The Weekend Wonk: How Climate Deniers are Like Moon Landing Deniers

January 25, 2013

This topic is not one I’ve spent a whole lot of time or effort on, except to chortle when climate deniers start sputtering when you compare them to moon landing conspiracy theorists. But now, 2 trusted readers have sent this link to me in one week.

This video has an amusing, informative discussion of the video logistics of alleged moon fakery, and ends with an insightful take on the psychology that applies to science and reality deniers of all stripes.

About these ads

73 Responses to “The Weekend Wonk: How Climate Deniers are Like Moon Landing Deniers”


  1. Please be fair and balanced Peter.


  2. That is BRILLIANT! Brilliant I say! :-)

    Neil

  3. rayduray Says:

    NASA’s Earth Observatory discusses Tasmania and provides links to possible climate change causes for the recent severe weather down under.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80252


  4. Peter; What is the point of your video? I am very much a skeptic regarding anthropogenic global warming and I somewhat resent your use of the word “deniers” to describe some one that doesn’t subscribe to your delusional view of the world and its climate since it is a well known fact that temperatures, world wide, have been gradually raising since the end of the Little Ice Age or, guess what, it would not have ended.

    NASA has and continues to do some of the greatest scientific and engineering work ever accomplished, such as the spectacular recent landing of Curiosity on Mars, the landing of Phoenix in 2008 and in 2004 the amazing Spirit and opportunity missions to Mars and from these missions much is being learned about Mars, whose thin atmosphere is 95% CO2 and it is not burning up or even warm, for that matter.

    Then we have another branch of NASA, James Hansen’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies where he distorts the temperature record to satisfy a political and philosophical agenda and then people believe this is “science”.

    “Below is an animation of their handiwork. 1934 was no longer the hottest year, and the 1930s was no longer the hottest decade. Hansen essentially erased the Dust Bowl.”

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/

    • ontspan Says:

      Huh, you cite Stephen Goddard while simultaneously complaining about being labelled a denier? I used to think that in the physical world matter and anti-matter cannot exist when being brought together…guess I’m wrong.

      *poef*

    • rayduray Says:

      jdouglashuahin,

      You must be an American. It seems that Americans have gotten intensely more stupid in the past 30 years. Apparently it escaped your notice that the two charts in the link you provided that were intended to prove there is no hockey stick astonishingly show the temperature record up to 1977 in the first instance and up to 2010 in the second instance.

      I’m going to try to explain this at a third grade level now. The second chart is showing that the hockey stick effect started in 1977 and exists after that point. What Dr. James Hansen is showing you is reality. What you are writing and what Steven Goddard is writing is monumentally stupid.

      Please consider having a proctologist find your brain before you embarrass yourself further on this blog. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’ll just continue to be regarded here as a laughingstock.

      • greenman3610 Says:

        I again re-affirm I am not paying this guy.


      • Yes, I am an American and I would surmise that you are a citizen of a nation that has never landed a person on the moon or has just successfully sent a complex vehicle named Curiosity to explore Mars. It would appear from your lack of understanding of these charts that were produced on the link by saying that the two charts “show the temperature record up to 1977 in the first instance and up to 2010 in the second instance” would lead one to surmise that you need to check with the local witch doctor about a change of glasses for you since you are probably from a country in deep dark Africa that just last week got hooked up to the internet, judging from your comment.

        I would assume that if I had mentioned the Cartoonist John Cook and Skeptical Science you and outspan would have had no problem with any information from Cook’s site. We will look at some other information and not dwell on Mr. Goddard.
        rayduray can try to figure these graphs out:
        HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html

        See if you can get someone to help you comprehend the significance of comparing these two graphs.
        Full Mauna Loa CO2 record

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

        Try to get your head around this information:
        Contiguous U.S.
        Temperature
        December-February 1896-2012
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        National Climatic Data Center

        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=2&year=2012&filter=3&state=110&div=0

        I know that you will require the help of at least a second grade student that is in the mid section of the class to get you up to speed on these graphs that start with 1890 temperatures that are not “adjusted” like Hansen’s graphs are to look totally different than what the facts are:

        http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_monthly.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=486440

        It would be nice to laugh at you, if you were in the least bit humorous; but, It seems that ignorance does not often cause mirth, at least for sane and thinking people.

        • rayduray Says:

          WTF? Each of the charts you provide in your comment to which I respond indicate that 1) temperatures are going up and 2) CO2 concentrations are going up.

          What baffles me is that this is in total agreement with the work of Dr. James Hansen.

          I frankly find that you are engaging in bafflegab.

          I once had a business partner who was a pretty good salesman. He had a standard line that “if you cannot impress them with your intelligent, then baffle them with your bullshit.”

          Apparently you’ve taken the latter half of his prescription to heart.

          I’m sorry to say though, your argument is about as specious as I’ve ever come across since some lunatics were spreading nonsense about “intelligent design” meaning that evolution couldn’t possibly have happened. We chopped through that hypocrisy by asking the evangelical zealot if he’d prefer a simple and ineffective penicillin for an advanced evolved strep infection or if he’d prefer the state-of-the-art evolved super streptomycin. We shut him up pretty quickly.

          By the way, I live in Bend, OR and I am not proud that you are a fellow American.

          • Martin Lack Says:

            Sorry to see, Ray, that you have run into DougsWallow. He is a repetitious inverter of reality and is not frightened of accusing anyone of being in on the climate change ‘hoax’ – including the Mormon and formerly-sceptical Republican (Brigham Young University Professor of Geological Sciences) Barry Bickmore :

            http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/denial-is-not-a-river-in-egypt/


          • Rayduray is correct about one thing when they say “It seems that Americans have gotten intensely more stupid in the past 30 years.” and Rayduray very much personifies that comment when they admit that they can not read graphs or do not know the difference between up and down. Other than perhaps some mention of this individual from Bend, OR when I reply to andrewfez, I will say that I will not become involved in a tit for tat conversation with some one that offers up no facts and seems to be totally disagreeable and I well imagine that they come by that characteristic due to some genetic defect.

        • Martin Lack Says:

          If you are a US citizen, Doug, what are you doing in Vietnam? Does your reason have anything to do with procuring sexual favours from minors and/or getting a sex-change operation? Even if you have a legitimate reason for being in Vietnam, why is your grasp of English so completely sh!t.


      • Rayduray: That I used the Huffington Post shows that I do have a certain amount of open mindlessness about me. Education is important for any society and is generally the defining element of that society but look at what is happening now in the US. Since most of academia (at least 85%) has a far left view point, is this below the legacy that they are leaving the US?

        “Students in Latvia, Chile and Brazil are making gains in academics three times faster than American students, while those in Portugal, Hong Kong, Germany, Poland, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Colombia and Lithuania are improving at twice the rate.
        The study’s findings support years of rankings that show foreign students outpacing their American peers academically. Students in Shanghai who recently took international exams for the first time outscored every other school system in the world. In the same test, American students ranked 25th in math, 17th in science and 14th in reading.
        Just 6 percent of U.S. students performed at the advanced level on an international exam administered in 56 countries in 2006. That proportion is lower than those achieved by students in 30 other countries.
         http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/education-olympics-how-do_n_1707968.html

        • rayduray Says:

          Re: “look at what is happening now in the US. Since most of academia (at least 85%) has a far left view point,”

          No matter what you write, you have an uncanny way of making yourself come across as a complete blithering idiot.

          1) Instead of reading HuffPo, try this for next few weeks: http://www.marxists.org/

          When you get done with your complete survey, please let me know how many of these Marxists are actually known to exist, let alone taught in American schools.

          I’ll give you a big hint. The percentage are vanishingly small.

          2) If you think someone like Paul Krugman or Al Gore is on the far left, you’ve got a screw loose.

          3) Take the test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Find out where you stand. Then take a look at the section on U.S. Presidential Election 2012 to get some actual grounding on where America stands in regard to reality. Your claim is utter nonsense. America is a nation very far on the Right in comparison with most of the world. And, yes, this applies to our schools which are anything but left wing. I could only wish that were the case. We’d be a hell of a lot better educate and far less prone to the fairy tale understanding of the world that you unfortunately exhibit.

    • andrewfez Says:

      “…………Mars, whose thin atmosphere is 95% CO2 and it is not burning up or even warm, for that matter.”

      1) The Solar Constant (which isn’t really a constant, so it’s kinda named funny) for Earth is roughly 1350 Watts per meter squared (W/m^2), whilst the Solar Constant for Mars is only around 600W/m^2. Even with Mars’ lower albedo, its surface just doesn’t get the amount of energy the Earth’s gets.

      2) It’s not the concentration of CO2 that’s important, it’s the total number of molecules flying around in the atmosphere that defines their insulatory ability. So if we magically injected Mars with lots of N2 and O2, so that the CO2 concentration dropped dramatically, the greenhouse effect of the CO2 wouldn’t be diminished in some equally dramatic, linear fashion. Mars’ average temperature (calculated) without any CO2 in its atmosphere would be around 216 Kelvin, where as its observed temp is 240 Kelvin. That’s -57C versus -33C. That’s a big difference, considering that’s the average for the entire planet.

      ————————————————————————————————-

      “Below is an animation of their handiwork. 1934 was no longer the hottest year, and the 1930s was no longer the hottest decade. Hansen essentially erased the Dust Bowl.”

      Without looking into this, it sounds like you’re getting America’s temps and the global temp’s mixed up.

      ————————————————————————————————-

      “NASA has and continues to do some of the greatest scientific and engineering work ever accomplished, such as the spectacular recent landing of Curiosity on Mars…..”

      Why are you so apt to believe NASA did indeed land anything on Mars? Didn’t you watch the video, where the guy says we now have the technology to fake Moon landings and such? That is to say, why are you not skeptical that NASA didn’t fake the Mars stuff, just so they could funnel away taxpayer’s dollars to continue the tradition of wasteful government spending that makes Democrats so politically powerful? To be skeptical about global warming but to give NASA a free ride on everything else they do, seems to me, quite hypocritical.

      I would ask you to start spending one or two hours per day trying to uncover the NASA plot to waste government money by faking the Mars missions. Visit as many internet blogs as you can every day, as your main method of research. You should probably also request, through the Freedom of Information Act, all of NASA’s email through out the planning and executed stages of the missions. Remember, ANY internal conflicts or talk about certain mechanical structure not being up to par is absolute evidence that the whole Mars rover thing is a hoax. You should probably even start asking around if someone can help you with debunking the physics regarding the travel of objects through space, and if there’s time, rocket related topics. I would suggest using retired engineers that are pulling in 100 to 200K/year in retirement money who have politically conservative tendencies, secondary to such. OK, that’s your mission. Now get out there and go for it, lest you be thought of as another NASA zealot, religiously believing whatever the TV tells you to believe.

      ————————————————————————————————-

      Full disclosure: I believe the Mars missions are real. I believe that AGW is real.


      • Andrewfez: First off I wish to thank you for addressing the issue and not launching into an Ad Hominem attack on me and that does show a great deal of maturity and intellect, unlike what has been demonstrated by some of the other commenters on here.

        You state: “It’s not the concentration of CO2 that’s important, it’s the total number of molecules flying around in the atmosphere that defines their insulatory ability.” and that is obviously true regardless of if the atmosphere is on Mars or on the Earth. It is a fact that Mars has enough atmosphere, sparse as it is, that the lander was required to have a heat shield and could use a parachute to slow its decent and the other missions to Mars have shown that there are winds and dust devils present, again, showing that there is an atmosphere.

        I know that you are aware that the earths atmosphere is made up of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, ( 99.03% of the atmosphere is made up of these two gases) .93% argon and .0001% neon, helium and krypton for constant components and .4% water vapor that constitutes 95% of what cause the green house effect and we had best not forget CO2 at .039% and the rest is made up of trace gases such as CH4,SO2,03 and NO, and NO2. I am well aware of the fact that at 18,000 feet above sea level there is 50% less atmosphere present and one certainly knows that because of the lack of O2. There is obviously 50% less CO2 present and there is now, according to NOAA’ Mauna Loa report, 394 ppm of CO2. I really question if that is enough of this trace gas to cause all of the “climate change” that some want to believe is taking place when, to put this into perspective one part per million is equal to one inch in 16 miles or one minute in the lapse of two years time. At what altitude would all of this heat trapping be done and it is for sure not like a “canopy” that some want one to believe because what have you ever been able to trap with a gas?

        Then you say: “Without looking into this, it sounds like you’re getting America’s temps and the global temp’s mixed up.”
        I am not because I presented this previously:
        HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html

        It is the ones that want to use the US’s lower 48, 2012 temperatures that were not the highest ever recorded as NOAA’s Display comma-delimited data shows; 1999,36.43; 2000,36.56 and 2012,36.36 who are wanting to limit what is happening in the rest of the world with what is taking place in an area that only occupies less than approximately 0.01927% of Earth’s total surface area and 0.06598% of Earth’s land area.

        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=2&year=2012&filter=3&state=110&div=0

        It is amazing that you would say this: “To be skeptical about global warming but to give NASA a free ride on everything else they do, seems to me, quite hypocritical.” to which I ask what is hypocritical about not believing what a government agency says about AGW when “49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change”

        http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

        Do you also want to accuse these people of being hypocritical: Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt , who Al Gore would have trouble accusing of being a flat earther because he actually walked on the moon, or Mike Collins, Al Worden, Walter Cunningham and Richard Gordon. I would for sure rather be linked to these people than to James Hansen.

        Then you say: “OK, that’s your mission.” If you believe this “mission” to be so important, you carry it out and report back on what YOU find.

        Now I have a challenge for you: I ask you to provide me with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what you maintain as far as being the driver of the earth’s climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall’s 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity’s CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that effect the earth’s climate. If you can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates your anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.

        Jasper Kirkby is using CERN to test aerosol-climate effects and Svensmark’s subsequent lab results demonstrated an observed link between cosmic rays and cloud formation and this should not be a surprise to any thinking, logical person because the sun makes up 99% of the solar system; but, we have people wanting to deny that the sun has an effect on the climate.

        • greenman3610 Says:

          Ok, first of all, you need to trim your posts down to one or two well supported points
          Or I will.
          second of all, as to your tired point:
          “I really question if that is enough of this trace gas to cause all of the “climate change” that some want to believe is taking place when, to put this into perspective one part per million is equal to one inch in 16 miles or one minute in the lapse of two years time. ”

          By the end of this century, at current rates, we will be up to 800 ppm Co2 in the atmosphere.
          If you were to be stopped by a traffic cop with 800 ppm of alcohol in your bloodstream, you would
          be found guilty of impaired driving in most states.
          Nest time that happens, I’ll be interested to hear how the judge responds to your explanation of
          how small parts per million are.

          • skeptictmac57 Says:

            Bazinga!!!

          • Martin Lack Says:

            Have you forgotten, Peter, that you have given Doug Swallow numerous warnings like this before? If you have, search your own Comments database using his pseudonym. He does not respond to refutation of argument (other than by repetition of bullshit). The only language he understands (and responds to) his heavy-handed moderation. You need to swallow (pun very much intended) hard and start doing it.


          • Peter, I’m wondering how you can equate the amount of alcohol in the blood stream of a person with CO2 in something as vast as the earth’s atmosphere that varies depending on altitude. A man weighing 154 pounds would have about 5.5 quarts of blood and woman weighing110 pounds would have about 3.5 quarts of blood.
            “As final example, a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08, being the 0.08 “part” of a milliliter (ITSELF the thousandth part of a Liter) therefore names an absolute blood-alcohol volume of 0.00008-Liter (within every liter of blood).”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

            I am wondering where you get the 800ppm of CO2 by trhe end of the century when you can’t tell anyone what kind of summer the US will have this coming year. Are you discounting the proven CO2 cycle and are you also discounting these points?
            “The Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon dioxide influence Earth temperatures and global warming.”

            Do you think that what NOAA presents could have some effect on the earth’s climate?
            “The primary cause of variations in Earth’s climate is the regular variations in the brightness of the Sun and changes in Earth’s orbit about the Sun. In addition to 40-year cycles and 300-year cycles, other temperature cycles include:
            · 19,000 year cycle: Earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun (‘precession of the equinoxes’).
            · 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5 degree wobble in Earth’s orbit
            · 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit (‘cycle of eccentricity’)”
              http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html and http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_233658.htm

            How can this be, Peter? CO2 has increased but yet the Norwegian’s recently report this.
            “Temperature rise is levelling off
            After Earth’s mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has levelled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. Ocean warming also appears to have stabilised somewhat, despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise.”

            http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918?WT.ac=forside_nyhet

          • greenman3610 Says:

            re blood alcohol. Tell it to the judge.
            re co2 ppm by end of century, most recent estimate from the MIT Joint Program on Climate Change is a median of 866ppm, assuming business as usual emissions.
            this is arithmetic.
            re the Late Ordivician period nonsense. This is why you have to do the reading. or in this case the viewing.

            suggest you follow the links in the description to get up to steam – particularly listen to Dr. Richard Alley’s lecture, “The Biggest Control Knob”. It will save you a lot of embarrassment going forward.

            As for the suggestion that milankuvitch cycles are responsible for current climate change, you demonstrate once again a complete lack of appreciation for geologic time. Are you really this stupid, or do you suppose my readers are?
            The “research council of Norway” nonsense, of course, comes not from a peer reviewed paper, but a deceptively titled press release around an unpublished phd thesis.
            Even so, you deliberately and dishonestly omit a key passage toward the bottom –
            “Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.

            Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.”

            Once again, though I can’t pay you, I want to thank you for making so clear an example of exactly what climate deniers do
            – parrot disinformation
            – fail to understand basic science
            – dishonestly cherry pick so as to distort


          • @jdouglashuahin, Life’s too short to respond to your every point, but the Research Council of Norway article is interesting. Looking forward to reading their paper when they publish.

            A “mere” 1.9 degree C rise in 2050, with more in the pipeline, wouldn’t be a cause for celebration. Isn’t the “official” IPCC assessment for 2050 0.8-2.6 degree C? Where did the author find an IPCC projection of 2.0-4.5?

            http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29


          • “Are you really this stupid, or do you suppose my readers are?” This is really interesting when referring to the NOAA information on the The Milankovitch Theory, note it is a theory and not some unproven hypotheses such as your agw. Just how smart would one have to be to further the hypotheses put forth by some one who has made hundreds of millions of dollars from pushing this scam? This person seems to be really sincere about his concerns about this “dilemma” and unproven upcoming catastrophic consequences because he recently sold a defunct TV network for petro dollars. This is for sure not the first petroleum money that has passed through his hands and he wasn’t bothered by where any of it was coming from or who got hurt to procure the wealth.

            “For much of the campaign year, environmentalist groups have dogged the Gore campaign over the fate of the U’wa, an 5,00-strong indigenous Colombian tribe who’ve threatened to commit mass suicide if Occidental goes ahead with a plan to drill oil on land they hold sacred. Just last week pro-U’wa hecklers disrupted a University of Missouri speech by Karenna Gore-Schiff, and a second group were arrested trying to enter a Gore campaign office in Washington state.”

            http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,55826,00.html

            It appears that Gore is the kind of people that you are comfortable with and I imagine, in addition to NOAA, you paid no attention to this link that I also provided you with and I doubt that your readers can understand what Professor Malcolm McCulloch, member of the Australian National University team said.
            “To understand how we’re changing climate, we need to understand the natural cycles first.”

            http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_233658.htm

          • greenman3610 Says:

            You are a treasure. The fact that you would suppose Milankuvitch cycles, the quickest of which is a 22,000 year event, could be responsible for changes we’ve observed over the last 50 years, is – well, first tragic for you, but again, richly illustrative.
            Post away. just keep it clean, my friend.

          • Martin Lack Says:

            Hi Doug. I hope you noted that my comment about the laser reflector arrays on the Moon came before I was distracted by you (and your ludicrously repetitive contributions)?

            With regard to your blood-alcohol garbage, I think you will find that this is why a big person can drink more alcohol than a small person before finding themselves over the legal limit. However, none of this changes the fact, although the actual CO2 concentration may be small, what is significant is that we have now increased it by 40% in 200 years. That means a 40% increase in the heat- trapping that it does (without which there would be no liquid water on Earth).

            Do you never get tired of embarrassing yourself?


          • @jdouglashuahin, May your comments be half as much fun to write as they are to read.

            Al Gore?! Al Gore did not “put forth” “our” AGW hypothesis. Have you ever seen Al Gore quoted in a scientific paper? Scientists don’t care what Al Gore says. Most “warmists” don’t care what Al Gore says. Many wish Al Gore would retire, and make room for the right-wing’s next appointed, hopefully less boring, climate demon.


          • Thank you charleszeller for your comment and I do not imagine that Peter is happy when I report that because of it, I will not quit this thread as I had intended to do. It appears that now you people are turning on old fat Albert like a pack of hungry wolves that has discovered a black sheep in their midst. Where were you and your fellow “alarmist” when this happened?

            The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”

            http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

            Presentation Speech by Professor Ole Danbolt Mjøs, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Oslo, 10 December 2007.
            “While the IPCC has laid the scientific foundations for our knowledge about climate change, Al Gore is in the opinion of the Norwegian Nobel Committee the single individual who has done most to prepare the ground for the political action that is needed to counteract climate change. He is the great communicator. He reaches people all over the world with his message. As early as in the 1970s, as a young member of the House of Representatives, Al Gore organized hearings on emissions of greenhouse gases, then seen as a relatively exotic subject. Many derogatory terms were applied to his commitment, not least in the USA. In 1992, Gore published the book Earth in the Balance, which wound up with a proposal for a global Marshall Plan to save the biosphere. The book became a best-seller in the USA. It showed impressive insight, built on a broad scientific platform, and spoke in a distinctly political and activist tone of voice. Gore was into his stride.”

            http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/presentation-speech.html

            All your post does charleszeller is to show just how shallow you people are and also how unable to present the truth, if the tide changes against you, as is now happening in the real world because of the earth and its climate not following your script.
            Climategate ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller

            I would hope that the magnitude of the deception that you “alarmist” use to get rid of this graph that the IPCC used before they saw that the RWP,MWP and the LIA made it hard to explain in the context of wanting to blame all climatic events on CO2; so, eliminate these proven events with a fraudulent chart that became known as the “hockey stick” and have fat Albert feature it in a film called “An Inconvenient Truth”.

            Figure 2 Variations in regional surface temperatures for the last 18,000 years, estimated from a variety of sources. Shown are changes in°C, from the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.

            http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html

            You are free to believe what ever you want but do not expect logical, thinking people to share those believes.

          • greenman3610 Says:

            Again, it pays to do the viewing and keep up.
            Your incredibly inept and pathetic reference to Muller indicates you are not even staying current with
            denialist nonsense.
            see my video, almost 2 years old, about Muller rejoining the reality based community after actually looking at the record

            you can hear him extend that conclusion more recently, making clear that humans are almost completely
            responsible for warming during the last 200 years

            and see my interview with Muller’s Chief Scientist on his temperature record project

            As far as your cherry pick of a temp record chosen to end in the 1980s, I think it speaks for itself.
            I don’t think you have the self awareness to even know how foolish you are looking here,
            but of course, that is what makes you so absolutely representative of the climate denial community. I continue
            to allow this only because it might be a refresher in climate crock history for those few lurkers
            that might be hanging on.


          • Your first video didn’t seem to mention this quote from DR Muller regarding Anthony Watts:
            […]
            “Muller also had four specific concerns with the scientific consensus on global warming, which the BEST project was designed to address. The first – and most serious, he says – is the “stations issue”, referring to a problem highlighted by controversial US blogger and former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts. In 2007 Watts initiated the Surfacestations.org project, which reported that 70% of temperature recording stations in the US were inaccurate to a level of 2–5 °C. Muller says that the BEST team has now cleared up this issue by showing that when it comes to specifically measuring change in temperature, the 30% of good stations are not significantly more accurate than the 70% of bad stations. “If Watts hadn’t done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he’s a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize.”

            http://physicsworld.implere.com/GetHtml/?article_ref_enc=UEhZU1dvZGUzMDAvMjAxMi8wNC8wMS9BcjAxNDAw&css_url=http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/Olive/ODE/physicsworld/component.css

            In regards to the above quote from DR. Muller and this makes one wonder just what one can believe:
            “The study also found that The urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature

            I have seen no mention of your name, Peter, anywhere as far as helping out with this project.

            One can wonder at just how free of biases Elizabeth Muller is when she makes a living being green by telling governments how to implement green policies, how they can lessen their carbon footprint and how to pick the right technologies. “GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government.”

            http://www.linkedin.com/company/muller-&-associates_2

            How can I be sure that this business did not influence her or her father’s work on this project?

            The second video is interesting when Dr. Muller says regarding global warming and its relationship to CO2 [03:05] “you can’t prove it”. He seems to like natural gas and his opinion of the Koch brothers is different from yours.

            “You might be surprised to learn three things about Dr. Muller:
            1. He says Hurricane Sandy cannot be attributed to climate change.
            2. He suggests individually reducing our carbon footprint is pointless — we need to “think globally and act globally,” by encouraging the switch from coal to gas power in China and developing nations. He’s a fan of “clean fracking.”
            3. He says climate skeptics deserve our respect, not our ridicule.”

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=2278509

            The third video is interesting as well because it confirms that the temperature record for this “study” begins, in 1750. Anyone that knows anything realizes that this is during the Little Ice Age that NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and AD 1850 so why would it be a big surprise that there was warming from the baseline date of 1750?


          • 9:55 AM

            OK Peter, it is time to cut the BS and cut to the chase. All you need to do is show me the video or source that answers my challenge that I submitted to Andrewfez, to which they never answered and, now to you or any other anthropogenic global warming zealot, who thinks they have the proof of the experiment that “proves” your hypotheses. As soon as I see that then I to will become an “alarmist”.

            I have a challenge for you: I ask you to provide me with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what you maintain as far as being the driver of the earth’s climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall’s 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity’s CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that effect the earth’s climate. If you can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates your anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.

            It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on. They sure do not say that the science is settled and the argument is over because there are REAL scientist out there doing REAL scientific work that are not blinded by some agenda that they support so that they can get more “research” money.

            Albert Einstein addressed the theory of quantum entanglement. In Dec. of 2011 this experiment was carried out:
            Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds
            Usually a finicky phenomenon limited to tiny, ultracold objects, entanglement has now been achieved for macroscopic diamonds at room temperature

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=room-temperature-entanglement

            Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit
            “The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action.
            (Can we ever expect to see the same thing regarding AGW?)
            “An unexpected result was put up for scrutiny, thoroughly investigated and resolved in part thanks to collaboration between normally competing experiments. That’s how science moves forward.”
            “The neutrinos were timed on the journey from CERN’s giant underground lab near Geneva to the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy, after travelling 732 kilometres (454 miles) through the Earth’s crust.”

            http://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.html#jCp

            Jasper Kirkby photographed inside the CLOUD chamber.
            “There are a lot of observations suggesting that particles hitting the atmosphere might affect the production of clouds and, in turn, the planet’s climate”, continues Kirkby. “However, given the complexity of the climate and the many parameters involved, a clear answer doesn’t exist yet”. (Get that about the complexity of the climate? I guess not if you want to attribute every aspect of what the climate does on a trace gas that makes up .038% of the atmosphere)

            “For the first time, we want to do definitive, quantitative measurements of the underlying microphysics”, states Kirkby. “CLOUD has been designed to follow all the processes involved from the birth of the embryonic aerosols, which then grow to a big enough size to become the seeds for cloud droplets. CLOUD will also study the effect of cosmic rays on the cloud droplets and ice particles themselves”.

            http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2009/47/News%20Articles/1221077?ln=de

            Henrik Svensmark, being a scientist, devised experiments of his own to test his theory and that demonstrates how science works. It is not about a group of self serving charlatans proclaiming that “the debate is over” when they have no experiment that shows that CO2 drives the earth’s climate or even provide the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.

            “Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″

            It seems to me that if the experiments above could be devised and carried out, that one showing how carbon dioxide can cause the earth’s climate to act as you seem to want people to believe it does should have been carried out long ago.


          • While on a subject that you want to leave, Al Gore, it should be mentioned, since you bring up all of the “scientific” qualifications of those pushing this agenda of yours. This is the education that Steve Running used to gain his share of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and then you criticize some one like Dr. John Christy because he shows how flawed your contentions are. This may be a shock to some that worship at this cathedral of your religion, global warming, but Al Gore, as you pointed out, has no scientific credentials and Steve Running, who holds a “B.S. in  Botany; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1972, M.S. in Forest Management; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1973 and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecophysiology; {what ever that is}, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1979.
            “Plant ecophysiology is an experimental science that seeks to describe the physiological mechanisms underlying ecological observations.” At least he has been exposed to science but is a long ways from being a climatologist, but then again, how much difference do credentials make when the head of the IPCC is an economist?

            You should obtain and read a copy of “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” by Donna Laframboise and find out that the IPCC is not made up of the scientist that you want people to believe but by mostly young people, some who have no degree in anything and have never published any peer reviewed work. Note the stupid report that they put out recently about the Himalayan glaciers that came from the ramblings of some smoked up members of World Wildlife Fund. Most real scientist have given up on this organization and will not be associated with it because of the grossly deceptive bunch of garbage that it issues.

            I saw where Irena Sendler had died. She had helped to save thousands of Jewish children from certain death during the Nazi occupation of Warsaw during WWII, and obviously risked her own life to do so & was beaten severely by the Gestapo but didn’t give up any secrets. You wonder what this has to do with anything and it is this: she had been considered for the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore and his cronies when they won said prize. But one must remember that Jimmy Carter won it in 2002 and Yassar Arafat also shared the “prize” in 1994 and we have Obama winning the prize also. I think that due to the recent past recipients of the prize, the prestige of it has diminished to the point that it about like buying the Sunday New York Times and finding that the comics are still included. In other words, the Swedes should take back control of this before it is tarnished further by the Norwegians who seem to have lost touch of what the prize was intended to honor and that has to be due to getting into the psychedelic mushrooms too often.

            A VERY inconvenient truth: Al Gore ‘left car engine running during hour-long environment lecture’

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324859/Al-Gore-left-car-engine-running-hour-long-environmental-lecture.html#ixzz2Ehx5rBpl

          • Martin Lack Says:

            People who preface their comments with phrases like, “While on a subject that you want to leave…” should not criticise others for posting comments that are off-topic.


        • Analogies and discussions of inert gasses aside, the physics of atmospheric radiative forcing is well understood. Using spectrometers, scientists have precisely measured the absorption/emission characteristics of gasses at all frequencies and all temperatures for 60 years. Using computers they calculate how incoming and outgoing radiation interacts with the atmosphere. These calculations are verified by measuring outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere. The energy imbalance can be less precisely tracked by measuring the accumulating heat in the oceans.

          Though GHGs may be trace gasses, they interact with 90% of the infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface. As GHG concentration increases, outgoing radiation’s mean free path decreases. The uncontroversial outcome is that more photons are radiated to space from higher colder molecules as GHG concentrations increase.


          • charleszeller: If, as you maintain, “Using spectrometers, scientists have precisely measured the absorption/emission characteristics of gasses at all frequencies and all temperatures for 60 years.” then why was it that in the 1970s it was global cooling that was the big issue and dilemma facing humanity?

            Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote in their 1996 book, Betrayal of Science and Reason (p. 34):
            “Predictions of future climate trends by Stephen Schneider and other leading climatologists, based on the prevailing knowledge of the atmosphere in the early 1970s, gave more weight to the potential problem of global cooling than it now appears to merit.”

            Do not forget that John Holdren, Obama “Science Czar”, predicted that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling “eco-disaster” was announced in Ehrlich’s 1986 book “The Machinery of Nature.”

            In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (1977: p. 686), Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Holdren stated:
            “Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the beginning of a long and persistent trend in that direction—that is, an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic history.”

            The Ehlrichs and Holdren also gave voice to cooling alarmist Reid Bryson, who said this in his essay in their edited book of essays published in 1971, Global Ecology:
            “I believe that increasing global air pollution, through its effect on the reflectivity of the earth, is currently dominant and is responsible for the temperature decline of the past decade or so.”

            During the 1970s, there was also concern about anthropogenic global warming at some future date. The Ehrlichs and and Holdren covered this base in Ecoscience (p. 686):
            “There can be scant consolation in the idea that a man-made warming trend might cancel out a natural cooling trend. Since the different factors producing the two trends do so by influencing different parts of Earth’s complicated climatic machinery, it is most unlikely that the associated effects on circulation patterns would cancel each other.”

            charleszeller: Just what is one to believe and then you wonder why there are skeptics regarding this agw hypotheses? One need not wonder at why you did not mention H2O, that is the most important of the GHGs, because it contributes 95% of the green house effect on earth.


          • jdouglashuahin, I have no idea where this reply will appear, but I bet you find it. You are tenacious.

            For the sake of brevity, I lumped H2O into GHGs. For the record, CO2 increase is a primary forcing. H2O increase is a feedback.

            Global cooling was investigated in the old days – but was hardly a “big deal”. In fact, at that time, global warming wasn’t such a big deal. Environmentalism was in its infancy. CO2 was 16% above baseline. It’s now 41%.

            You answered your own rhetorical question within your question. Quantifying the impact of aerosols lags the understanding of GHGs. Schneider was asked to evaluate a “nuclear winter” scenario, and speculated that if particulate emissions were to dramatically increase that the dimming would be significant. Aerosol cooling is indeed very large. As it turned out, the “greenhouse effect” is now much larger. And GHGs don’t instantly dissipate – as does smog.

            In a 1974 paper, Holdren and Ehrlich pretty much covered every conceivable obstacle that we might encounter as we dominate a limited planet. (Waste heat changing climate sounds quaint in retrospect.) Over time, science reduces uncertainties. You seem like a bright guy. Why do you work so hard to not keep up? Holdren said what he said when he knew less than he knows now. His cooling quote appears in this “free-market energy blog” – as does his warming quote. The blog’s bias, and yours, is in plain view.

            http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/john-holdren-on-global-cooling-revisited/

        • Martin Lack Says:

          Sadly, Doug, you have proven, yet again, that you are not worth the effort of anything other than ridicule. This is not an indication of my immaturity; it is merely one of my exasperation at the repetitious nature of what you post (despite it being repeatedly rebutted).


          • What is the deal here Martin? You have a totally irrelevant blog site that receives maybe four visits a month and you are giving advice to Peter on how to run his site? Astounding but characteristic for you.

            I am sorry that Peter did not allow people to get better acquainted with you because he did not allow the information about you that I presented here earlier but allows you to engage in unfettered and unsubstantiated character assassination of me . I’ll try it again in a different manner because people really need to know who you are.

            An open letter to Richard Lindzen
            with 166 comments
            ” ……….I blew my chance to ask a question.”

            http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/an-open-letter-to-richard-lindzen/#comments

            After receiving all of the comments calling you a purveyor of untrue statements, you even have to exacerbate the dilemma by going over to Judith Curry’s blog and bothering her with your deceptive ways.
            Martin Lack February 28, 2012 at 9:31 am | Reply
            “Dear Judith,
            With respect to you, and all your readers, I was there. In an attempt to address one of the many misrepresentations or omissions of relevant facts, i was prevented from actually asking a question.”
            Eddy | February 28, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Reply
            Brilliant
            Mr Lack did seem somewhat blinded by his own genius. Still I suppose the dimmest bulb will dazzle if you are close enough.

            http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/

            Published on Mar 7, 2012 by globalclimatedebate

            Martin begins his QUESTION at 05:30
            People need to know just what kind of a person you are, Martin, and the more you attempt to attack me will more clearly show them who you TRULY are.

          • Martin Lack Says:

            I trust this off-topic, repeatedly-debunked, bullsh!t will be deleted but, if not, I do not think much of Doug’s maths: The statistics on my blog speak for themselves.

          • Martin Lack Says:

            OK: If this comment is not going to be deleted, I am bound to point out — as many others have done (in every other place Douglas has chosen to post it – such as on Barry Bickmore’s blog) — that it is self-evidently garbage because: I have never disputed that I was invited to ask a question but chose to make a statement first and, therefore, I never got to ask my question. I therefore fail to see that I have anything to be ashamed of (unlike some people I could mention).


      • Andrewfez: Could it be that from this statement that you are understanding what has always driven the earth’s climate and will always do so in the future and this that bright orb in the sky that makes up 99% of the solar system, the sun?
        “1) The Solar Constant (which isn’t really a constant, so it’s kinda named funny) for Earth is roughly 1350 Watts per meter squared (W/m^2), whilst the Solar Constant for Mars is only around 600W/m^2. Even with Mars’ lower albedo, its surface just doesn’t get the amount of energy the Earth’s gets.”

        You can look at this link and imagine at what clouds might have to do with the climate and the assertion that 95% 0f the green house effect is due to H2O in various forms in the atmosphere.

        http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html

  5. Martin Lack Says:

    If man has not walked on the Moon, how did the laser reflector arrays get there?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

    • greenman3610 Says:

      hah! Tool! Exactly what Bigfoot wants you to think!!


    • I am so glad, Martin, that you posted this comment and link because it does show that perhaps you are, after all, astute enough to know what the topic of this thread is not about me but about aspects of the Moon landing that can be transferred into other achievements that NASA and their top flight scientist and engineers that are part of its many divisions have accomplished. It is sad that this in the only “comment” out of the seven that appear here that you presented that has any reference to what is the topic.

      As to the point of you chastising Peter for allowing a different view to be presented, I refer you to what Karl Popper, who became a citizen of your nation, the UK said: “The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” Those few words have said more than all of the pointless, inane pronouncements that you have ever put forth.

      Another very intelligent citizen of your nation had stated this: “Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley

      The American, “H. L.” Mencken, must have had you in mind when he stated this: , “I love liberty and I hate fraud.” On your irrelevant blog site after this falsehood was put forth by you; the whole conversation dealt with it and people that were in attendance said that you did ask your question, if you didn’t, as you maintain, that was your own damn fault.

      • Martin Lack Says:

        ‘It is sad that this in the only “comment” out of the seven that appear here that you presented that has any reference to what is the topic.’

        Wonderfully ironic or shamelessly hypocritical. All vote now please.


  6. [...] 2013/01/25: PSinclair: The Weekend Wonk: How Climate Deniers are Like Moon Landing Deniers [...]


  7. “You are a treasure. The fact that you would suppose Milankuvitch cycles, the quickest of which is a 22,000 year event, could be responsible for changes we’ve observed over the last 50 years, is – well, first tragic for you, but again, richly illustrative.
    Post away. just keep it clean, my friend.”

    Peter; you must know that the proven Milankuvitch cycles are only a part of the interaction of the sun with the earth’s climate and these others have a much shorter time scale than what you seem to scoff at.

    “Even small variations in heating in the outer layers of the Sun can change the amount of light and heat the Earth receives by enough to change our climate.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast05oct98_1/

    “We even have tantalizing hints that the Earth’s climate may be linked to sunspots. The “Little Ice Age” corresponded with a 70-year period, 1645-1715, when sunspots were sparse in number, the Maunder minimum. Also, there are strong statistical associations linking current trends in climate (surface temperatures) to trends in solar activity, as outlined in another paper by Wilson for the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres).”

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast13apr98_1/

    “Our star’s output varies on many time scales: from explosive reconnection and convective turnover, to the 27-day solar rotation, to the 22-year solar magnetic cycle, and to even longer, irregular fluctuations, such as the 17th-century Maunder minimum.”
    […]
    “This means that although the sunspot number and the coronal activity have an eleven-year cycle, the full magnetic cycle is actually twenty-two years. Images: Kitt Peak telescope of the National Solar Observatory.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/focus-areas/space-environment/

    As long as James Hansen stays out of the picture, the truth seems to come through. The main question regarding the sun is when will the next Carrington event such as occurred in 1859 happen when a huge coronal mass ejection hit the earth and knocked out about the only electrical equipment at the time, the telegraph system. Imagine what would happen today since smaller CME have disrupted and knocked out electrical grids when they struck the earth. Basically, most of the transformers would be destroyed and most of the world would be without electrical power for who knows how long.

  8. Martin Lack Says:

    Doug says above that he will become an alarmist if we can prove that CO2 is the primary cause of ongoing warming. This sounds great until you notice that:
    (1) he continues to post endless citations of pre-debunked contrarian arguments; and
    (2) has already rejected every single piece of evidence as part of an enormous conspiracy to foist a scientific hoax on a credulous World.

    Thus, yet another verbose and repetitive comment reduces to an unfalsifiable straw man argument and a completely impenetrable fortress of cognitive dissonance.


  9. Doug, we all understand that natural oscillations cause climate variability. If you really want to understand how atmospheric CO2 concentration affects the climate, David Archer’s lectures and books are a good introduction.


    • charleszeller: To revisit this site is like making a trip through the graveyard with the ghost of Martin Lack howling like a banshee and, as usual, saying nothing and that is about like the video that I wasted 11 minutes watching a guy trying to sell books and no where addressing my challenge about providing an experiment that shows that the amount of a trace gas, CO2, at .037-9% of the total atmosphere and that naturally decreases with altitude to where at 18,000′ there is only 50% of the atmosphere there is at sea-level present, nor have I seen any link or information coming from you about this experiment ever having been done let alone an answer to the point about the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.

      • Martin Lack Says:

        The reason I do not generally say much to you anymore, Doug, is that I have previously said it all (and so have you). Furthermore, as many others have said, the fact that you go from website to website endlessly repeating the same questions and cutting-and-pasting the same spurious information tends to suggest you are being paid to waste the time of people who are trying to clear the fog of misinformation peddled by the fossil fuel industry (i.e. as was the well-documented tactic of the tobacco industry before it). Either that, or you are not paying attention to the rebuttals you receive, or you are simply incapable of understanding their implications.

        Whichever is the case, your repetitive request (reminiscent of [most-recently] Matt Ridley on the GWPF website) to be given the results of laboratory experiment that proves that CO2 is the primary cause of warming presupposes that the vast majority of relevantly-qualified scientists (who have concluded that it is) are either being stupid, illogical, or mendacious. Unfortunately, such a presupposition can only be made by people who believe in a scientific conspiracy or believe that they are cleverer than the climate scientists themselves. This is not only highly improbable; it is not consistent with all the available evidence (i.e. of both historical industry-led misinformation campaigns and of theoretically-deduced science validated by empirical observation and computer modelling).

        However, I am already repeating myself so I will simply conclude by apologising for my earlier impolite remarks (which were prompted – but not justified – by your unfounded, illogical and disparaging remarks about my blog). Goodbye.


        • Martin: You can not help your self, can you? You say I am repetitive. If one is stating the truth there may be some repetitions because the truth will always be that, the truth. You present some characteristic slobbering nonsense with no mention of anything pertaining to the subject and then you show that the truth is not in you, nor has it ever been, when you come up with this: “However, I am already repeating myself so I will simply conclude by apologising for my earlier impolite remarks (which were prompted – but not justified – by your unfounded, illogical and disparaging remarks about my blog).” A simple (that is a proper word to use when addressing you) count of your post that began on January 28, 2013 at 3:27 pm when you began with the disparaging, insulting, untrue and uncalled for remarks about me were followed by four other comments before I ever addressed you in any way, shape or form.

          I do hold much respect for Peter Sinclair. We may agree on basically nothing; but, he is not like you and many of your fellow “alarmist” in that he is not afraid to defend his views and will give others an opportunity to express theirs, and that is something one can not do on your irrelevant blog site or on a new comer on the block who exist in Montana, Eric Grimsrud, who is so unsure of his position that no dissenting views will be tolerated and that is why both you, your Aust. buddy, Mike, and Eric have such dull and unvisited sites, other than when you go to each others site and blow in one another’s ears.

          • rayduray Says:

            Is this sort of time wasting the best you can do?

            Is this lucrative for you?

            How much are fools willing to pay you to be a fool on this blog? Is this my taxpayer money you are wasting? If so, shame on you.

          • Martin Lack Says:

            I see that, whilst you have not the humility to accept an apology genuinely offered, you do seem to have an infinite ability to continue to validate all our criticisms of you.

      • Martin Lack Says:

        Dear Peter, Can you confirm whether this contribution from Doug is the longest-ever single sentence comment your site has received? Credit where credit is due it; it is a pretty impressive piece of syntax avoidance.


      • Doug, The link is to the first video in a series of 45 minute lectures that comprise a 10-week University of Chicago course that explains anthropogenic climate change to non-science majors (which I assume includes you). Sorry that you have such a short attention span. Is ignorance really bliss?


        • charleszeller: I have no problem with my attention span if I have something worth paying attention to and from your post you can qualify to answer your question about ignorance being bliss since you seem to be pretty happy with your current condition.


      • Many mathematical equations, most of which are contained in “Atmoshperic Radiation” by Goody and Yun, explain that greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation with a probability that is a function of wavelength thereby shortening the mean free path of radiation emitted from the surface as their concentration per unit volume increases resulting in more radiation being re-radiated towards the surface and the photons emitted into space are radiated from a higher colder altitude with the net affect being that the Earth is not emitting as much outgoing energy as it is receiving from the sun, which is not only calculated but also measured by satellites, which causes an increase in thermal energy within the biosphere, primarily the oceans, at a much faster rate than the Paleo-Eocene thermal maximum extinction event during which the geological carbon cycle was disrupted at 1/70th the current rate.

        CZ word count = 141; Doug’s = 125!


        • charleszeller: What you say maybe all good and fine if you want to consider that the main green house gas is H2O and not a trace gas such as CO2 that makes up a paltry .037-9% of the total atmosphere while H2O makes up at least .4% and this should not be difficult to get your head around if you consider that all of the H2O in the constant water cycle on earth, i.e. evaporation from the bodies of water that make up over 70% of the surface of the earth and that is held in the atmosphere in the form of humidity, vapor and eventually clouds that precipitate out their supply of H2O to keep the process going and then we have the alarmist wanting to totally discount H2O as being responsible for 95% of the green house effect and try to get logical folks to believe that the climate is the result of this trace gas, CO2, that at 392ppm is such a minor part of the atmosphere; especial if one considers that at 18,000 feet of altitude there is only 1/2 the amount of atmosphere that there is a sea level. I have been to this altitude three different times, twice in Nepal and once in Africa, and I know that there isn’t much O2 available and there would not be anymore CO2 either, if as much; but, one knows that there is H2O much higher because I have seen it in the form of snow on Mount Everest and also in the form of clouds much higher than Everest. (only viewed from near base camp because I’m sure not going to go crawling around on Everest)

          This is something that the Green Party of Canada put out: “There is a research group in the States that has done high altitude analytical chemistry of the atmosphere and has detected significant amounts of CO2 up there, mostly due to high altitude currents, airplane exhaust, and stochastic brownian motion….. eventually it should sink to the earth and take its place in the mass of CO2 that exists under self partial pressure according to the formulas in the spreadsheet. This may take quite some time to settle.”

          “ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2″

          http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic

          There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 280 ppm to 392ppm of CO2.
          This, I hope, will put this into some kind of a perspective that makes one understand just how insignificant this increase is.
          A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large
          kitchen sink.
          A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
          are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
          per gallon.
          Some other things that are one part per million are…
          One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
          One inch in 16 miles
          About one minute in two years
          One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from
          Cleveland to San Francisco.
          One penny in $10,000.
          I know that you understand that these 112 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 392 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
          At 392 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
           
          Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 metres high (1063ft). If the hight of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2 would be 8.75 centimetres of that hight (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimetres (1.5 inches)

          http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts

          If you go to this site you will even find a video to watch and there is no one trying to sell any books that I noticed and also, can you show the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing?

          • rayduray Says:

            Re: ” What you say maybe all good and fine if you want to consider that the main green house gas is H2O and not a trace gas such as CO2 that makes up a paltry .037-9%”

            You, Doug, are one of the creepiest freaks I’ve ever encountered. Do you realize how bizarre, ridiculous and fraudulent you come across to the rest of us? ‘

            You are bad news, Doug. You should close the agency. Or at least your supervisor should make note of what a complete failure you are.

            You are a creep, Doug. Go away.


          • You seem like a real cut up, rayduray, and I well imagine that you are the life of the party there in Bend, OR. and that you get invited to any party that is having a dwarf tossing contest going on. I can almost see how cute you must look in your little red Velcro suit with the handles between your little shoulders and on your rear. You will undoubtedly get over all of the hardships that have come your way in life, such as when you were really small and had all of the other normal children rubbing your nose in fresh dog dung.

            You need to keep going to your mental health meetings and keep attending the group therapy sessions provided by your local dwarfs chapter and see if you can somehow to get some one to buy you a pair of Larry Mahan cowboy boots; but, that would mean that there would have to be someone that actually liked you to expect that becoming a reality. You also need to quit worrying about anthropogenic global warming because, like everything else, that is way over your head.


          • Allow me to fling a Twinkie into your amusing food fight Ray and Doug.

            Douglas, you are reading authors who work harder at feeling peer reviewed science than in understanding it.

            The physics is based upon CO2 per unit volume, not percent of molecules. Take away half of the N2, and CO2 concentration would increase from about 400 ppm to about 600 ppm – without much change in the heating rate. Average relative humidity is approximately constant. Absolute humidity (H2O per unit volume) increases with temperature. The primary forcing that is increasing temperature is the increased CO2 concentration.

            Vertical CO2 volume mixing ratios have been measured. CO2 concentrations are indeed lower above the Tropopause with seasonal variations. CO2 settles a bit during the winters. However, the max difference is about 10 ppm – quite a bit less than the 120 ppm post-industrial increase. One can assume that at 280 ppm the same difference existed.

            http://www.caribic-atmospheric.com/elib/rev/Foucher_2011.pdf


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,639 other followers

%d bloggers like this: