arguments are ultimately motivated by this issue. Well, if you’re going to dismiss everything he said based on your preconceived notions, why should he have bothered to say it?) I will reply only with this, as this is all that should be necessary:
Science requires no consensus. Ever. If something can be demonstrated by repeatable experimentation, it doesn’t matter how many people disagree. (Just ask Copernicus). In science, nothing is ever taken on faith: ultimately, a scientific assertion must rest on the data that supported it, and we are, each of us, free to go out and attempt to gather enough data to tell a different story.
The Antiplanner appears skeptical of climage change based on the absurd political powermongering taking place on the left. Even if the Antiplanner believed the raw data suggested that climate change was plausible or in fact occurring, as I do, the political component of his argument would still stand up.
Perhaps instead of a mystical Democratic “environmentalism” based on faith, we ought to approach the problem as it used to be, before it was heavily politicized: as “conservation” based on science.
Dan,
Arguing that the rising of a helium balloon disproves gravity is still scientific so long as the arguer doesn’t know anything about bouyancy.
Let’s not presume the extent of one’s knowledge.
I just realized that I have overlooked an important point: the Antiplanner is essentially saying that he is “skeptical”, but that he has not made up his mind 100%. In other words, his position is not as extreme as Jim Karlock’s.
Which raises a question: why hasn’t the Antiplanner made up his mind yet? In other words, what are the factors that keep the Antiplanner from declaring with 100%* certainty that climate change is not a problem?
*or at least, as much certainty as he declares (for example) that sprawl is not a problem
I actually think there are far worse environmental problems with sprawl / auto dependency than GW. It is overwhelmingly land consumptive, energy consumptive, and often water consumptive. We need to deplete resources at alarming rates in order to aid this type of settlement pattern.
There’s nothing wrong with resource extraction, to live is to take, but when is too much too much?
A few years back in college were taught that it was Global Cooling. Why were they wrong, never got the answer? Also taught that there was only 10 years of OIL left. Wrong again, have we got it right this time??? How should I know???
Antiplanner wrote:
“I am skeptical about the interpretation of the last century’s climate data. The data show that the earth was warming from about 1900 to 1945, when the computer models say humans were not emitting enough greenhouse gases to influence climate. Then the data show the earth cooling from 1945 to 1971, when the computer models say humans were emitting enough greenhouse gases to influence climate. Then the data show the earth warming from 1971 through the present day (although some say it peaked a few years ago). This sounds to me more like the temperatures are cyclical than that the earth is warming.”
A good way of looking at it is the duvet analogy. Some nights are hot and some nights are cold, but either way you will be warmer if you have a duvet on your bed.
Global temperatures go up, and sometimes they go down. Global temperature is a complex mix of different things. But either way, the planet will get warmer as we pump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere which hasn’t seen the light of day since the time of the dinosaurs.
Antiplanner then wrote: “I am skeptical about any movement that people jump on because it supports their preconceived notions. “The suburbs cause traffic congestion. Oh, they are the remedy for congestion? Well, the suburbs reduce people’s sense of community. Oh, the suburbs have a higher sense of community than the cities? Well, the suburbs cause obesity. Oh, they don’t cause obesity? Well, the suburbs cause global warming. A ha! Gotcha now.â€Â
It is possible to closely mix housing and shops. Government doesn’t want to interfere, and the free market pushes out-of-town retail malls. But if the mixed zoning was done, yes suburbs would cause congestion,as wider roads would not reduce congestion faster than moving to a car-free or car-lite community.
Suburbs do reduce the sense of community. High levels of traffic cause a reduction in community cohesion. Maybe not in their traffic-lite cul-de-sacs, but definitely where people live along main roads, and who might not even have a car of their own. This happens quite a lot in the UK – the people on the receiving end of the effects of car use often don’t have a car of their own. The biggest number of child injuries is in poor neighbourhoods with few cars.
Obesity is caused by eating too much, and not doing enough exercise. I should explain that I, a UK citizen, find US meal portions far too large. It’s a struggle to finish one course, let alone start on another. I would suggest that plate size and obesity in the US are more strongly correlated.
Antiplanner wrote: “Meanwhile, for about 5 percent of the cost, we could install the most up-to-date coordinating systems at every signalized intersection and have a much bigger effect on emissions.”
Or for no cost, slow the traffic down, put bags over the traffic heads, and enjoy a massive reduction in congestion. Ealing Council, London, UK is going to do this. All very interesting…
Antiplanner wrote: “I am skeptical of any problem where we are stampeded into taking action for the sake of action when the costs of not taking action are many decades into the future, which means, first, that discounted back to the present those costs are very low and, second, that we may find much less expensive solutions in the meantime.”
This is true, and we need to take the time to find the right response. On the other hand, we risk Chernobyl Syndrome – that we expect to be able to control something in the future, owing to our intelligence and all-round wonderfulness, only to discover that by then it is out of our control, and about to blow up in our faces.
Arguing [ x ] is still scientific so long as the arguer doesn’t know anything about bouyancy.
No.
It is naivete.
Being scientific would have been, 200 years ago, hypothesizing that helium disproves gravity and then collecting data to support they hypothesis, and after repeated experiments finding such, the hypothesis becomes theory.
There is no way today one can credibly argue – scientifically – the italicized. One has to presume and have basic knowledge to be able to credibly speak to an issue and argue for it.
Having selection bias and confirmation bias on this issue neither makes one scientific or skeptical.
DS
I find it incredibly ironic that the liberal socialites who idolize the 1960’s reaction against the conformism of American culture are now using conformism (“consensus”) as an argument for their cause. And it’s not just in global warming. It’s being used throughout science, politics, social movements, economics, etc.
Dan,
I was thinking of my five year old son making the proposition (or Karlock, same difference).
My point is on the terms. His arguments on temp and glaciers are scientific ones becasue they deal with the data. Whether they are good or bad science is another concern.
His arguments on temp and glaciers are scientific ones becasue they deal with the data. Whether they are good or bad science is another concern.
Ah.
Well such assertions only deal with a tiny, unrepresentative portion of the data. So that is bad “‘science” if you are performing an experiment.
As the assertions are merely rationalizations or justifications not connected with experimentation using the scientific method, it’s not really ‘science’ but argument or rhetoric. There is no scientific basis for the denialist position. There is a psychological basis, but not a scientific one.
DS
t g said: Scepticism is not denial. Karlock denies
JK: Don’t put words in my mouth. I am merely asking for evidence. That is not the same as denying.
BTW have you found any evidence that man’s CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming, keeping in mind computer “scenarios†are not evidence.
Thanks
JK,
in your heart, you know he’s right
WS:
1. Water Vapor is just water vapor. It is self regulating. It can go up into the atmosphere all day, it comes back down as precipitation a few days later.
JK: Your endless ignorance is again showing. You precisely described the H2O cooling cycle that helps regulate earth’s temperature. More surface heat = equals more H2O cooling. You are so ill informed by only reading the Sierra Klub weekly reader, you didn’t even know about that important factor.
WS: Co2 does not do this – it can linger for many years (same with Methane).
JK: That is an unproven assumption by the scaremongers. But so what? If you cannot prove man’s CO2 causes warming, it DOES NOT MATTER.
WS: 2. 2%, but that’s because water vapor accounts for the most (see the above explanation).
JK: Wrong again. The commonly accepted value is that CO2 accounts for up to 30% of the warming.
WS: If you’re using the junkscience.com Steven Milloy explanation / graphs (he doesn’t believe in second-hand smoking being bad for people), then you’re completely misguided
JK: Again you show your ignorance and lack of even looking before opening your mouth. My man’s CO2 page is based on a NASA chart, not junkscience.com
Unlike you I DO NOT rely on web sites for evidence. I rely on them for LINKS to evidence and sometimes graphs based on credible evidence. I hope you know that there is difference.
WS: We actually don’t know fore sure, but even if large emissions of co2 comes after temperature rise in historic model reconstructions,
JK: Finally your are close to correct. The best data we have is that, in the ice cores, CO2 follows temperature.
But you miss the key point: those ice cores were the most important evidence of warming when they were assumed to show CO2 caused warming. Later analysis disproved that assumption.
Let me be perfectly clear on that point: Ice cores, the most important evidence of warming turned out to show the opposite.
WS: that does not mean that co2 still does not have a warming effect and cannot play a role in AGW.
JK: It also DOES NOT mean that CO2 causes warming. In other words, your statement is menaingless.
WS: It is a proven fact that co2 traps heat. Rudimentary science, Jim. I know you’re not interested in that.
JK: In the lab and theory, not in a real atmosphere. Point me to a peer reviewed paper or two to show that CO2 can cause dangerous warming in the real atmosphere?
Thanks
JK,
in your heart, you know he’s right
Climate predictions are not science. Science is the use of repeatable experiments, and it is very hard to experiment with climate. Computer models are not science — they are just a number of assumptions run through a computer.
Scientists making predictions, using the knowledge from real science (repeatable experiments), deserves a lot of respect. But it is not science.
JK:Wrong again. The commonly accepted value is that CO2 accounts for up to 30% of the warming.
ws:I thought you were referring to the concentration percentages. At any rate, yes 30% of all warming is huge. Remember, we need greenhouse gases to live on this planet. Any deviation from this very comfortable time we are in can have drastic affect on our climate.
JK:“More surface heat = equals more H2O cooling.”
Not sure what you’re referring to, but warmer temperatures also = higher WV content. While warmer air holds more WV, it is self-regulated by by returning to the earth in the form of precipitation:
“And unlike water vapor, which returns to Earth as precipitation within a week of entering the atmosphere, CO2 sticks around for between 50 and 200 years. Carbon dioxide accounts for approximately 25 percent of the greenhouse effect, so it’s pretty clear that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 is playing a significant role in recent warming.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/
JK, would you care to explain the difference between other greenhouse gases and water vapor, since you know it all! I mean, you have a website that “debunks” so much of life, you must have the answers.
Also, would you explain “H20 cooling”? This does not sound like a scientific term to me. Evaporation cooling?
t g wrote:
> I frequently call environmentalism a faith-based culture.
> Most people on the street don’t know science. They hold
> their scientific truths, not because they have themselves
> tested them, but because they learned a rudimentary theory
> of it in grade school. Their theories might be correct,
> but the mass of individuals holding them wouldn’t have
> the slightest knowledge of how to prove it (e.g.,
> demonstrating the earth is spherical by the trigonometry
> of distant shadows).
>
> It is suggested that we cannot justify our theories
> with evidence, for there may always be one
> not-yet-experienced event which could contradict
> our theory. This is Karl Popper’s falsification: that
> evidence can only disprove a bad theory, but it cannot
> justify a good one. That is rational, but people are
> not rational. Consequently, society demands a hard and
> fast theory on how things work and a hard and fast theory
> is what we get, right or wrong.
What you say makes sense.
What bothers me about the climate change industry
is the emphasis that many of its members place on
social engineering (e.g. Smart Growth, mass transit,
anti-mobility activities and maybe above all,
anti-prosperity activities).
And before climate change became the issue du jour,
it was ground-level ozone, which has now been solved
(at least in North America) without the social
engineering that was being demanded by many now very
concerned with global climate change.
ws asked:
> Also, would you explain “H20 cooling”?
Umm, I would call that snow or ice.
Over at Overcoming Bias they’re discussing much of the same from a post yesterday. The comments are interesting as they discuss the probabilities of the events. Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan talks about the difficulties in predicting rare events (and he has some interviews at EconTalk with Russ Roberts that are equally interesting). I’d like to see more talk along these lines. Quantifying the risk in order to compare the solutions.
C. P. Zilliacus:“Umm, I would call that snow or ice.”
ws:If he meant snow or ice, he’d say so. I have never heard the term “H20 cooling”. Maybe someone can inform me…
On June 4th, 2009, ws said: At any rate, yes 30% of all warming is huge.
JK: No it isn’t. What that means is that CO2 caused 30% of all past warming and will continue to contribute at that percentage diminished by the log function that represents its effect.
Since the warming in the 20th century was nothing unusual, the potential of man having caused 30% of nothing unusual is, well, only alarming to people who have no basic understanding of rational thought.
ws said: Remember, we need greenhouse gases to live on this planet. Any deviation from this very comfortable time we are in can have drastic affect on our climate.
JK: Care to explain why the Earth didn’t run away when the CO2 level was 10 times today’s in the past?
ws said: Not sure what you’re referring to, but warmer temperatures also = higher WV content. While warmer air holds more WV, it is self-regulated by by returning to the earth in the form of precipitation:
JK: You have just proven what I suspected — you have little knowledge of basic science, yet are outspoken on a matter of science. You are a fool.
Now here is your opportunity to lean something:
When any liquid (or solid) evaporates, it takes up energy in the form of heat. That is how people keep cool through perspiration. That is also how an air conditioner works, also how a heat pipe, which cools many computers, works.
When the gas condenses back to a liquid it gives up that heat.
Now here is the relevant part:
Ocean H2O evaporating cools the ocean surface. When that H2O condenses into clouds, it the upper atmosphere, it releases that heat. Much of it into space. That is a natural air conditioner. This sort of a system sets an upper limit on temperature, probably not too far above the current temperature.
ws said: http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/
JK: WOW, Slate, a left wing, scientifically ignorant web site! I’m impressed! (NOT) Got anything credible, like peer reviewed.
ws said: JK, would you care to explain the difference between other greenhouse gases and water vapor, since you know it all! I mean, you have a website that “debunks†so much of life, you must have the answers.
JK: NO.
ws said: Also, would you explain “H20 cooling� This does not sound like a scientific term to me. Evaporation cooling?
JK: See above. Look up heat of vaporization & heat of condensation in your physics textbook.
Thanks
JK,
in your heart, you know he’s right
JK: Thanks JK, in your heart, you know he’s right
THWM: Then why are you so hostile?
JK:Care to explain why the Earth didn’t run away when the CO2 level was 10 times today’s in the past?
ws:Run away? I don’t know what you mean by this, but higher CO2 concetrations occured millions of years ago with different biota, different ecosystems, different continental positions and no human economies tied to specific climates.
Yes, the planet will survive with higher CO2 concentrations, duh, but we cannot continue what we have going if AGW occurs. While Canada may get warmer (and wetter) and allow for further habitation and settlement of that area, it does not mean that other territories — particularly poorer regions — will not suffer from a warmer climate (i.e. Mexico). Yes climates change naturally, but let’s put aside changes that occur in terms of a geological time span (the earth is 4.5 billion years old) and changes that occur on the micro scales of 150 years. Humans cannot possible comprehend even 1 billion years, and we have only been surviving “humanly”, for lack of a better term, for the last 10,000 years.
I think I explained water vapor pretty well. You are missing the point that increasing water vapor is not a concern for global warming as we do not have a direct control over it except for reducing CO2 emissions (higher temps = more water vapor) and its relative residence in the atmosphere is very short. Condensation and precipitation remove water vapor from the atmosphere.
CO2 can linger for up to 100 years. Yes, WV is the most abundant and powerful GHG — we need it to live. But it is not a run-away GHG like CO2 is. Methane, which is 10 time more powerful than CO2, is not as abundant and does not last as long as CO2, either.
See, what you’re doing is trying to divert attention way from carbon emissions with a misleading fact about water vapor! It’s pretty transparent, Jim. Great, WV is the most abundant GHG, but what are you really trying to say from this?
JK:“WOW, Slate, a left wing, scientifically ignorant web site! I’m impressed! (NOT) Got anything credible, like peer reviewed.”
ws: I just gave a link to Slate because it was the first thing in Google and it gave a nice explanation of the difference of water vapor vs. Co2.
“CO2 can linger for up to 100 years.” — There is little science to point to that. What exists is very sketchy. Scientific consensus seems to be that something around 10 years for CO2.
Speaking of CO2…. going for a road trip this weekend and I didn’t buy any carbon offset. Dios mio!
ws said: ws:Run away? I don’t know what you mean by this, but higher CO2 concetrations occured millions of years ago with different biota, different ecosystems, different continental positions and no human economies tied to specific climates.
JK: The claim is that CO2 will cause runaway warming BECAUSE it traps heat. That that didn’t happen back then implies it won’t happen in the future either. Just another piece of evidence that shows that CO2 CANNOT cause dangerous warming.
ws said: Yes, the planet will survive with higher CO2 concentrations, duh, but we cannot continue what we have going if AGW occurs. While Canada may get warmer (and wetter) and allow for further habitation and settlement of that area, it does not mean that other territories  particularly poorer regions  will not suffer from a warmer climate (i.e. Mexico).
JK: First you have to prove that man’s CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming.
ws said: Yes climates change naturally, but let’s put aside changes that occur in terms of a geological time span (the earth is 4.5 billion years old) and changes that occur on the micro scales of 150 years. Humans cannot possible comprehend even 1 billion years, and we have only been surviving “humanlyâ€Â, for lack of a better term, for the last 10,000 years.
JK: To dismiss history is simply not rational, but neither are most positions of Gore’s zombies.
ws said: I think I explained water vapor pretty well.
JK: You just missed the science and the cooling cycle.
ws said: You are missing the point that increasing water vapor is not a concern for global warming as we do not have a direct control over it
JK: You are ignoring the fact that H2O caused most of the measured warming and that it is completely out of our control.
All that is under our control is man’s part of the up to 30% caused by CO2. And man’s part is about 3% of that 30%. So if man ceased all CO2 emission, it would only effect 3% of the gas that causes up to 30% of the warming. In other words NOTHING.
ws said: CO2 can linger for up to 100 years. Yes, WV is the most abundant and powerful GHG  we need it to live. But it is not a run-away GHG like CO2 is.
JK: Again you show your ignorance. CO2 is NOT a runaway gas. The runaway scenario is postulated to cause an increase in H2O which amplifies the CO2 effect. I get so tired of showing that you post thinks that tour are in fact ignorant of.
Again I ask for a peer reviewed source for this statement that CO2 can linger for a long time.
ws said: See, what you’re doing is trying to divert attention way from carbon emissions with a misleading fact about water vapor!
JK: You keep trying to paint CO2 as a hazzard. PROVE IT: Again I ask for the peer-revirewed papers that show that CO2 can cause dangerous warming.
ws said: JK:“WOW, Slate, a left wing, scientifically ignorant web site! I’m impressed! (NOT) Got anything credible, like peer reviewed.â€Â
ws: I just gave a link to Slate because it was the first thing in Google and it gave a nice explanation of the difference of water vapor vs. Co2.
JK: I just scanned that article. It got a number of things wrong. But lets get back to the real debate here:
Is CO2 capable fo causing dangerous warming?
Please show me the evidence or quit wasting our time. (Peer reviewed papers only, containing real world measurements, not computer simulations or something on a lab bench.)
Thanks
JK,
in your heart, you know he’s right
Then there things like the summer of 1816 & how many straws does it take to break a camel’s back?
There is little science to point to that. What exists is very sketchy. Scientific consensus seems to be that something around 10 years for CO2.
No.
This is why it is pointless to “debate” the 15% of the population on this topic.
And this is why society has passed them by.
Human societies are discussing how to adapt to and mitigate man-made climate change.
AS I said above: There is no scientific basis for the denialist position. There is a psychological basis, but not a scientific one.
DS
JK:“Is CO2 capable fo causing dangerous warming? Please show me the evidence or quit wasting our time. (Peer reviewed papers only, containing real world measurements, not computer simulations or something on a lab bench.)”
ws: Hi, have any real world measurements showing that high CO2 concentrations are not a threat for out of control warming?
ws,
It is basic physics that CO2 warms the surface of the planet, known for well over a century.Using adjectives that are subject to interpretation is an 8th grader’s widdle dissembling trick. There is no point trying to change denialist’s minds. About 15% of the population refuses to listen, for psychological reasons.
Expend your energy instead discussing with the reality-based majority how we adapt and mitigate. E.g., I was recently at a function that celebrated training veterans for green careers, which is positive energy expenditure. This training business model is being looked at nationally as a template, and numerous other groups were in attendance discussing the training, efficiencies, social justice, etc. Society has moved beyond listening to the delusional from a narrow, isolationist demographic.
DS
Hi All. I have not commented here before but have been reading for months and enjoy the discussion, at least when it is amiable! As a scientist, I thought I might have something to add on the Global Warming discussion. Firstly, there has been a request to provide empirical evidence that CO2 can or has caused dangerous warming. I would like to provide one answer to this request with a bit of historical background. As we all know, for a number of decades in the mid-late twentieth century, atmospheric scientists were concerned, based on the apparent periodicity in the occurrence of much cooler climates (“Ice Ages”), that the span since the last occurrence pointed to the inevitability that a cooling period would soon begin (soon in this case on a time scale of hundreds to thousands of years). This was a commonly held idea and a focus of research until the late 1970s, because of an event that happened outside of research on Earth’s climate. That event was the landing of the Venera 7 spacecraft on the surface of Venus. Briefly, planetary scientists were quite surprised to find the surface temperature was over 870 degrees F, hot enough to melt lead. The extremely durable Venera probe lasted 23 minutes, miraculous under the conditions. The atmosphere is composed of 96.5% CO2, at crushing pressures. Planetary scientists, who before the probe landed had many theories positing Venus, the planet most similar in size and composition to Earth, to be very Earth like. The accepted explanation for the absolutely hellish conditions on Venus (where besides the heat and crushing pressure, it continuously rains sulfuric acid in the cloud deck!) was that the planet began as an Earth like world, but its position slightly closer to the Sun doomed the planet to experience a runaway greenhouse effect, chiefly driven by the rapid, positive feedback driven accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Once this theory became the accepted explanation for the current state of Venus, as one can imagine it did not take long before atmospheric scientists on Earth began looking intently at CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. The measurements showed CO2 increasing. The sequence of events that has transpired since the discovery and explanation for the situation on Venus should not be surprising. We have Venus, we have in-situ measurements of its condition, it is like Earth in many ways, but a slightly warmer proto-climate due to orbital position has left it an empirical representative of the local culture’s concept of hell. Secondly, the nature of the discussion on Global Warming has strayed far from what the scientific method can support. The Antiplanner’s position as a skeptic is appropriate, but let me offer some ideas on why skepticism does not relieve us of the responsibility to consider, and perhaps even act upon the implications of the hypothesis. There are several concepts that must be held in mind, because this topic is so politically overloaded. The developments in science since the early/mid 20th century have demonstrated certain limitations on what we can do with our understandings of physical systems. We can not predict future behavior of complex systems, even minute fluctuations in initial conditions can produce large variations in future states. We can, however, show probability distributions of potential future states with varying levels of confidence (which can be quite difficult to quantify). Unfortunately the only certainty we can achieve about certain types of systems is that their behavior is uncertain, behavior can sometimes be historically explained in retrospect, but not predicted. The Earth’s atmosphere is complex. In science speak it behaves as a far-from equilibrium nonlinear self organized critical system. The nonlinearity is expressed as events not being proportional to their immediate initiators. It is self organized in part because it is an open system driven by input energy from the sun. Self organized critical systems have several interesting properties, including scale free behavior, which means the same underlying dynamics which cause small changes also cause large changes, and the size and timing of changes cannot be predicted. Plotting the intensity of events in respect to the frequency using a logarithmic scale produces a straight line with a constant slope. In these types of systems historical trends cannot predict future states. But we drive our models with historical trends because this is the best we can do. The computer simulations (which we run in ensembles to sharpen the statistics) are the best we can do. But they do not predict, certainly not in the binary yes or no sense. Now where does this leave us? Some have argued here they know Global Warming is a hoax, that the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is false. No one can claim to know this with any certainty, it is the equivalent of offering the opposite hypothesis, there is no Anthropogenic Global Warming regarding future states of Earth’s climate. Just as we cannot be certain Global Warming is occurring, we cannot be certain it is not (every time someone offers uncertainty as a refutation of this particular hypothesis, they are also undermining the hypothesis that it is certainly false!). In other words, neither side in this debate, pro or con, can logically conclude a certainty from uncertainty. Please remember, if some individual or group adopts a hypothesis for some political purpose, this behavior demonstrates absolutely nothing regarding the truth or falsity of the hypothesis itself. They are entirely unrelated. We cannot be certain about the Global Warming hypothesis, but we do know systems such as the atmosphere behave in certain general ways and obey certain laws. Important to the discussion is the atmosphere’s nonlinearity, its unpredictability, the conditions on Venus, and the rising CO2 on Earth- none of these are disputed. So what we are left with is a political issue, and that is: How far and for how long can or should we perturb the far-from equilibrium self organized critical system of Earth’s atmosphere with CO2 emissions? There is no certainty in the answer, todays CO2 emissions may have avoided a catastrophic cooling due to a threshold which would have otherwise been tripped next Tuesday, or the climate models may be exactly precise, or even under-predicting the rate or magnitude of warming. While perhaps improbable, there is no logical reason that either of these hypotheses are impossible. No one knows the answer, and sorry for the long post, but as we can all agree, this is a very complex world.
The projected temp increases are overstated.
If true, the temps would be higher now.
In fact, the temps have not increased in the last decade.
How the hell is 3F to 6F projected for the next century?
You alarmists, please pay attention to reality & facts.
BTW, the generally accepted power of CO2 as a GHG for temp increases is to have diminishing results. In other
words, each incremental increase in CO2 will have less of a temp increase.
The CO2 has increased from 280-390 ppm.
Which is far less than 2,000 ppm (2%), which somebody else claimed.
Although as a portion of the power of GHG, CO2 is around 10% (not 30%).
Expanding on that point, all GHG add about 50F.
So CO2 might be responsible for about 5F.
Doubling CO2 could add 3F, maybe.
What temp increase has 100 ppm lead to?
Well, one cannot say, especially when CO2 has continually increased & temps go up & down.
Suppose all of the increase is attributed to CO2.
That’s about 1.2F over the last century.
Kind of strange that temps increased about 0.5F for 50 years before that, without a significant increase in
CO2.
So what will the next 100 ppm lead to? Maybe 0.7F? Next, 0.5F?
This bogus claim of “it getting cooler just proves AGW” is ridiculous & really counters their reasoning.
The use of insults (denier), buzzwords (pollutant), invalid arguments (ad hominem), can sway some people,
based upon passion & propaganda, but really shows that there is no solid footing.
Would real science try to prove points that way?
And these “techniques” shows that logic & common sense & evidence have been removed from the proAGW
playbook.
The mass media supports this cultist religion of AGW because of many motivators & agendas.
To be counter to AGW, has been bastardized as being selfish & against the planet.
Actually, to be proAGW shows foolishness in believing the hype, succumbing to propaganda & not doing research
or reading of multiple sources.
BTW, climate change is grossly overstated.
How many degrees between climates? Maybe about 15F.
To find some real analysis:
http://globalwarminglies.com/index.html
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
There are plenty more. Search yourself. Without reading, ignorance will remain.
The alarmists are scared to really learn, closed-minded, & just want to believe in disaster. This impending doom
just gives enviro-wackos a sense of being & purpose.
The projected temp increases are overstated.
If true, the temps would be higher now.
In fact, the temps have not increased in the last decade.
How the hell is 3F to 6F projected for the next century?
You alarmists, please pay attention to reality & facts.
BTW, the generally accepted power of CO2 as a GHG for temp increases is to have diminishing results. In other
words, each incremental increase in CO2 will have less of a temp increase.
The CO2 has increased from 280-390 ppm.
Which is far less than 2,000 ppm (2%), which somebody else claimed.
Although as a portion of the power of GHG, CO2 is around 10% (not 30%).
Expanding on that point, all GHG add about 50F.
So CO2 might be responsible for about 5F.
Doubling CO2 could add 3F, maybe.
What temp increase has 100 ppm lead to?
Well, one cannot say, especially when CO2 has continually increased & temps go up & down.
Suppose all of the increase is attributed to CO2.
That’s about 1.2F over the last century.
Kind of strange that temps increased about 0.5F for 50 years before that, without a significant increase in
CO2.
So what will the next 100 ppm lead to? Maybe 0.7F? Next, 0.5F?
This bogus claim of “it getting cooler just proves AGW” is ridiculous & really counters their reasoning.
The use of insults (denier), buzzwords (pollutant), invalid arguments (ad hominem), can sway some people,
based upon passion & propaganda, but really shows that there is no solid footing.
Would real science try to prove points that way?
And these “techniques” shows that logic & common sense & evidence have been removed from the proAGW
playbook.
The mass media supports this cultist religion of AGW because of many motivators & agendas.
To be counter to AGW, has been bastardized as being selfish & against the planet.
Actually, to be proAGW shows foolishness in believing the hype, succumbing to propaganda & not doing research
or reading of multiple sources.
BTW, climate change is grossly overstated.
How many degrees between climates? Maybe about 15F.
To find some real analysis:
globalwarminglies.com/index.html
junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
There are plenty more. Search yourself. Without reading, ignorance will remain.
The alarmists are scared to really learn, closed-minded, & just want to believe in disaster. This impending doom
just gives enviro-wackos a sense of being & purpose.