BBC Asks the Forbidden Question “What happened to global warming?”

global warming, climage change, Al Gore, climate models, BBC, skeptics, global warming deniers, Ken Bingham,

How did this slip past the editors of the BBC? One of the leading global warming promoters is asking the forbidden question “what happened to global warming?“. To even use the term global warming in a month with an ‘R’ in it is unfathomable but to actually contemplate that climate change may not be occurring is downright heresy. They even go as far as to suggest that global warming skeptics may have legitimate arguments and that the debate over climate change is “far from over”. gasp!

The BBC sites the fact that world temperatures peaked in 1998 and have steadily declined ever since and that the infallible computer models did not predict this. They also site a study that shows the sun may have been the driving force for increased temperatures during the 20th century and not from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide as claimed by Al Gore and global warming believers.

Since atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has increased since 1998 there should have been a corresponding increase in world temperatures but that has not occurred which has baffled scientists. Maybe they will be less baffled if they use actual science to come to their conclusions and show a willingness to change the conventional wisdom when confronted with data that does not fit their preconceived notions?

From The BBC What happened to global warming?

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Should the US spend tax money to try and stop global warming?
Is global warming Real? (G) Is it human caused? (H) Will it be catastophic? (C) Can we stop it? (S) G ^ H ^ C ^ S
By Ken Bingham

This is a logic truth table. It carries every option conceivable based on the propositions listed. I have removed the false options on ‘is global warming real’, not because it may or may not be real but that a false renders everything else not only false but irrelevant.

The first 3 propositions are conditions that global warming believers must meet for their hypothesis to even be considered valid.

1. ‘Is global warming real?’ I have not included false logic on the first question since if that premise is false then all others are irrelevant.

2. ‘Is it human caused?’ The question is essential because if it is not human caused then the 4th proposition is automatically false. If humans are not responsible for global warming then there is no possibility we can do anything about it and spending trillions on it would be an act of futility.

3. ‘Will it be catastrophic?’ This is an important question because even if global warming is real and human caused if it is not going to have massive negative effects then it would not be worth spending trillions of dollars to combat a non-problem.

(2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive because even if global warming is human caused it does not automatically mean it will be catastrophic or vise versa.)

4. ‘Can we stop it?’ Must always be true in order to justify spending trillions of dollars, not to mention our freedoms, to stop global warming. However, I would submit that there is nothing that justifies losing our freedom.

Thus my analysis comes to this, if we can’t stop global warming then it is irrelevant whether it is happening or not. If it is really happening then we must expend our efforts to adapt to it rather than tilting at windmills spending trillions of good dollars over bad in a Quixotic effort to try and stop it.
All we can do is adapt which is the only thing nature truly cares about.

, , , ,

  1. #1 by Cliff Lyon on October 11, 2009 - 6:08 am

    Ken, I think you need to go back and re-read the article. The author is raising then cynically trashing the skeptics.

    And the results were clear. “Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity,” said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

    Have yourself a nice hot caffeinated drink and read it again.

    Love C,

  2. #2 by Cliff Lyon on October 11, 2009 - 6:44 am

    Ken, Here is evidence of frightening climate change even you can understand. Just watch this series of recent global weather events until you can’t take it anymore.

  3. #3 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 11, 2009 - 7:05 am

    Pure alarmism. Go out your backyard and check the beaches that existed not so long ago. What kind of climate change do you imagine occurred when the continental glaciers melted away in very short order? Get ready for the warming with a positive view.

    2/3rds of the worlds land mass is north of 45 degrees in the northern hemisphere. Warming will bring its problems, but making vast tracts of land more hospitable won’t be one of them.

  4. #4 by Cliff Lyon on October 11, 2009 - 7:44 am

    Jay (Glenn), Ask the corn farmers in 70% of Texas about “hospitable.”

    For anyone interested in scientific fact as opposed to uninformed political positions should bookmark this site.

    Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

    There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

    Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.

    Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.

  5. #5 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 11, 2009 - 8:41 am

    Cliff; the environs of the world possess no “steady state”.
    Climate change is an ongoing affair, it is doing one of two things, cooling or warming. We have been in a period of overall warming for thousands of years, long before mans possible effects.

    Go take a drive around the state and look at all the absolutely divergent depositional environments representing utterly varied climates over the ages. The contacts between changes often represent very brief time shifts before a completely different climate. Ex: The contact between the Chinle and Wingate. The Chinle a depositional like central Florida today yields to enormous sand dunes that then turn to rock. Contact point a very brief period describing change. No humans involved.

    We cannot stop climate change at our current level of technology, we can worry though. As the climate changes adaptation will be the norm, or die off. Same as it ever was.

    Thank goodness that if warming is the trend, there will be plenty of new viable climate up north to live upon. Texas used to be an ocean, maybe it will become a desert in the future. Will there be dislocation and misery? Yep. Will the species survive? Maybe. Do we worry? If you want to.

    As you believe in the current science politically driven, just make sure you don’t sail your ship too close to the edge of the Earth and fall off.

  6. #6 by Glen on October 11, 2009 - 8:57 am

    You don’t want to talk this subject Cliff. The tide has turned on the perception warmers hold. So what if it warms? What is interesting is that the rap from believers has changed to “climate change”, from global warming.

    Climate change, so broad a subject as to be meaningless to all but the frightened. Happens every morning when the sun comes up. Climate changes when the sun goes down. I can understand how important the issue seems to be to people that live in a desert, but that is a local issue, and you all have legs to move if necessary.

    North of 45 degrees, northern hemisphere is the future for all of you terrified of “climate change”

  7. #7 by Richard Warnick on October 11, 2009 - 9:47 am

    Smacking down climate change denialists is even easier than refuting the old 9/11 “truther” claims. It’s all been previously debunked.

    Because 1998 was a year with a strong El Nino, it fell above the trend line.

    “It has stopped warming” is only supported by selecting a single year out of context and using a seven-year window to look at multi-decadal trends in climate. That’s a classic cherry pick.

  8. #8 by Glen on October 11, 2009 - 10:05 am

    So back to the question. So what if it warms? So what if it cools? Only things worth discussing as that is the permanent state of “climate” on Earth. It is going to be one or the other. There has never been a steady state of Earth’s climate.

    If you need a strategy to discuss the obvious it is pretty likely you are a spoon fed dummy.

    Whether we cause warming or not is moot. We are carbon based life forms, our very presence at a basal level contributes what warmers are terrified of.

    If you think carbon is causing warming, and we are the cause of it, make the ultimate sacrifice to save the planet and kill yourself.

  9. #9 by James Murdoch on October 11, 2009 - 10:24 am

    The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case. Business leaders are saying they are increasingly open to congressional action to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, of which carbon dioxide is the largest. Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned, let’s see what court orders next

  10. #10 by Richard Warnick on October 11, 2009 - 10:27 am


    Thanks for dropping the phony name. You’re partly right. Even if we all finally accept that our technology plays an important role in global warming, it’s too late to avoid the consequences. Climate change effects are happening now.

    Suicide isn’t necessary, it would only take a bunch of relatively minor steps in the direction of energy conservation, pollution reduction, and forest preservation to save human civilization. But politics and greed gets in the way.

  11. #11 by Glen on October 11, 2009 - 10:47 am

    Wrong Glen Richard, I am Glendon, but not the one that posts here.

  12. #12 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 11, 2009 - 10:56 am

    China is building a coal fired electric plant a week. We are not going to stop emitting carbon in the manner we do. Germany in its need has 20 coal fired plants planned for immediate construction in the Ruhr.(Scrubbed but producing all the carbon). As a populace Germans have the highest level of “green” power of any populace on Earth, but it isn’t enough. This is the reality of current technology.

    They will burn lignite, an extremely dirty low grade coal. Locally there will be absolutely no reduction in coal burning out on the Swell, and all over the RM West. So let’s get real. That or build some nuclear plants carbon free energy if that is what the worry is. Like France, net power exporter with its 62 nuclear power plants kicking ass 24/7.

    This issue dead on arrival. It is nothing more than a smokescreen to give the appearance of change, like so much in politics we see today. Frankly, I don’t think this has ever not been the case. Look like you are doing something when someone comes looking. As old as grade school antics when the teacher steps out.

    Stop your own usage if you are terribly concerned. No mandates or legislation required. If by now you have not, surely do not expect foreigners in their development to do it either.


  13. #13 by Ken on October 11, 2009 - 11:59 am

    The truth is it doesn’t matter what other countries are doing because “global warming” is not about the environment it is about money, and power. You think big business is jumping on the global warming bandwagon because they have suddenly gone green? They can see the money in it and all the ways they can use it to quash their smaller competitors and gain even more power.

    Global warming is a clear and present danger not to the planet but to our freedom and liberty.

  14. #14 by Richard Warnick on October 11, 2009 - 2:38 pm


    When you say big business is “jumping on the global warming bandwagon,” I assume you refer to the companies now quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of its climate change denialism.

  15. #15 by Cliff Lyon on October 11, 2009 - 4:49 pm

    Ken, Lets take your statement and replace the word “business” with “church” and “global warming” with “God,” “religious faith” or “spirituality” and let’s re-read your statement.

    Does the logic still follow?

    The truth is it doesn’t matter what other countries are doing because “global warming” religious faith is not about the environment God it is about money, and power. You think big business Churches are jumping on the global warming religion bandwagon because they have suddenly gone green spiritual? They can see the money in it and all the ways they can use it to quash their smaller competitors and gain even more power.

    Global warming Religion is a clear and present danger not to the planet but to our freedom and liberty.

  16. #16 by Ken on October 11, 2009 - 6:51 pm


    In many cases that fits very well because the global warming hysteria is like a religion so most analogies will apply to both. You are a believer, just in a different context. Your zeal and fervor over global warming is as faith based as any religion.

  17. #17 by James Farmer on October 11, 2009 - 7:50 pm


    Each time I read one of your comments or top-posts, I thank heaven that folks who think like you, while vocal, continue toward increasing irrelevance.

  18. #18 by Cliff Lyon on October 11, 2009 - 8:10 pm

    Well Ken,

    Then to be fair, 99 percent of the civilized world belongs to the church of global warming.

    That makes it by any standard a moral absolute.

    Ergo, your denial is heresy and subject to the fate of devil worshipers.

    Make sense?

  19. #19 by Weer'd Beard on October 12, 2009 - 3:17 am

    Got a little data to back that up, Cliff, or was that just in this weekend’s sermons?

    Cliff you’re a very religious guy.

  20. #20 by Cliff on October 12, 2009 - 7:18 am


    Better to leave this one alone. It might be a bit over your head (requires and advanced knowledge of anthropology and religion).

  21. #21 by Weer'd Beard on October 12, 2009 - 7:41 am

    I’m sorry Cliff, I was using my advanced knowledge of Science and Climatology, to point out that you’re full-of-it.

    I see that your stance on many issues is based on blind faith even in the face of conflicting scientific evidence, and reasonable arguments.

    Call it what you will, but I know I can’t call it “rational”.

    But Smarm, away at me. We all know what you are!

  22. #22 by Cliff Lyon on October 12, 2009 - 8:06 am

    See, thats the problem Weer’d, I was making a fairly sophisticated analogy to religion using the premise that global warming is faith based.

    Like I said, a bit complicated.

    But if you like, Im happy to consider evidence of any credentialed climatologist whose position contradicts my claim of 99%. Perhaps you know who the 1% ‘ters are?

  23. #23 by Weer'd Beard on October 12, 2009 - 8:11 am

    Or you could just present any information PROVING that 99% of people believe this shit.

    But you won’t, you’ll just dance, proving my point with ease.

    Thanks Cliffy!

  24. #24 by Richard Warnick on October 12, 2009 - 12:13 pm

    The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming. Rarely do so many researchers reach this degree of unanimity.

    Here is the consensus in a nutshell:

    1. The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 degrees C in the past century; 0.1 to 0.17 degrees C/decade over the last 30 years)

    2. People are causing this.

    3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate.

  25. #25 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 12, 2009 - 12:34 pm

    ..and scientific consensus once believed the world flat.

    The Earth is getting warmer agreed, it is a good thing. Let it continue. We would rather have the land mass north of 45 degrees in the Northern Hemisphere anyway.

    Do you have any concept that only reason we are here in the numbers we now see approaching 7 billion is because of global warming? In a situation on Earth without a steady state, the world is either warming or cooling. Would rather have it cool? Worse than warming. We already have energy scarcity, cold weather will only make it worse. Our lives take more energy to live when it is cold. Check your cars gas mileage from winter to summer in cold climates, it tells a story of what cold means.

  26. #26 by James farmer on October 12, 2009 - 12:55 pm


    Comment #25 is the most stupid thing I have heard on the subject of global warming. I don’t think I have ever read something more divorced from reality than what you just wrote! Your comment evidences your complete and utter failure to comprehend global warming, particularly the cause and the ultimate impact on humanity.

  27. #27 by Weer'd Beard on October 12, 2009 - 5:55 pm

    Cliff, I’m still here. Got any proof for your 99% claim?

  28. #28 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 12, 2009 - 8:26 pm

    James, if you aren’t a dummy you will understand that if the warming the “warmers” believe occurs, the reality of cold climates warming to improvement and opening areas to easier living and development will occur. Most specifically where 2/3rds of the world’s land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere above 45 degrees latitude.

    Sure some places will fry, some will be inundated. There has been plenty of all that since humans wrote things down. I mean you are familiar with the term, a “flood of Biblical proportions”. It is part of life on Earth.

    If it has been only 15k years since the area of the Midwest with the richest farmland in America has been exposed since the ice melted. Are you divorced from the reality that man’s success and increase in population corresponds to the warming that melted this ice? The same will be true of this continued period of warming.

    Right now the Greenlanders are thrilled with the changes. They are again growing vegetables that have not been grown in the land since Vikings left when the world cooled and made such agriculture impossible(1200). They are also investing in fishing boats, especially for King Crab. The ice that is no longer around makes it possible to fish for them and many other species. Try to keep up James.

    This warming is a good thing. Will there be dislocation? YES! Will things get destroyed? YES. Will we adapt? Will the storms be worse? Tell me next weeks weather, they will be what they will be.

    Again will we adapt? Only those that see the benefit in moving to where the climate is again viable and get with it. Story of human endeavor.

    Try to see the bigger picture James. Mankind is about to have an easier time if warming continues. I am not concerned, but you can be for me.

    Besides if I am not mistaken your life has not altered too much in the stupid behavior dept. I may be wrong but don’t you own an SUV? Burn gas and wood? Make frivolous trips that are not required? Eat meat, wheat, or any other products that contribute to warming?

    Here is a question James? What happened to Egypt? Why did the upper Nile become a desert? Why are the descriptions of the Nile Delta as a lush paradise in old script not taken as the truth? Then it became a desert, the floods stopped, game over. Why did the floods stop? You can’t answer these questions, no one reliably can, but man didn’t do it with greenhouse gases.

    As I said, bring on the warming, it is going to benefit a great many people, if not Utah. Perhaps it isn’t the place…forever, as to be sure, no place is or ever has been.

  29. #29 by Weer'd Beard on October 13, 2009 - 2:43 am

    And Cliff continues to post, but fails to supply proof of his fabled 99%.

    I’ll call that a victory in the face of reason, and proof that your side isn’t interested in honesty.

  30. #30 by Cliff Lyon on October 13, 2009 - 5:29 am

    Ok Weer’d, See if you can follow this logic. the 99% refers to climate scientist who concur with the IPCC reports.

    I leave 1% (1 in a hundred) just in case there are one or two SCIENTISTS who disagree. So far, no one has identified one.

    Outside of Climatology, there may also be a few individual scientists who have refuted the science, but no ones seems to be able to produce one.

    Since we know that the vast majority of scientists concur with, you know, SCIENCE, the burden is on the deniers to PROVE the other 99% off wrong.

    Here is probably the largest group of peer reviewed climatologist on the web.

    If you can’t identify one single credential climate scientist who disagrees with the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists, perhaps you should STFU? and accept the 99% number as 100%.

    Too much logic for ya?

  31. #31 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 13, 2009 - 6:39 am

    So when warming follows none of the tracks expected, and we end up with another cooling year, and warming does not occur, we will be living in a time when an invalid theory is accepted by a majority of “peer reviewed scientists” . Rather like when the world was flat or when “vapors” made you sick.

    Here is an exercise. It is cooling or warming. Why is warming bad? Keep in mind no matter what happens, and no steady state is possible, the climate change is difficult for some creatures no matter what. Extinction being a normal activity of evolution, as well a new species creation.

    What would be the advisable tack is that when reviewing scientific endeavor is to keep an open mind. The history of theories is that most of them have been wrong, some very, others partly. It has been usually an individual that discovers the “truth” of what science is observing, makes their own theory, and we move forward to a more complete understanding. Before that there is a struggle to cling to what isn’t holding up as science.

    That is what is going on now.

  32. #32 by Weer'd Beard on October 13, 2009 - 6:45 am

    Just on the UMaine staff alone, There was Dr. Dan Belknap, Dr. Brian Beale, Dr. Joe Kelley, Dr. Bob Vadas.

    Hell that was just one College, and people I knew personally.

    So I guess you need to come up with 400 name now, Cliff.

    Life is tough when your mouth writes checks your ass can’t cash.

  33. #33 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 13, 2009 - 6:47 am

    As well the statistical data shows 98′ as the warmest year in the observations, with every subsequent year seeing no rise in temperature. The reality is not concurring to the postulates of the theory of increasing temps with increase in CO2.

    No one has to challenge the theory, the establishment itself knows it isn’t valid as first constructed. That is why the rubes that run this scam changed the name of of their “theory” from global warming to climate change.

    Please explain in your own mind why warming will be bad. Then explain why cooling will be good.

  34. #34 by Richard Warnick on October 13, 2009 - 8:50 am

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own set of facts. The five warmest years over the last century all occurred in the last eight years, according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

    As I noted above, climate change denialists like to cherry-pick 1998 as a starting point because it was far above the trend line. If you put blinders on and just look at 1998 and a few succeeding years it looks like the trend has reversed! But once again they confuse weather and climate by refusing to look at a large enough temporal window.

    Just so everyone understands, “global warming” is still in use. To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. The term “climate change” refers to the climatic effects of global warming and increasing greenhouse gases.

  35. #35 by Weer'd Beard on October 13, 2009 - 9:16 am

    unethical use of data if you ask me. My buddy Ted has some more info you won’t bother to read here:

    Blind faith.

  36. #36 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 13, 2009 - 9:50 am

    The methods of collection are entirely questionable, having a series of factors that are not taken into account.

    If and when the world cools, and it is doing so now with one the earliest winters on record, will you then consider that as in many scientific cases when the data doesn’t hold up, the hypothesis fails, and only the religiously convicted keep believing it? Which person will you be?

    NASA can’t even fly a rocket without it blowing up, as government entities go it has little credibility anymore.

    We are the people that will decide what warming means. To me it means longer growing seasons, and the opportunity to abandon areas that are only habitable due to subsidy. Like Utah. People already cast a unbelieving eye on what government purports to be the truth. If we have lies all day from our leaders what incentive does anyone have to believe politically driven science?

    I’ll be thinking of you as you shovel your driveway Richard. As we now are in a solar minimum, my science tells me it is going to be a hell of winter. Watch your back! Maybe you will get lucky and it will just be cold with no snow.

    As for the data anyway. So we now have almost 5 years of consistent cooling. That by way of elimination is what your data is now saying. So warming has actually stopped. Any other projection is pure speculation. Since you admit that now warming is not occurring, what then is causing the climate change?

    BTW, I believe it is warming and that it is a good thing. The ice age was bad for humans personally, but maybe good species wide, as it forced adaptation which ultimately strengthened mankind to the extent he could achieve the level it has reached today.

    Sooo, what caused the warming the other 3 years Richard? Care to speculate, because that is all anyone, scientist or not, is doing. If you wish to prove any theory this will have to be considered.

  37. #37 by Richard Warnick on October 13, 2009 - 10:30 am

    The difference between weather and climate is time: Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere behaves over relatively long periods of time.

    Climatologists are in near-unanimous agreement about global warming, based on observed long-term trends. Climate change “skeptics” tend to be either meteorologists or people who have no familiarity with atmospheric science at all.

  38. #38 by Weer'd Beard on October 13, 2009 - 10:42 am

    Nobody is talking weather, Richard, we’re talking climate and the unethical collection of Data.

    “Climatologists are in near-unanimous agreement about global warming”

    Wrong, Richard. Hand-picked Climatologists working for political groups agree exactly what they’re paid to agree with.

    Real scientists are split.

  39. #39 by Richard Warnick on October 13, 2009 - 11:16 am

    I’ll second Cliff’s challenge– name a single reputable climatologist who disagrees with the IPCC report. It ought to be easy, if climatologists are “split” on the issue as you claim.

    Note: Glenn Beck’s false claim that Mojib Latif is a global warming skeptic has already been debunked.

  40. #40 by Ken on October 13, 2009 - 11:28 am


    You say it is the “deniers” responsibility to prove global warming wrong. WRONG! It is up to those making outlandish claims to prove they are right.

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
    ~Carl Sagan

    Consensus is not evidence of anything. Where is the proof for their extraordinary claims?

    When in history has increased carbon dioxide caused warming. Higher CO2 levels have always come after temperature increases, not the other way around.

    When in history has increased temperatures caused sea levels to rise? Were sea levels higher before the polar ice formed? No. Water turning to ice or melting does not cause the water levels to change. Also melting ice has a cooling effect so if the polar ice caps are melting then we would see a cooling of the surrounding water and air as the heat energy is transferred to the ice.

    Is there any evidence that sea levels changed before during or after the ice-age. No.

    Who is to say that CO2 is now at its optimal level and must remain low for life to flourish? The times that CO2 levels were much higher the planet was much greener. The Sahara desert was once a lush rain-forest and there was once abundant flora and fauna in Antarctica. Where the Grand Canyon is now was once swamp land teaming with life. Now it is a desert. The decrease in CO2 has actually been detrimental to the planet not a benefit.

    The only way to predict the future is to look at the past and never in the history of the planet has anything occurred similar to what these prophets of doom are predicting.

  41. #41 by Weer'd Beard on October 13, 2009 - 11:29 am

    I just named 4 from my college alone that I personally know.

    Seriously quit wasting my time with these stupid requests and learn to read!

  42. #42 by Richard Warnick on October 13, 2009 - 11:48 am


    Maybe you personally know those guys, and that’s good enough for you. I’ve never heard of them, and don’t have time to look up their credentials or their opinions of the IPCC report conclusions.

    That’s an unusual university to have not one, not two, not three but four climatologists on the faculty. The University of Utah Department of Atmospheric Sciences doesn’t have that many.


    It’s the denialists who are making extraordinary claims. I can see the evidence of climate change happening now. FWIW, Dr. Carl Sagan was one of the early proponents of global warming theory.

    Is there any evidence that sea levels changed before during or after the ice-age? Yes.

    Right-wing talking points don’t stand a chance against the real world and actual scientific evidence.

  43. #43 by Weer'd Beard on October 13, 2009 - 11:54 am

    Richard I destroyed your argument. You can whine all you want about wanting to take any effort to verify them, that’s your problem, not mine.

    I also posted links to scientific rebuttals that debunk your argument…you also didn’t take the time to read those.

    Meanwhile you seem to still think that somehow you can avoid reality by ignoring it.

    Good luck with that you flat-earth troglodyte!

  44. #44 by Richard Warnick on October 13, 2009 - 12:18 pm


    Why engage in rational debate when you can just toss around false accusations and insults? When asked for facts, you blow smoke.

  45. #45 by Reaction to Cliff's Advanced Paranoia on October 13, 2009 - 1:50 pm

    Ken there is variation in sea level in past glaciation. The volume of ice that lay upon the land going back to the beginning of the last melt off was so significant that sea level was some 400 feet lower than it is today. Some of the pack was over two miles thick.

    In fact the areas of continents where this pile of ice once lay is still undergoing isostatic rebound earthquakes as the crust reasserts itself now that the ice is melted.

    No science can attribute what it was that caused this massive volume of ice to melt, but the scientific speculation is that it was warming(laugh), again cause not known. The warming to melt this volume of ice was so huge, that fears of what is occurring now are really quite laughable.

  46. #46 by Richard Warnick on October 13, 2009 - 2:00 pm

    OK, here’s a much better analysis than the BBC piece offers: 2008 Global Surface Temperature in GISS Analysis (PDF).

    No change in direction of the global warming trend. The ten warmest years on record all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.

  47. #47 by Reaction to Richard's Advanced Paranoia on October 13, 2009 - 2:22 pm

    So what Richard?

    Surface trends are warming, the middle and upper atmosphere temperatures remain consistent. This is inconsistent with the theory of human induced warming. One of those unexpected contradictions that can’t be set aside.

    What we see on the surface could well be the effect of city building and paving, which is heating by physical means of that alteration and may have nothing to do with carbon. This is where the continued observations are headed. We all know we can fry an egg on a hot day on blacktop, try doing it on grass or vegetation.

    My own theory, because the Earth’s atmosphere is in contact with absolute zero space, the more heat put into the system the more the interface has potential for cooling. Especially if the warming increases the frequency of air movement along that interface as the theory suggests will occur with larger and more encompassing storms and atmospheric dislocation. It is like stirring the bottom of a heated pot, keep stirring and it doesn’t burn because the heat is being dissipated.

    The Earth regulates itself within certain means, and no amount of greenhouse gas will cause the runaway the “greenhouse’ effect that the theory erroneously anticipates. Will it help in warming? Yes. Will this cause us trouble? Maybe. Is this real reason for warming? Nobody knows.

    Explain why warming matters Richard and what the negatives are.

  48. #48 by Richard Warnick on October 13, 2009 - 3:05 pm

    The smoke screen thickens. Although you give no reference, I suppose you know perfectly well that upper atmosphere temperature records don’t go back far enough to establish a trend.

    Also, the localized urban heat island effect is not a factor in global climate trends.

    OK, am I supposed to discuss the climatic effects of global warming or whether global warming exists?

    Doesn’t matter, I don’t have the time right now.

  49. #49 by Jim Barnstall on October 13, 2009 - 3:07 pm

    See Richard? Even you cannot even differentiate from the ambiguous terms used by human induced “warmers” like yourself.

    Pick one and knock yourself out.

    I think this question is pretty straightforward.

    “Explain why warming matters Richard and what the negatives are”.

    It doesn’t matter if warming is happening or not. Describe if it would/is happen(ing) why it would be “bad”.

    Remember, I am setting you up to look foolish, so try your hardest.

  50. #50 by Richard Warnick on October 13, 2009 - 3:11 pm

    Smoke… too thick… can’t… see any logic.

    If you want to satisfy your childlike curiosity, go here:
    Effects of global warming.

  51. #51 by Jim Barnstall on October 13, 2009 - 3:19 pm

    Neither do the ground based readings. Beginning when, if there were any pavement, it would be dirt roads, evolving into areas where enormous paved areas cover historical reading areas that have not moved since the beginning of taking temperature readings. Deforestation, irrigation, etc. etc all play a part in skewing ground based surface readings. Earth island effect.

    Why is warming bad Richard? Try to do this with two scenarios in mind. You live in the desert like you do. You live north of 60 degrees lat northern hemisphere.

    We are speaking of systems that evolve over thousands of years or more, and you give me a comparison using reading on the outside no more than 100 years old. It is laughable. What trend do you hope anyone to believe with that amount of data?

  52. #52 by Jim Barnstall on October 13, 2009 - 3:28 pm

    “Smoke too thick”… Perhaps you should put out your fire.

    What you link is speculative. What I will describe is absolutely proven by the advent of modern humans. Despite catastrophe the overall benefit of warming that ended the last ice age brought the ability to farm crops, raise domestic animals, mine exposed deposits, develop metal based technologies and so on. Oh yeah, we also could live in warmer climes which enhanced our survival.

    Warming is great, better than cooling, and I am looking forward to it.

  53. #53 by Ken on October 14, 2009 - 4:38 am


    Here are the effects of global warming and many of them are happening now.

    mass hysteria
    loss of freedom and liberty
    high taxes
    carbon credit/tax schemes (indulgences)
    lost jobs
    less technological advances
    High energy costs
    nanny state
    soc#ialistic policies
    government and big business collaborating to take away our freedom and choices
    Higher prices on everything
    poverty due to confiscatory policies.
    redistribution of wealth
    standard of living regression
    deaths due to small compact tin can cars or cattling us all into cramped buses and trains to only be allowed to travel when and where the government allows.
    deaths due to lack of heating and air conditioning
    electricity becoming a luxury for the rich and heavily subsidies for the poor leaving at the expense of the ever shrinking middle class.
    government dependence
    government intrusion into every aspect of our lives.
    extreme restrictions on human behavior

    Why do liberals hate freedom? They are not just willing but demanding to give up freedom?

  54. #54 by Cliff Lyon on October 14, 2009 - 5:27 am

    Ken, You left out sunburn, scurvy, dysentery, cholera and massive infection.

    I’ll see you in prison.

  55. #55 by Ken on October 14, 2009 - 6:25 am

    Yeah after Obama rounds up all the conservatives he will go after liberals like yourself that have questioned some of his policies so who knows, we may be cell mates in the American Gulag.

  56. #56 by Cliff Lyon on October 14, 2009 - 6:28 am

    Ken, It would be my pleasure to share a cell with you. A smoking cell OK?

  57. #57 by Richard Warnick on October 14, 2009 - 6:32 am


    I’m sorry you choose to view climate change in ideological terms. It’s like the neocons with foreign policy, not seeing the real world but only ideological constructs.


    Who actually looks forward to becoming a climate refugee? What’s in a barn stall? Maybe we need to shovel it out.

  58. #58 by Weer'd Beard on October 14, 2009 - 6:44 am

    Who’s ignoring the Science now, Richard?

  59. #59 by Richard Warnick on October 14, 2009 - 8:04 am

    Weer’d Beard :

    Who’s ignoring the Science now, Richard?

    The climate change denialists are.

  60. #60 by Weer'd Beard on October 14, 2009 - 8:34 am

    I know Richard! All those links I posted were just too hard to read, so instead you’ll just pretend they aren’t there.

  61. #61 by Richard Warnick on October 14, 2009 - 8:59 am


    You offered a grand total of two links to right-wing websites making accusations that have already been debunked, without even endorsing the accusations yourself.

    Try and look at this issue without ideological blinders. Here’s a report commissioned by the Republican-run Utah state government:

    Climate Change and Utah: The Scientific Consensus (PDF)

    It’s a brief report, much easier to read than the IPCC report. Here’s the consensus in brief:

    1. There is no longer any scientific doubt that the Earth’s average surface temperature is increasing.

    2. Based on extensive scientific research, there is very high confidence (above 90 percent) that human-generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations are responsible for most of the global warming observed during the past 50 years.

    3. Ongoing greenhouse gas emissions at or above current levels will further alter the Earth’s climate and very likely (more than 90 percent probability) produce global temperature, sea level, and snow and ice changes greater than those observed during the 20th century.

  62. #62 by Borepatch on October 14, 2009 - 9:47 am

    I’m late to the party, and thanks for the link, Weer’d.

    I’d like to reply especially to Richard Warnick’s comment #39: I’ll second Cliff’s challenge– name a single reputable climatologist who disagrees with the IPCC report. It ought to be easy, if climatologists are “split” on the issue as you claim.

    It is easy, as I posted on this last winter (this subject is an area of study that I find particularly interesting). I’ll reproduce some of my post here, as it directly answers Richard’s challenge, but please feel free to browse some of my posts:

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.


    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.


    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.


    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.


    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.


    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.


    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    Quotes are from here (I like to link to original sources, so people don’t have to just take my word or something).

    And more here and here, from other scientists (with links to original sources).

    Now you may not like these scientists, but this is very different from the argument that “99% of scientists are in the Church of Global Warming”.

    If you want to post ad hominem arguments like they are all bought off by the Energy companies, please do us the favor of posting links to your sources so that we don’t have to just take your word.

    Personally, I think that the biggest problem in the whole AGW debate is the terrible quality of the data underlying the claims. Also, the refusal of prominent AGW scientists ro release their data for validation of their results by other scientists is nothing short of a scandal.

    The whole topic is much, much more interesting that a casual reader of the newspaper would suspect. And the science is not at all settled. My personal theory as to why the data is being “disappeared” is that some of the scientists who had preliminary (but not very good) results ten years ago and jumped on the bandwagon are now backpedaling as fast as they can when challenged by other scientists.

  63. #63 by Ken on October 14, 2009 - 10:02 am


    You say that I look at global warming in ideological terms but isn’t it interesting how all the proposals to combat global warming by the believers comes straight from the left’s playbook from redistribution of wealth. rationing of energy, and restrictions on human behavior. If global warming really was occurring then the only way to truly adapt to it (I say adapt because there is no way we can stop it) would be through technology and innovation. Instead we get confiscatory tax schemes like cap’n trade that will hobble our industry at the benefit of Russia, India, and China. Notice none of these countries seem at all concerned about global warming? It’s because they know what its all about.

    The believers might have more credibility if they stopped with the dooms-day rhetoric. The claims keep getting more and more sensational which shows the believers sense they are losing the argument and must resort to scare tactics. The scare tactics are back-firing however. Just like the boy who cried wolf, no-one is buying it except those pushing an agenda.

  64. #64 by Richard Warnick on October 14, 2009 - 11:05 am


    Another easy debunk. None of these guys has written a peer-reviewed paper or article on the subject of climate change.

    Ivar Giaever – mechanical engineer/biophysicist
    Kiminori Itoh – chemist
    William M. Briggs – statistician
    Stanley B. Goldenberg – meteorologist
    James A. Peden – chemist with a career total of two published papers (1969 and 1970)
    Delgado Domingos – engineering professor
    Eduardo Tonni – paleontologist

    Remember, I asked for the name of a reputable climatologist who disputes the concept of anthropogenic global warming.

  65. #65 by Richard Warnick on October 14, 2009 - 11:18 am


    Before you argue that climate change is a plot to “hobble” industry, and that countries like China aren’t taken in by western “scare tactics” maybe you ought to read the news.

    Wind power is a major industry, and China is already the world’s fourth-largest producer of wind power, which they regard as a key growth component of their economy. China aims to have 100 gigawatts of wind power capacity by 2020, and could meet all of their electricity demands from wind power by 2030.

    You and I would probably agree that some environmental groups have harped on the threat of climate change to encourage things like energy conservation, energy production from renewable sources, pollution reduction, and preservation of forests– all of which ought to be high priorities even in the absence of any doomsday scenarios. In so doing, they have helped politicize an issue that’s far more important than politics.

    If you’re worried about people “pushing an agenda,” consider that the old inefficient, polluting energy industries have far more lobbyists than clean energy industries. That’s the problem in Washington. Waxman-Markey morphed into a giveaway to the coal companies.

  66. #66 by Borepatch on October 14, 2009 - 12:16 pm

    Richard, you can’t be serious. You’re claiming that Itoh isn’t a valid climate scientist? He’s on the UN IPCC.

    I must not understand your point, but you seem to disagree with the IPCC. You did ask for a “reputable climatologist”. I gave you one from what I take to be your own team here.

    Plus a lot more. You and I will have to disagree on the others. It’s just not serious to say that Briggs and Goldenberg have no relevant expertise on the subject. A climate statistician is not competent to evaluate AGW? You can’t possibly mean this.

  67. #67 by Kaiser on October 14, 2009 - 12:34 pm

    Galileo insisted that the world revolved around the Sun, and submitted his conclusions to the academic authorities which of course had religious/political oversight. Despite it being the truth, his peer colleagues excoriated him and he was threatened with his life and branded a heretic.

    The truth about the world’s climate will undergo the same orthodoxy until the reality becomes self evident one way or another.

    This is only one example of an individual discovering what is true and destroying the beliefs of a peer reviewed group.

    Back in the 90’s a lab technician charged with analyzing stomach biopsies in Australia I believe, claimed and produced evidence that bacteria that was able to live in stomach acid, and concluded that 90% of all stomach ulcers were due to this bacterial infection. He had never written a paper and was not a doctor. It took him years to get his proof accepted, but before that he was threatened with job loss, and humiliation. As it turned out he was right, the peer community so wrong. Now most ulcers are treated with anti-biotics.

    Tesla was a genius with no real peers in his time. His more known competition was Tom Edison, by comparison a tinkerer. Needless to say people simply were not intelligent enough at the peer level to understand what Tesla knew. So on with Edison’s ridiculous attempt to power towns with DC power which required a plant 1 mile away maximum from the user. It failed, the trench that remained from the failure became Love Canal.

    Meanwhile this failure was precipitated by Tesla’s invention of AC power, completely ridiculed by peer know nothings. Not deterred Tesla built his AC plant on the Niagara river, first AC power plant in the world and delivered power a hundred miles away. It still works today.

    So if you put your faith in peer reviewed data Richard, and the science is in controversy, and even if everyone follows the peer paradigm, prepare to be made the fool, as peer review is no guarantee of being right. Only right is right, like Tesla, and often only one person is right, and that person could well be a genius outside the realm of peer review, and doesn’t write papers for the political clown show.

    In fact it is more often the case in great discoveries. Global warming is easy to figure, just need to review the accepted sea level data, as sea level until all the ice melts on Earth, is the absolute gross indicator of global warming. Climate change is the permanent condition of a volatile planet, and there will be little we are going to do to change that.

    Sort of why people built shelters Richard, better known as houses, to adapt themselves to what they could not change outside.

  68. #68 by Richard Warnick on October 14, 2009 - 12:45 pm

    My understanding is that Dr. Itoh’s contribution to the IPCC was as a reviewer, not author. He’s an expert in spectroscopy, not climate science. He describes himself as “basically [a] physical chemist familiar with environmental sciences, and not particularly specialized in climate science.”

    Briggs and Goldenberg are tied in with right-wing political organizations. They are certainly entitled to express ideological views, but they have done no original research on global warming.

    Surely you’re aware that there is a well-funded obfuscation campaign underway. The longer it takes for the reality of climate change to be understood by the public, the more money certain people will make. Did you see “Thank You for Smoking” (2006) or read the book?

  69. #69 by Kaiser on October 14, 2009 - 1:02 pm

    Galileo insisted that the world revolved around the Sun, and submitted his conclusions to the academic authorities which of course had religious/political oversight. Despite it being the truth, his peer colleagues excoriated him and he was threatened with his life and branded a heretic.

    The truth about the world’s climate will undergo the same orthodoxy until the reality becomes self evident one way or another.

    This is only one example of an individual discovering what is true and destroying the beliefs of a peer reviewed group.

    Back in the 90’s a lab technician charged with analyzing stomach biopsies in Australia I believe, claimed and produced evidence that bacteria that was able to live in stomach acid, and concluded that 90% of all stomach ulcers were due to this bacterial infection. He had never written a paper and was not a doctor. It took him years to get his proof accepted, but before that he was threatened with job loss, and humiliation. As it turned out he was right, the peer community so wrong. Now most ulcers are treated with anti-biotics.

    Tesla was a genius with no real peers in his time. His more known competition was Tom Edison, by comparison a tinkerer. Needless to say people simply were not intelligent enough at the peer level to understand what Tesla knew. So on with Edison’s ridiculous attempt to power towns with DC power which required a plant 1 mile away maximum from the user. It failed, the trench that remained from the failure became Love Canal.

    Meanwhile this failure was precipitated by Tesla’s invention of AC power, completely ridiculed by peer know nothings. Not deterred Tesla built his AC plant on the Niagara river, first AC power plant in the world and delivered power a hundred miles away. It still works today.

    So if you put your faith in peer reviewed data Richard, and the science is in controversy, and even if everyone follows the peer paradigm, prepare to be made the fool, as peer review is no guarantee of being right. Only right is right, like Tesla, and often only one person is right, and that person could well be a genius outside the realm of peer review, and doesn’t write papers for the political clown show.

    In fact it is more often the case in great discoveries. Global warming is easy to figure, just need to review the accepted sea level data, as sea level until all the ice melts on Earth, is the absolute gross indicator of global warming. Climate change is the permanent condition of a volatile planet, and there will be little we are going to do to change that.

    Sort of why people built shelters Richard, better known as houses, to adapt themselves to what they could not change outside.

  70. #70 by Borepatch on October 14, 2009 - 1:20 pm

    Richard, according to you, the IPCC brought Dr. Itoh on board as a reviewer. His review is that this AGW thing contains a generous helping of bollox. Now you may not agree with him, but your question was whether he was a reputable scientist with sufficient expertise to comment professionally on the subject. Are you saying that the IPCC team contains unqualified members? If not, we’ll assume that your original question (“name a single reputable scientist who disagrees with the IPCC study”) has been answered.

    Your next two comments are very interesting indeed. Let’s assume for the moment that both your statements are true – that Briggs and Goldenberg are right-wing crazies, and that some nebulous-but-deep-pocketed person or persons are funding a “denial” campaign.

    So what? Quite frankly, the Scientific Method is as workable by them as by anyone. Data, method, and reproduceability of results are what counts, not affiliation. Straying from transparency of method and falsifiability leads to Lysenkoism and Judenwissenschaft.

    I notice that you did not include any links to original sources to back up your statement on Briggs and Goldenberg. I’m frankly not interested in the “are you now or have you ever been a member of the XXX group” arguments, but if you’re going to go there, you should at least offer evidence.

    In answer to your question, no, I did not see (or read) Thank You For Smoking. Not interested, and not relevant. Of course people will try to use the aura of “Science” to make a buck. That’s why it’s mandatory for us to insist on complete transparency of method, data, and reproduceability of results. A wag once said, “the Scientific Method isn’t the process of replacing a falsehood with a truth; it’s replacing a falsehood with a more subtle falsehood.” Another said “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

    This is why science demands that someone – anyone, really – be able to check your claims.

    And this is precisely why the skeptics are asking for the AGW proponents to release their data. Some of these skeptics may be linked to right-wing organizations. Some of them may be FUNDED by right-wing organizations. So what? If the data won’t stand up to hostile scrutiny, it deserves to be thrown on the trash heap with Laetril and Philogoston.

    It’s very, very suspicious that scientists are refusing to release their data. In fact, it makes me wonder if it’s the AGW crowd that’s trying to pull a Thank You For Smoking stunt – otherwise, why all the secrecy?

  71. #71 by Richard Warnick on October 14, 2009 - 1:39 pm

    I said “name a single reputable climatologist who disagrees with the IPCC report.” So far, you have not. I think the counter-claim was that global warming is somehow controversial, that experts disagree. I haven’t learned of one genuine climatologist who fundamentally disagrees.

    Too bad you aren’t familiar with “Thank You For Smoking.” Then maybe you’d understand what’s going on. There’s a scene in the movie where Nick Naylor describes the scientist they hired to generate confusing, contradictory data on cigarettes: “The man’s a genius; he could disprove gravity.”

    I don’t think it’s all at nebulous where the deep pockets are. Can you say Exxon?

  72. #72 by Borepatch on October 14, 2009 - 1:50 pm

    Hmmm. If we go with your contention that I have not shown a reputable climatologist who disagrees with the IPCC, then can you help me understand where the IPCC went wrong? Pretty clearly, they invited Itoh onto their review team even though (according to you) he is clearly not qualified.

    You also haven’t answered my question on Briggs and Goldenberg. I’d think that a Climate Statistician and an Atmospheric Physicist would have something to say about AGW. Or do you think that these fields are irrelevant to the discussion?

    I’ve offered you experts, and you are claiming that their expertise is not relevant. Why?

    As to the smoking thing, I’d be interested in your opinion on why the UK Met office refuses to release their data. Dadgy data (in your film) is one thing; a complete refusal to release their data (under a Freedom of Information Act request, no less) seems, well, dodgy. Maybe you can help me understand why it’s not.

  73. #73 by Richard Warnick on October 14, 2009 - 2:41 pm

    There were thousands of reviewers on the IPCC report. Most of them weren’t climate scientists. So what? It’s dishonest to claim Itoh was on the panel when he wasn’t.

    I gave you links on Briggs and Goldenberg. Briggs is tied in with the Heartland Institute, and Goldenberg can be easily linked to Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the godfather of global warming denialists.

    There is no shortage of datasets freely available. Without a link, I can’t say I know what you’re talking about when you claim “complete refusal” to release data.

    I happen to have model outputs from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research on my hard drive that I could share with you. One prediction is for a 5-6 degree C average temperature increase in Utah, comparing the periods 1961-1990 and 2070-2099.

    Anyway, since the Freedom of Information Act only applies to U.S. government agencies, how can you file a FOIA request in the UK?

  74. #74 by Richard Warnick on October 14, 2009 - 3:01 pm

    I have a question. Let’s turn this discussion on its head. Does anyone really believe, as Senator Inhofe claims, that global warming is a hoax?

    Are thousands of independent climate researchers making stuff up? Are there people in black helicopters flying into Glacier National Park at night to haul away ice? Did they secretly take water out of Lake Powell to simulate a drought?

    Really, nobody thinks it’s a hoax, right?

  75. #75 by Kaiser on October 14, 2009 - 3:22 pm

    This is like the fleas arguing how hot or cool the dog is.

  76. #76 by Ken on October 14, 2009 - 3:29 pm

    It isn’t the science we are disputing. It is the conclusions and doomsday scenarios that we are vehemently challenging. Just because some parts of the world may experience warming and if there is some melting of ice does not mean humans are responsible. It’s like someone saying every time they wash their car it rains therefore washing their car must cause it to rain. It is a very ego-centric and arrogant stance to take.

    There has never been a scientific study that absolutely proves that human activity has effected climate in any meaningful way.

  77. #77 by Cliff Lyon on October 14, 2009 - 3:54 pm

    Ken, This kind of statement in incongruous with the scientific process.

    “There has never been a scientific study that absolutely proves”

  78. #78 by Kaiser on October 14, 2009 - 3:57 pm

    Richard. The fact is there has been over 4000 inches of sea level rise in the last 13k years. Geologically accepted that sea level due to the melt off of continental glaciers is 300 to 400 feet of sea level rise in this time.

    At 300 ft. rise total in the last 13k years, the average sea level rise per 100 years is 27.8 inches.

    The sea level rise last century, while controversy rages is 4-5 inches. The rise has slowed down, naturally as the source for sea level rise diminishes. Land based melting ice.

    This period of warming began long before any carbon inputs by man. The warming that raised this sea level was so profound there is no comparison to what people assume man is causing today. That the temperature rises are occurring is simply the obvious conclusion of having hundreds of thousands of square miles no longer covered by freezing wastes of ice. There is also the increased melting and warming due to the lost albedo of having this ice melted, exposing darker land masses that absorb instead of reflecting heat as white snow and ice does.

    These facts were well known by children that studied introductory physical science 25 years ago. At least where I grew up. If you were educated in Utah then, maybe not so much.

    These dynamics described began and reached their peak without man being involved in the manner the “warmers” have described.

    How do you explain this? How does anyone, scientist or not? The answer is Richard: They don’t.

  79. #79 by Cliff Lyon on October 14, 2009 - 3:57 pm

    Send me an e-mail if Weer’d comes up with the name of a scientist.

  80. #80 by Kaiser on October 14, 2009 - 4:09 pm

    Human Global Warming induced climate change has all the hallmarks of what was described by Wendell Berry as pioneers settled the West.

    “Rain follows the plow”.

    The idea that all a man need do is plow the land and the rain would come. Well for most of those fools, it didn’t.

    Now that we see a period of cooling and what looks to be more to come, we will see how the co-religionists of HIGH( human induced global heating) will maintain their faith despite the facts that the “rains” or heating, don’t come.

  81. #81 by Kaiser on October 14, 2009 - 4:20 pm

    Here is an article with the first woman Ph.d meteorologist calling BS on APW. She has been at it a long time, but no doubt she is unqualified by the religionist standards.

    I wonder why anyone takes Al Gore seriously, he isn’t a scientist of anything except how to be a loser.

  82. #82 by James Farmer on October 14, 2009 - 5:39 pm


    There has never been a scientific study that absolutely proves God created Earth as set forth in the Bible, either. Can I assume, then, that you will be on board with the opposition the next time a legislature in Utah or elsewhere mandates the teaching of intelligent design or some other religious doctrine under some de jure buzz word or catch phrase in the public schools?


  83. #83 by Borepatch on October 14, 2009 - 5:43 pm

    Richard Warnick wrote: Does anyone really believe, as Senator Inhofe claims, that global warming is a hoax?

    This is a more productive question.It’s pretty clear that the world has been getting warmer for quite some time – certainly as long as we’ve had thermometers, which takes us back to the mid-seventeenth century for the historical scientific records. The climate pretty clearly has not been stable, as we come out of the Little Ice Age.

    We also have decent proxies such as date of first frost, date of planting, etc, which extends back several hundred years before this. The evidence is quite compelling for the Medieval Warm Period as a global phenomenon. We have not only records from monasteries in Europe, but Imperial Chinese court records as well.

    We also have Alpine glaciers currently retreating, revealing villages that were swallowed up in the sixteenth centuries.

    I know this, because back at State U I studied not only Electrical Engineering, but history as well. Not credentials enough to land a spot on the IPCC, but it doesn’t seem that the IPCC has any historians or Quaternary specialists on their staff.

    And so to AGW. There are models that say that this time around the warming has been driven by industrial quantities of CO2, but that squares poorly with the historical record. Mann’s assertion that climate was stable over 1000 years is a poor match to actual measured historical readings (not to mention those Alpine villages).

    You mention that you have model data, Richard – has anyone run the models from a starting point around 1300? 1600? These seem to be major inflection points in the climate record, and the transition in 1300 was nothing short of catastrophic.

    Denying global warming isn’t remotely necessary to think that the theory that human generated CO2 is mostly responsible for climate change. We’ve seen major fluctuations before without changes in CO2 concentrations. Why?

    So keep me in the skeptic camp.

    I cover this in more depth here.

  84. #84 by Borepatch on October 14, 2009 - 5:59 pm

    Richard, you asked for a link to the Met Office brouhaha.

    The world’s source for global temperature record admits it’s lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

    There’s more, but this is not a bad summary. And as we all know, Mann did precisely the same thing with his original Hockey Stick model and data, and it was only discovered by persistence and luck. Full of errors, and using inappropriate data. The question is: which other studies are full of errors, and using inappropriate data?

    That’s precisely why people are asking to see the data.

    But let me turn the question around: Suppose that the AGW theory is correct, as you say. Suppose that dramatic and rapid action is called for. Suppose that Prof. Jones at Met/CRU actually does have data that proves this. Why on earth would he not release it?

    Because he doesn’t like the person who asked for it? Because they’re “right wing”? This just doesn’t make any sense.

    And so – rightly or wrongly – this starts to smell like a cover up. Ockham’s Razor plausibly says that the explanation is that this is a perfectly normal climate fluctuation, but that the AGW crowd get tons of publicity and government grants from the hype. I’m not saying that’s what’s happening, but saying “all the scientists agree, your scientists aren’t any good, and no we won’t show you the data” isn’t the way to bring the undecided middle around to your position.

    If you ahve an explanation for the Medieval Warm Period/Little Ice Age/AGW, I’m earer to hear it (and will do so with an open mind). However, what I’ve mostly heard is “The Medieval Warm Period didn’t really exist”, which doesn’t square with my own study.

  85. #85 by Ken on October 14, 2009 - 7:24 pm


    You keep challenging us to find a credible scientist that disputes global warming however you define a credible scientist as a believer in global warming so it is impossible to meet your challenge on your terms.

    You believers won’t be convinced no matter what because you automatically discount all evidence that does not fit into your preconceived notions.

  86. #86 by James Farmer on October 14, 2009 - 8:02 pm

    Ken says:

    You believers won’t be convinced no matter what because you automatically discount all evidence that does not fit into your preconceived notions.


    Sounds like a good argument for discrediting the Mormon Church in the face of indisputable evidence that Joseph Smith was a fraud, a charlatan and a pedophile.

    What say you now? Pot calling the kettle black?

  87. #87 by Weer'd Beard on October 15, 2009 - 5:29 am

    James, I’d say you, Richard, and Cliff fit that bill pretty well.

    Blind Faith.

  88. #88 by Cliff Lyon on October 15, 2009 - 5:46 am

    Borepatch, Certainly you must know that you have not made an argument against anthropogenic global warming. U have only attacked the conclusions.

    As an engineer, you must know this statement cuts no mustard

    We’ve seen major fluctuations before without changes in CO2 concentrations. Why?

    One would think the deniers would have at least one scientist on their side.

  89. #89 by Cliff Lyon on October 15, 2009 - 5:59 am

    Glenn Kaiser,

    Your “first woman Ph.d meteorologist calling BS on APW” Was misquoted:

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.

    What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”

    What a difference a few extra sentences can make.

    What else you got?

  90. #90 by Kaiser on October 15, 2009 - 7:13 am

    You asked for a climate skeptic that is a scientist. Interesting that now she receives no funding she can speak her mind.

    Her career within the scam must have been something like Galileo having to recant that the Earth revolves around the sun.

    As well you are a liar and have made up the second half of your post in response. Anyone reading the link will see that. The case you make is seen for what it is, lies and obfuscation.

    Who Kaiser? I am Earl Kaiser for the record.

  91. #91 by Earl Kaiser on October 15, 2009 - 7:41 am

    Borepatch; interesting comment on there being no historians on the IPCC. Even a rudimentary study of of some known history will debunk human induced warming and lead to questions as to how climate change really occurs on Earth.

    Ex: The period between 1000-1200 AD is marked with written histories describing vineyards in jolly Old England. There is no doubt about it. Vineyards were there. Around 1200 the climate cooled and the vineyards died out. Same is true for the time period that describes Viking agriculture in Greenland and settlement. Ended at the same time as the beginning of the “little ice age”.

    The rub. The period 1000-1200 AD is a time of trouble for Anazasi and Fremont in North America. During this period of earth warming they disappear. The assumption can be made that the climate warmed and the area became unsustainable. Right to the point of proof of cannibalism as their environment failed. What made life temperate in Europe, destroyed the Anazai. The area suffered drought as it warmed. The proof of this can be found in tree ring data in ancient trees in the region.

    A trip to “Ruin Valley” in S. Canyonlands park will bring a person to a village with 2 and 3 story domiciles obviously abandoned. One can walk to where there was clearly a creek that fed out of the Abajo drainages between the village’s homes. It is no longer running, if it does, it is seasonal, but there are metatis (corn grinding depressions) right at where the water line ran. Safe to say the warming climate ended their world in the South West.

    This absence of human history records we possess to aid in this study is glaring deficiency in APW proponents. The written history of climate is right there to look at.

  92. #92 by James Farmer on October 15, 2009 - 7:48 am


    Still waiting ….. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

  93. #93 by Earl Kaiser on October 15, 2009 - 7:48 am

    “What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable”.

    This is not in the link I provided about the woman PH.d meteorologist. It is made by you and added to the quote. Anyone reading the article will see this. Is science to now compete with lies and disinformation? Doesn’t matter who does it, those who do are all of the same ilk. Liars.

  94. #94 by Cliff Lyon on October 15, 2009 - 7:54 am

    Glenn kaiser,

    If I made up the rest of the quote, why does it return 1700 matches in Google?

    The Kaiser is a LIAR!

  95. #95 by Earl Kaiser on October 15, 2009 - 8:12 am

    We are acting on the recommendations, we are ignoring them and most of the world as well, and your quote does not appear in the article I posted.

    Like so much of all of this politically driven mess, people’s true intents in their statements are taken out of context. The good doctor if you are honest Cliff, claims that we should follow the recommendations IF the science proves that man is causing warming, to which she claims she doesn’t believe the data shows that, and that she is a skeptic.

    So no lies there, just political animals looking to take what others say and use for their political purposes.

    Meanwhile, it is winter out there huh? Early at that.

  96. #96 by Earl Kaiser on October 15, 2009 - 8:19 am

    This man has done the work for us. So perhaps we can put the idea that this APW belief system is going unchallenged by climate and physical scientists.

  97. #97 by Richard Warnick on October 15, 2009 - 8:49 am


    My standard for a reputable climatologist is someone who has published peer-reviewed articles in the field of climatology. If it’s true (as often claimed) that expert scientific opinion is evenly divided on the question of anthropogenic global warming, then it would be easy to find a reputable climatologist who rejects the theory.


    I blogged about a 4WD trip to Beef Basin, Ruin Park and Elk Ridge in the Abajos a couple years ago. It’s been estimated that San Juan County had a bigger population in 1200 C.E. than now.

    Jared Diamond’s excellent book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed draws a lot of interesting comparisons with the Ancestral Puebloans and other cultures (such as our own) faced with severe environmental problems.

  98. #98 by James Farmer on October 15, 2009 - 10:00 am

    Meanwhile, it is winter out there huh? Early at that.

    Hmmm. Every time I hear this line of reasoning to argue against the occurrence of global warming (the reasoning is favored by the idiots at, I am left to wonder whether the proponents of the reasoning are prepared to concede that global warming is, indeed, occurring if the snow fails to fall until, say, January – recall, for example, 2002. The reasoning evidences incredible disingenuousness or, worse, sheer incomprehension of the fundamentals of the debate.

    Earl, which is it for you?

  99. #99 by Borepatch on October 15, 2009 - 10:07 am

    I agree with Richard on Diamond’s book. Very worth your time – better than Guns, Germs, and Steel IMO.

    Richard, I guess that you and I will have to agree to disagree on the definition of “reputable climatologist”, or at least who else should be authorized to critique the science. A Fifth Grader can point out a mistake, as long as it’s a mistake.

    I know that Steve McEntyre is personna non grata to a lot of people, but it was him – and not the peer reviewed climatologists – who pointed out that Mann’s original hockey stick analysis was at best very sloppy work. A mistake is a mistake, even if it’s peer-reviewed.

  100. #100 by Borepatch on October 15, 2009 - 10:11 am

    @Richard, I would like to say that while I don’t agree with you on some topics, I’m impressed with the level of discourse that you and I are having. The ability to debate without everything degenerating into name calling and “yo momma” is refreshing, and something that the community could use more of.

  101. #101 by Cliff Lyon on October 15, 2009 - 10:52 am


    We do agree (we being the modern world) on what is a credentialed scientist and thus credentialed science.

    We make life, death, and business decisions all the time based upon a set of values widely agreed upon in the real world.

    So, Its not just you disagree with, its all of us.

  102. #102 by Ken on October 16, 2009 - 5:55 am


    It’s difficult to get peer reviewed when the peers will have their reputations smeared and/or grants put in jeopardy if they dare question global warming theology.

    This is why courageous scientists who speak out have to bypass the normal peer review process.

  103. #103 by Weer'd Beard on October 16, 2009 - 6:21 am

    Snowing here RIGHT NOW BITCHES!!!

    **Weer’d uses the Becky style of reporting. Convenient antidotes = convincing argument!**

  104. #104 by Cliff Lyon on October 16, 2009 - 7:00 am

    Ken, Then how did Steve Jones get peer-reviewed for his collapse theory?

    The political sensitivity (ask any academic) in science is the appearance of bias toward corporate interest and worse, bad science are the career killers that a climate denier make.

    The courageous scientists, if you are looking for them, are all around you.

    If you are looking for a scientist with a real spine, look no further than James Hansen.

  105. #105 by Richard Warnick on October 16, 2009 - 11:13 am

    Ken argues that global warming theory is nothing but “mass hysteria” and “theology.”

    Cliff brings in 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are not “peer-reviewed” in the normal sense of the term (the 9/11 people have their own journals).

    Like the 9/11 folks, the climate change denialists see themselves as “skeptics” interested in the “truth.” Both groups also seem convinced that if they can point out anything counter-intuitive in the accepted version of reality, then reality itself will come crashing down and their crackpot theories will be accepted at last.

    That’s not how science works. True skeptics begin with a thorough understanding of the facts, and they don’t jump to conclusions.

    I began with a skeptical view of global warming models. The first models were very approximate, and could not reliably replicate past conditions. Further research has come up with much more impressive results. The current generation includes at least two dozen independently-created GCMs. By statistical downscaling, and combining the outputs of many models, the reliability of predictions is increased.

    Finally, as I’ve pointed out before, climate change effects are being observed now all over the world.

  106. #106 by Cliff Lyon on October 17, 2009 - 4:40 am


    Ooopsy you. Bad choice of comparisons.

    Firstly, Steven Jones paper IS peer reviewed.

    Secondly, 85% of the world believes that we have not been told the truth about 9/11 and that the 9/11 commission report was flawed ind incomplete.

    Compare that 85% which INCLUDES credentialed scientists and scholars vs the 20% who deny global warming supported by NO credentialed scientists…

    Bad choice of analogies.

  107. #107 by Richard Warnick on October 17, 2009 - 10:49 am


    It would be easy for climate change denialists to start up a “Journal of Climate Change Truth” and do their own peer reviews. But that would not be the same as publishing in a regular scientific journal.

    Where do you get your 85 percent? Are you talking about the 2007 poll sponsored by MIHOP only scored 4.6 percent on that poll.

    As I mentioned, it’s naive to think that reality will somehow go away if you can point to something counter-intuitive or incomplete in the most widely-accepted description of reality. The real world of facts is not that easy to take down.

    The independent 9/11 commission did an excellent job of piecing together all the evidence they could gather in a limited investigation. The historical record is incomplete, so what? Nothing is preventing anyone from conducting further investigations to fill in the gaps.

    I for one would like to learn more about the internal deliberations of the Bush administration. What little we know comes from the testimony of Condi Rice and Richard Clarke. President Bush and VP Cheney were questioned privately and not under oath.

    A quick check of some of my old 9/11 links, and it appears the “truther” movement marches on undeterred. Amazing, I thought it was over now that Alex Jones is competing with Glenn Beck to see who can come up with the looniest Obama conspiracy theories.

  108. #108 by Cliff Lyon on October 18, 2009 - 6:10 am


    My sweet man, I am surprised you respond to my reference to “85% of the world believes that we have not been told the truth about 9/11 and that the 9/11 commission report was flawed ind incomplete.”

    …To MIHOP (made it happen).

    Did you think I wouldn’t catch it?

    As I mentioned, it’s naive to think that reality will somehow go away if

    Yessir, the reality that buildings do not fall at free fall speeds from fire is an inconvenient reality that has not been adequately addressed by the former administration according to 67% of Americans.

    And no, climate change denialist couldn’t create a peer review journal that would stand up to the rigorous standards of current academic/scientific peer review.

    I can’t understand why you would even suggest that. As you are an academic, you know that academic/scientific peer review journals (PRJs) are subject based not advocacy based.

    Just because we are on the same side of most issues does not mean you can get lazy with me. 🙂

  109. #109 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2009 - 9:21 am


    The record of any historical incident you can name could be characterized as “flawed and incomplete.” Similarly, our knowledge of global warming is incomplete –but we make decisions on the best information available.

    I still don’t know the source of your 85 percent, I was trying to guess what it was. I’m not going to try and track down the 67 percent. As I’m sure you know, poll results can vary greatly depending on what questions are asked, how they are asked, and in what order. If you provide a link, we can discuss the relevance of the poll or polls you are referring to.

    We have discussed the MIHOP theory at length already, but if you want to do another 9/11 post I am willing to bring you the facts one more time. What facts do you have to support MIHOP or “false flag”?

    The collapses of the Twin Towers were not simply due to fire, but the fact that large airplanes crashed into them. The impacts took out many load-bearing steel columns and floor supports, and knocked the fireproofing off many more. Due to the impacts, sprinkler systems failed on the fire floors. Out-of-control fires weakened the remaining supports, which eventually gave way. The huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below was very much greater than the static load they were designed to resist.

    All explained years ago by civil engineers.

  110. #110 by John Brown on October 18, 2009 - 9:39 am

    Can you say climate change? The latest in underwater Mediterranean finds up to 2800 BC. Is it warming, do people imagine that this place sank into the ocean due to some seismic event? If so why didn’t Knossos in the same region sink? To wit the conclusion is the rising sea level broached Gibraltar and flooded the Basin perhaps. The myth of the “Flood”.

    Disaster comes with living life on Earth. Just way more people now and communications to have us all know about it.

    Surely the bonfires these people lit caused the increase in carbon that led to the warming that rapidly melted Continental glaciers up to 2 miles thick, that then rose sea level, leading to the inundation of their good city.

  111. #111 by John Brown on October 18, 2009 - 10:02 am

  112. #112 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on October 18, 2009 - 8:48 pm

    How many people have already called Glen and Ken a couple of morons? (actually, Glen is multiple morons on his own) If you haven’t, then this thread is your chance.

    Ken–Gosh, man. You need to be careful what you post. I think this is the second time I’ve caught you explicitly ignoring half of the sources you cite. If you read the article you cited, it includes a few revelations from the global warming crowd, namely: that they’ve already incorporated solar and ocean temp changes into their models. Maybe you could make your article reviews a little more complete.

    Global warming may be an incorrect theory. It’s one of those “time will tell” types of things. But saying that a few years of LOWER temperatures than those in 1998 refutes a more than 150 year trend is negligent at best. NOBODY bases long-term science on a few years and obtains any credibility from it.

    And as for those darn rays from the sun–funny thing that your pet scientist talks about how they have a greater impact on the world than anything; after all, that’s not exactly a contradiction of global warming theory. What happens when greenhouse gasses keep electromagnetic waves in the atmosphere? Temperature goes up. What happens when greenhouse gasses keep even higher-energy electromagnetic waves in the atmosphere? Temperature goes up. How is this hard to understand, that the two may increase temperatures in tandem?

    Glen–Parents will always have negative effects on their kids, whether they try to or not. So, by your logic, parents just shouldn’t try to raise their kids well. In fact, they should kill themselves to neutralize future negative influence. Sounds great.

    Your nihilist logic never ceases to amaze. How does it go? “Global warming may not be man-made, so let’s just not worry about it.” It’s funny, because the counter is so much more reasonable: we don’t know if global warming is real or not. We DO know that pollution really sucks. So let’s do what we’re doing to improve life for ourselves, no matter the truth or falsity of global warming.

    2/3rds of the worlds land mass is north of 45 degrees in the northern hemisphere. Warming will bring its problems, but making vast tracts of land more hospitable won’t be one of them.

    Apparently, you know next to nothing about botany. Have you ever considered that some plants (we call them perennials) REQUIRE a frost period in order to grow? These so-called “perennials” (sounds like a fishy scientific term, don’t it!) make up a large portion of America’s food source at present–and, in fact, the food of most temperate regions.

    Then there’s the 2/3 claim. Interesting. Ecology can transform just as fast as precipitating climatic changes, right?

    Try stirring the bottom of a constantly heated pot with a corn starch/water mixture. You can dissipate the heat for so long, but, eventually, the mixture will glaze and, shortly thereafter, harden into a shell on the inside of the pot.

    You can’t increase the energy in a system and expect to maintain equilibrium. Increased molecular reaction will increase heat dissipation–but never sufficiently to maintain equal exchange between the systems. Eventually, the old system will collapse into a new thermodynamic.

    Only a simpleton would think that a grand climatic change with zoological, ecological, botanical, and physical implications would be simply a matter of picking up and moving to a new location. So buy a new thinking cap–they blindfold isn’t working.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  113. #113 by Jennifer Stathim on October 18, 2009 - 9:45 pm

    Yet moving away from environmental catastrophe is all man has ever done since he had legs to move Dwight. That is the plain and simple fact. Man no matter the situation locally and globally has moved to better pastures when necessary. Just the facts.

    We are seeing the marching of the same flora and fauna north in migration as we currently see here. I expect that continue until the desert areas south of 45 fry. They may not. One thing is certain, we will find out who is wrong about how this happens.

    The contact of our atmosphere with space is where all heat dissipates. If the atmospheric temperature goes up it releases more heat into space. More radiant energy will be dissipated at the contact of the atmosphere and space. This is accepted physics, more heat applied, more heat dissipated, and why the Earth despite heating and cooling, greenhouse gas, does not go out equilibrium very far. Basis physics. Does the range cause human discomfort? When has it not?

    The Earth Atmosphere/Space contact does not have the dynamics of a glazed pot there Dwight. Sorry but that fantasy of science is incorrect though any pot even a burned one will dissipate more heat the more heat you put into it.

  114. #114 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on October 19, 2009 - 7:57 am

    Thanks for the hunter-gatherer mentality, “Jennifer.” It’s not “all man has ever done since he had legs to move.” Need I remind you of a variety of renewal projects? How about the Dust Bowl? If we ran away from every such problem instead of trying to fix it, we’d already be out of land to grow things on. Agriculture itself is an attempt to create reliability in a local ecology, to remove the damage humans (and other animals, though without the predatious growth rate) inflict upon the earth and to sustain a single location, long-term. Just the facts. The point here is to make it so that it’s NOT “necessary” to “move to better pastures”–the point is to take care of the pastures we have.

    It ISN’T certain that we’ll find out who is wrong about how this happens. Those who deny man’s influence today will still be blaming the sun when everything south of 45 is the New Sahara–when we truly no longer have the power to reclaim the land.

    “Does not go out of equilibrium very far”? Minor shifts in equilibrium on a planetary scale can have dramatic effects on ecology. There is a point where increasing temperature by just one-half of a degree will make water unsuitable for phytoplankton. I’m not saying we’ll reach that point, necessarily–just illustrating what not going very far can do.

    In case you didn’t understand my point, here’s a recap: if you increase the energy that is put into a system, you produce two distinct effects. 1) An increase in energy within the system; and 2) An increase in molecular collisions at the system’s interface. The increase in molecular collisions at the system’s interface is dependent upon the amount of energy put into the system, and won’t exceed it in its proportional increase. The likelihood of molecular collisions at the interface (a portion of the total volume) matching perfectly the increase of energy within the system (the total volume) is low; a new, higher-energy equilibrium will likely be established at some point thereafter. What you’re depicting is that a basketball subjected to an increase in energy will dissipate the precise amount of energy input, yielding no increase of energy in the gas contained within the ball.

    I used the “glazed pot” analogy in response to a previous post which used the “stirred pot” analogy. I am aware that there are distinct differences between a heated pot (which was, remember, an illustration) and the heated atmosphere. The point was that equilibrium will reestablish differently if an increased rate of energy is consistently put (or kept) in the system. Basic thermodynamics. One notable differences is that the Earth is somewhat uniquely insulated–despite the near absolute zero temperature of space (2.725 Kelvin) with which it interacts, Earth maintains a comfortable ~300 degrees Kelvin. You’re talking about a pot that’s very good at converting electromagnetic waves into heat, and which has a constant supply of them. The combination of atmospheric content and a constant, available supply of energy to interact with that content makes this planet livable. Change the content–you change the insulative dynamic.

    Whatever range is established may cause ecological and human discomfort that should make even a nihilist sweat. Earth has established and reestablished equilibrium many times before, according to the whims of its physical makeup and interactions with the systems of which it is part. I suppose what the global warming community is saying is that we happen to trust the Earth’s ability to maintain equilibrium than we do an artificial imposition upon the atmosphere’s chemical makeup. We would rather let it change around us than force it to change because of us. We just don’t have a great track record when it comes to ecology.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  115. #115 by Jennifer Stathim on October 19, 2009 - 9:16 am

    It is either moving or adaptation, often the same thing. Try to look at this in the macro perspective. Sorry we live in Utah, we could have problems. Plans to move north or south or to better ground are made yearly be even the simplest of creatures.

    Humans have been adapting their environment since they first plowed a field, it could not be sustained from the beginning of conception. Soil degrades, erosion is a law, at some point recovering it is not feasible, we move on. There are no exceptions. It is what we do. What we leave behind becomes subject to natural forces more powerful than we ever are. If the technology arises to recover an area we do, if not, we look elsewhere.

    Some are already at better pastures, you believe in fantasy, the reality has passed you by. Plenty of areas north of 45 have seen great increases in agriculture due to warming. Your premises are just wrong Dwight, and the proof is in the data. No amount of conjured rubbish in the extreme will change that.

    The simple human history of civilization is fixing what can be fixed or moving. what would you do if the Salt Lake rose to the level it was 20,000 years ago, pump it to nowhere or move up slope? The reality is so basic your complication of it ludicrous.

    Your basketball analogy does not apply, the atmosphere/space contact is not a contained “shell” ask any physicist. It isn’t a basketball, it is a dynamic system. More input in, more input out. The variation has experienced all manner of inputs, we are simply one of the factors.

    It isn’t nihilism Dwight, it is an acceptance of what we do not control. Your fantasy borders on hubris, and certainly delusion with regard what you assume man’s activities impact are on the Earth. Consider that it doesn’t care, has it’s own dynamic that no one understands entirely, and then go off and apply what you believe to be the right thing to do for you, and don’t wait for a grand movement to do it for you. You have the power to do that, don’t you? such a movement would far exceed the powers of any and all governments. you can opt out of extreme consumption which is the root cause of all you fear.

    For an exercise Dwight, explain why despite periods far warmer than today in the quite recent past, 1000 AD, why it is that polar bears managed to survive? Sea ice was at a far lower level, and yet they persisted. Funny huh? Maybe they have ways and means we don’t know about. Please do not discuss the speed of change, as even now we see creatures adapting to the changes, or moving. Or dying out. Part and parcel of life on Earth. Doesn’t mean we don’t care Dwight, life on Earth is a triage for humans, we do what we can afford to do, and that does not mean just money.

    Look at the real record instead of useless prognostications.

    It will be an absolute certainty that we see who is wrong in this. I have no doubt of that because the general trend of warming has been constant for about 20,000 years, and it has proved to be a boon and nothing but a benefit to mankind. Can’t live, plant crops or foster any kind of life on millions of square miles of frozen ice pack. There is no argument in that.

    I am not worried, that is what you can do. This nonsense reminds of the ice age scare of the 70’s, a far worse scenario than warming for mankind. Produced by the same science paradigm that offers this one. It’s a running joke by now. They had all the data to prove the frozen eventuality as well. Makes for great reading, pick it up sometime. Failed scary theory….or is it? When the world cools to possible variability Dwight, how then will we be the cause with all the piffle produced here by “warmers” like yourself.

    I cannot wait to see how the supporters wax their way out of their painted corner. Should be good.

  116. #116 by Cliff Lyon on October 19, 2009 - 9:57 am

    Dwight, You’re wasting your time with Jennifer (Glenn Hoefer).

    Consider this factual statement which is conveniently incomplete.

    If the atmospheric temperature goes up it releases more heat into space. More radiant energy will be dissipated at the contact of the atmosphere and space. This is accepted physics

    According to Glenn’s logic, a sleeping bag would have no advantage in retaining heat in subzero temperatures…which is of course STUPID.

    C02 is like a sleeping bag for the atmosphere. It increases the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat.

    Glenn, what do you do when you get too warm in your sleeping bag? You open it.

    Reducing c02 levels in the atmosphere is like getting out of the sleeping bag.

  117. #117 by Richard Warnick on October 19, 2009 - 10:32 am


    There was no “ice age scare” in the 1970s. That’s a myth (PDF).

    A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.

  118. #118 by Richard Warnick on October 19, 2009 - 11:12 am

    Re: Climate scientists who doubt human-caused global warming. I got an e-mail that Dr. Roy Spencer will be in Salt Lake City Tuesday and Wednesday this week.

    According to Wikipedia, Dr. Spencer is sponsored by the oil companies, and Rush Limbaugh calls him his “official climatologist,” but he does have a book and several peer-reviewed articles.

    Like most of the scientific doubters, Dr. Spencer is actually a meteorologist, but he has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

    So that’s one. A few hundred more, and the climate change denialists will be able to say the experts are split on the issue of global warming.

  119. #119 by Jennifer Stathim on October 19, 2009 - 11:32 am

    Get a sleeping bag cold enough and it has no benefit, the temperature drops and the “blanket” gets cold as well. On Earth it falls as snow, then piles up, becomes ice and then flows as glaciers. This is the cycle Lot’s of popsicles in their sleeping bags once their heat was exhausted up on Everest and a host of mountains.

    The atmosphere is not a sleeping bag. It entirely more dynamic, it is simply ridiculous to use such a simplistic comparison anyway.

    Who are you talking about? I am not that Glendon person.

  120. #120 by Jennifer Stathim on October 19, 2009 - 11:37 am

    Richard. That is nonsense. The idea was taught at the university level by Ph.d geologists and physical scientists in the 70’s up until the early 80’s. At major universities. What you are trying to do is spin the reality. Impossible to a person that was taught the idea in a university setting in physical science classes.

  121. #121 by Richard Warnick on October 19, 2009 - 11:51 am


    I was around during the 1970s, and I recall discussion about whether we were in the warming phase of a new ice age or whether it was something else. I’m old enough to remember when New York Harbor froze in the winter and they used icebreakers to keep a channel open. So the warming was definitely happening, what it meant was still open to debate thirty years ago.

  122. #122 by Jennifer Stathim on October 19, 2009 - 12:17 pm

    Same as the warming theory today, the consensus of peer review then was majority an ice age coming, and they were wrong, though 30 years is no measure of anything. Entirely a piece of time that correlates to nothing substantive.

    Where you in the 70’s? Were you in university physical science classes?

  123. #123 by Richard Warnick on October 19, 2009 - 2:05 pm


    I was in high school and college during the 1970s, and took the required science classes. The ice age theory, as I’m sure you know, predicted global warming followed by cooling over a period of thousands of years. Hardly an “ice age scare.”

    The current global warming theory fits the facts better. While the Earth may indeed go through another ice age in the far future, it’s the next hundred years that will probably cripple our civilization.

    The tragedy is that most of the proposed actions to reduce unwanted climate change are things we ought to be doing anyway. For example, approximately 20 percent of the global warming problem comes from deforestation, more than all the world’s cars, trucks, planes, and ships combined. Forest conservation ought to be an easy fix.

  124. #124 by Jennifer Stathim on October 19, 2009 - 3:15 pm

    Not worried, that will be your job. Go plant a tree, beats this any day. Quit mowing your grass, an extremely stupid exercise. Carbon and pure waste. Biggest cultivated crop in the US and we throw most it out.

    The theory that the ice age is rapid onset was part of it as well, you are being selective in your memory. Pre warming was not part of any theory I was taught, as we were already in a extremely accepted period of warming as evidenced by the melt of continental glaciers for at least 15k years. Stick with the accepted science. AGW is junk science, just like that cooling science was.

    By your measure this period of pre warming is just the process before the next ice age, so which is it? Pure crap to be ignored.

    Plant trees, maybe they will end up under the ice like in Greenland, where under 1200 ft of ice they find the remains of conifers, and other flora from 200,000 years ago.

    As I mention we are going to find out and I really cannot wait. Looking forward to the warming, and all the secrets it will bring as the ice melts. We can also rid ourselves of the putrid coastal cities that need to be torn down and rebuilt anyway as sea level rises. Probably will cause depopulation as well. All going to happen by “warmers” standards by now, as they claim mitigation is already too late.

    Damn hilarious the whole hubbub.

  125. #125 by Richard Warnick on October 19, 2009 - 3:43 pm

    Well, if you get your science from Roland Emmerich I can imagine you’d be scared of a sudden shutdown of the Gulf Stream followed by an instant ice age.

    It’s awesome that you can believe Emmerich and dismiss the IPCC report as “junk science.” In your words, damn hilarious. BTW, do you know about his next movie?

  126. #126 by Cliff Lyon on October 19, 2009 - 5:41 pm

    Glenn, you are amazing.

  127. #127 by Jennifer Stathim on October 19, 2009 - 6:04 pm

    Bring it on. I can’t wait, this reality is for total uselessness. Bunch of frightened pantywaists. If this is what concerns you then you are as much of a scoop as a Mormon.

    Scoop: Term for a religious adherent that has had their brain scooped out and a pile of erroneous bullshit filled into the void.

  128. #128 by Jennifer Stathim on October 19, 2009 - 6:29 pm

    Richard your jumps to conclusions that are unsupported are fun to watch. You haven’t a clue as to what I believe. It’s all junk science as anyone that claimed a coming ice age and now promotes runaway warming is about as believable as Bush ever was.

    Here is the litany. I hope it keeps warming, if it is. If it isn’t the warmers will be happy. If it does warm the “warmers” will have been right, which wouldn’t be too hard, as it has been warming for millenia. I can’t lose you boobs.

    Either way, warming is going to be good for the planet, if not Utah specifically, but no one really knows.

    Supercomputer models actually predict that with warming will come giant slugs of freezing water into the North Atlantic which when reckoned out in the model yield massive monsoons in the Great Basin. This is an explanation of how they(Lake Bonneville, Lake Lahonton) filled during their last expansion episode. Which resulted in water 900 feet over your head as Utah region giant Lake Bonneville. If that happens the area will simply be returning to the climate it had when the lake was at its peak.

    Like I said no way to lose here, as the logic used to label climatic events is of the hammer and nail variety, as in when your science is as dumb as a hammer, your results will generally look like a nail.

    Either way adaptation is the key to survival, and for that energy is key. Non fixed, mobile energy capacity of a massive nature. If we don’t have that, the human race no matter the prognosis will always be at the whims of global and celestial disaster.

    Ex: We know Earth has been struck by astroblemes that have led to mass extinction, what are going to do about it with our current level of tech? We know the Earth has warmed and cooled and humans persist, a much less severe problem. Prioritize how resources shall be used for the human race. That or fly blind as has been the case for so long. Trying to stop warming is a wasted venture in my opinion.

  129. #129 by James Farmer on October 19, 2009 - 6:36 pm


    If being “concerned” about global warming, or the possibility thereof, makes one a pantywaist, then so be it.

  130. #130 by Ken on October 19, 2009 - 11:44 pm

    Now even the San Fransisco Chronicle is asking the forbidden question:

    The global warming consensus cools

  131. #131 by Jennifer Stathim on October 20, 2009 - 12:31 am

    You own it James global warming aside, people already know this about you. Part of being someone to listen to is knowing what to be concerned about. This issue isn’t it. I’ll bet you were afraid of the boogey man past the usual normal age. As you are an extreme sufferer of BDS does this constitute a pattern?

    So now that we know, are you not concerned that pissing yourself in fear is raising sea level?

    How about what you are driving? Didn’t you once cut down a mighty tree by your house in a selfish act that can only enhance global warming? Shame on you! You and Richard go out and plant a tree right now to assuage your guilt. This will also help your fear management, you know, make you part of the solution and all. It will also immediately sequester some carbon. So we can burn it later, or maybe build a domicile with it.

    Yes, I am rather sure you burned that tree you cut in a senseless act of environmental carelessness. To think you of all people would need to be reminded of how important it is to preserve all carbon sequestering devices in this age of swamped polar bears and all.

    Perhaps we can get Obama to retroactively fine you for your lack of vision in regard to this incident. That the tree was on your property is irrelevant, it is the Earth that we must be thinking about James, something I doubt you are carefully considering despite your religious devotion to the cause.

    You bear watching my friend. Burning wood and all, and in the Salt Lake valley too. Irresponsible, and with a Ph.d you would imagine you would know better, at least try to pretend the orthodoxy means something to you. Don’t you care about the Earth? You aren’t acting like it.

    I am so loving living in this age, where common sense is dead, and now the crazies are kicking the corpse. Keep on entertaining.

  132. #132 by Cliff on October 20, 2009 - 5:55 am

    Jennifer (Glenn),

    I dont know why you must use a fake name while writing very specifically about your acquaintance with James.

    BTW: I can assure you Jim does not and has never burned wood up there. If ANYONE had an open fire up there, they would be summarily booted from the hood.

    Im guessing you think Jim pellet stove burns wood. It doesn’t.

  133. #133 by Richard Warnick on October 20, 2009 - 6:31 am

    Ken– Here’s your SF Chronicle link:

    The global warming consensus cools

    It’s an opinion piece, and like you the author ignores the actual conclusion of the BBC article that cherry-picked data do not contradict the long-term trend.

    Did you read the comments below the column?

    gee deb, why wouldn’t economists and geologists know more about climate science than climate scientists …

    way to not mention that globally summer 2009 was the 3rd warmest on record, and year to date this is the 5th warmest year on record.

    way to not mention that most of the nonsense you list as supporting evidence of your head in the sand position has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.

    way to not cite any specific peer reviewed scientific research supporting your views.

    way to fail to make a single valid point

    The warming trend keeps going up
    while natural variability just oscillates irregularly up and down, so over longer periods the warming trend wins and natural variability cancels out.

  134. #134 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on October 20, 2009 - 8:29 am

    Glenn’s a waste of time. Ken refuses to acknowledge what facts there are. They will ever answer by attacking the will to act with vague skepticisms and bogus science. It would be best to admit that WE DON’T KNOW if global warming is man-made or not, but it seems like it is, and it seems like it will have a dramatically negative impact. All their screaming and waving signs can change public opinion, but not data. Reasonable individuals accept the new data and wish for it to be analyzed–but they don’t count it as instant proof against the presently-accepted theory.

    I mean, come on. Ken insists on the viability of one little scientist’s theory (the one in his BBC report), while denying that scientists all over the world are credible. Is there anything more cherry-picked than that? Even if the guy IS right, until the facts come in, Ken can’t defend his support of one scientist more than another without admitting that his support is entirely political and religious, and not scientific. Let’s be real; this article is clear advocacy, NOT a report.

    And Glenn? He’s a moron. Metaphors are metaphors, not meant to be literal, but illustrative of similar systems. The point was to compare overall tendencies of thermodynamic systems, not to say that the Earth is, in fact, a pot, corn starch, a sleeping bag, or your head, or even as incredibly simple as any of those. It’s to compare thermodynamic tendencies: increase energy, energy goes up; if a system that has achieved equilibrium, the nature of its equilibrium will change with an increase in the rate of energy input; insulation allows an increase in energy to be more durably maintained; increasing entropy in Glenn’s personae, strangely, has no effect on his argumentative capacity. These are all concepts which may be simulated in metaphor to depict principles of thermodynamic systems.

    I hereby disavow myself of this discussion. I got what I wanted. Since the idiots got lost trying to disperse, I’ll leave instead. Bye bye.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  135. #135 by cav on October 20, 2009 - 8:50 am

    I’ve moved on…

    to blogger methane issues!

  136. #136 by Ken on October 20, 2009 - 11:09 am


    I know how scientific consensus’ are formed. Very few scientists actually do original research, and the research they do is generally based on other published studies. If a study is published in a scientific journal then it becomes a primary source, and is picked up by the media and academia.

    What results is a consensus even though only a very small number of scientists have conducted hard research themselves. They are merely citing other peoples work and building upon existing theories.

    In many cases a new study will contradict another and usually when this happens scientists will adapt to the new information and begin to base their own studies on the new understanding. Global warming is different. Instead of being rigorously tested and counter tested that the scientific method requires scientists have been browbeaten into conformity.

    If the science behind global warming was so iron-clad then it would speak for itself but the truth of the matter is the science is so weak that the proponents have had to resort to browbeating, strong arming, and intimidation tactics to get a “consensus”.

    The tide is turning however, more scientists are daring to question global warming and are even fighting back at the practice of ostracizing skeptics.

  137. #137 by anonymous on October 20, 2009 - 12:18 pm

    Metaphors are not science, and most of those made by Cliff and yourself Dwight ring of sophomoric political science or philosophy cliches.

  138. #138 by Richard Warnick on October 20, 2009 - 1:06 pm


    How can you assert that global warming theory hasn’t been tested? FYI, at least 16 separate Global Climate Models have been independently developed by seven modeling groups based in Europe, North America, Japan and Australia.

    The science does speak for itself. Nobody is being “browbeaten,” on the contrary there is corporate cash on offer for any scientist willing to help the denialists in their well-funded campaign to delay public recognition of the crisis. I would not be surprised to learn that more money is being spent on denial than on climate change research.

  139. #139 by anonymous on October 20, 2009 - 5:02 pm

    Time to make plans. The early winter seems to be “global”. Cool.

  140. #140 by James Farmer on October 20, 2009 - 7:48 pm

    Anon (Glenn):

    If the early winter you cite to support of your counter theory to global warming turns out to not occur, are you willing to concede that global warming is real?

    Yes or no?

  141. #141 by Ken on October 20, 2009 - 8:54 pm

    My favorite line of the believers… “global warming causes global cooling”.

  142. #142 by Ken on October 20, 2009 - 9:12 pm


    Global warming has not been honestly put through the rigors of the scientific method. When scientist are only allowed to have one opinion or when their funding and even their reputations depend on them coming to the “right” conclusions then the science has been compromised and any result must be considered biased.

    In software engineering we spend a good percentage of the time trying to find ways to break the system as we do creating it in the first place. That way we can discover bugs that cause undesirable and unacceptable output. This refiners fire increases the quality of the software. Scientists today are not allowed to test for bugs in global warming theory because doing so may lead to undesirable or politically unacceptable outcomes and this severely lessens the quality of their output.

    A famous computer phrase. “Garbage in garbage out”.

  143. #143 by anonymous on October 20, 2009 - 9:29 pm

    It snowed three feet in the Alps two weeks before the earliest openings ever. Make of it what you will. I don’t know who you think I am, but hey dummy, I’m going skiing, warming or not. Snow is snow no matter how early, and that is that.

  144. #144 by James Farmer on October 21, 2009 - 12:04 am

    ken and glenn:

    I cannot help but notice that both of you dodged the question. What up with that? A dose of your own medicine is too much to swallow?

  145. #145 by Cliff Lyon on October 21, 2009 - 6:48 am


    Perhaps you are unaware that MORE money has been spent on research that disproves global warming.

    btw: As a novice “software engineer”, you should probably limit your extrapolations based on your anecdotal experience doing you homework for CS 101.

    I should tell you that the big analytical models are in many ways easier to proves because not only do errors cause such huge and obvious deviations, but those models are proved out by predicting past climate states from even older data. Right? Make sense?

    Let me know when you hit you one-hundred thousand’th line of code.

  146. #146 by Ken on October 21, 2009 - 7:47 am

    If the computer models couldn’t even accurately predict the climate of 2009 then how on earth do you think they can predict climate in 2030? There is only one entity that predicted correctly temperatures consistently and that is the Farmer’s Almanac which does not use computer models. They were the only ones to accurately predict cooler temperatures in 2007-2009. They use the same formula that was used when they first appeared in 1881 and have been correct an average of 80% which is way above government forecasters.

    The Farmers’ Almanac’s website explains that its forecaster (referred to only by his pseudonym, Caleb Weatherbee) uses a “top secret mathematical and astronomical formula, that relies on sunspot activity, tidal action, planetary position and many other factors” to predict weather sixteen months in advance for seven different U.S. climate zones.

    Human activity has never been a factor at all in their forecasting. They predict the cooling trend in the foreseeable future which is bad news for the global warming believers.

    cliff btw

    I am now well into the upper division of my major including software-engineering. I know that doesn’t make me an expert but its not exactly cs101

  147. #147 by James Farmer on October 21, 2009 - 7:54 am


    Then maybe you should start talking like an upper major! This, by the way, coming from someone who has been down the same road.

  148. #148 by anonymous on October 21, 2009 - 10:02 am

    James, if I may speak to it, the person you imagine to be Glen is in his posts very clear that global warming has been and is occurring over a general trend of thousands of years using the simple evidence of sea levels rising accepted by geologists and other physical scientists long before APW was dreamed up.

    He just does not seem to worry about it and sees it to be of benefit to mankind. In a world where if it warms or cools some creature always loses, the warming we have seen in the Earth that melted continental glaciers has been a supreme benefit to mankind. Only reason we are here frankly in such numbers.

    So James your dumb question can be asked of Ken, but not of Glendon.

  149. #149 by Richard Warnick on October 21, 2009 - 11:05 am


    This point has been made over and over, but I can’t let it go. You can’t pick out single years or anything less than a decade when you talk about climate trends. Some qualified meteorologists can’t seem to grasp this simple concept, so you don’t have to feel too bad.

  150. #150 by Cliff Lyon on October 21, 2009 - 6:18 pm

    We have no choice Ken. We can also take oil company profits.

    I assume you advocate doing nothing and taking your chances?

  151. #151 by Ken Bingham on October 21, 2009 - 7:05 pm

    Should the US spend tax money to try and stop global warming?
    Is global warming Real? (G) Is it human caused? (H) Will it be catastophic? (C) Can we stop it? (S) G ^ H ^ C ^ S
    T T T T T
    T T T F F
    T T F T F
    T T F F F
    T F T T F
    T F T F F
    T F F T F
    T F F F F
    By Ken Bingham

    This is a logic truth table. It carries every option conceivable based on the propositions listed. I have removed the false options on ‘is global warming real’, not because it may or may not be real but that a false renders everything else not only false but irrelevant.

    The first 3 propositions are conditions that global warming believers must meet for their hypothesis to even be considered valid.

    1. ‘Is global warming real?’ I have not included false logic on the first question since if that premise is false then all others are irrelevant.

    2. ‘Is it human caused?’ The question is essential because if it is not human caused then the 4th proposition is automatically false. If humans are not responsible for global warming then there is no possibility we can do anything about it and spending trillions on it would be an act of futility.

    3. ‘Will it be catastrophic?’ This is an important question because even if global warming is real and human caused if it is not going to have massive negative effects then it would not be worth spending trillions of dollars to combat a non-problem.

    (2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive because even if global warming is human caused it does not automatically mean it will be catastrophic or vise versa.)

    4. ‘Can we stop it?’ Must always be true in order to justify spending trillions of dollars, not to mention our freedoms, to stop global warming. However, I would submit that there is nothing that justifies losing our freedom.

    Thus my analysis comes to this, if we can’t stop global warming then it is irrelevant whether it is happening or not. If it is really happening then we must expend our efforts to adapt to it rather than tilting at windmills spending trillions of good dollars over bad in a Quixotic effort to try and stop it.
    All we can do is adapt which is the only thing nature truly cares about.

  152. #152 by anonymous on October 21, 2009 - 8:09 pm

    We’re going to take oil company profits? I think you have skewed concept as to who is actually running the show. That will be the day, the last person to get profits out of the oil companies in government was Sarah Palin for the socialist dividend program in Alaska. Obama hasn’t a prayer, besides he is a corporate bitch anyway.

    We will do nothing because everyone else will do nothing. The tide has turned. The US will not destroy its way of life on a prospect of a possibility. Europe won’t do anything, so we won’t either. the only nation sitting in the catbird seat over this nonsense is France, they actually have a carbon free energy source, everyone else is just full of shit, and a day late and dollar short.

    Yes then, we are going to take our chances, just like humanity always has. There have been prophets of doom since the beginning of written history, no doubt there was such people going back to the cave days.

  153. #153 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2009 - 7:03 am

    Problem with the “truth table.” The policy measures being proposed to mitigate global warming won’t cause the loss of trillions of dollars or “freedom.” Transitioning to a green economy would be more efficient and ought to save money and create American jobs. Those “Quixotic” windmills are the cheapest form of energy. Conservation is even cheaper.

    The reason we’re getting pushback on the green economy is because existing profits and government subsidies are threatened, and the people who collect that money employ lots of lobbyists.

    As I have noted again and again, global warming has already taken place and climate change is happening now. The time lag means that any reduction of greenhouse gases won’t bring results for a long time. But the costs of business as usual will mount until more areas of the planet become uninhabitable, and climate refugees become a national security issue.

    People who have children might want to consider what kind of a world those children will live in.

  154. #154 by Ken on October 22, 2009 - 2:42 pm


    Explain how my truth table is incorrect? It demonstrates the conditions that must be true to justify the gargantuan cost of trying to stop global warming.

    I will agree with one thing that technology that makes things more efficient while maintaining quality at low costs is a good thing whether there is global warming or not but you have politicians and environmental groups that believe economic health should play no part in trying to stop global warming, in fact many believe the answer is to stop economic growth completely for the sake of the planet.

    You have intentional groups like the UN trying to craft a global warming treaty that is a threat to our freedoms and democracy. The replacement to the Kyoto treaty will give an International body jurisdiction over the entire world and impose fines to countries that do not comply. These will be unelected and immune to any country’s Constitution or laws to enforce rules that they can create at whim.

    They will have the ability to enforce what is called “Environmental justice” which is a euphemism for massive transfers of wealth from first world nations, particularly the US, to the 3rd world. The fact that massive corruption is what creates and maintains a 3rd world nation in the first place means that the transfer of wealth will only line the pockets of tin horn dictators that will use the wealth to buy arms to keep their own people down and threaten their neighbors.

    The Tax and Trade bill going through Congress will severely raise the price of energy. Proponents know that wind and solar power on a massive scale will be more expensive than burning coal so the only way to get people to pay higher energy prices on these alternative methods is to artificially make coal and other carbon producing sources so expensive that people will be willing to pay the relatively lower price for the new energy sources. The problem is that the rates for these new energy sources will still much higher than what we are paying now.

    Environmentalists are pushing for solar and wind but these are no panacea. Wind is unreliable so it must be backed up with natural gas. Solar on major scales will take up a lot of land and major solar farms use huge amounts of water. In fact water strapped California is experiencing this problem right now.

    It has never been proven that solar and wind can be realistically used as the main source of energy but environmentalists and left wing democrats are willing to make this massive gamble on our very lives on unproven technology. As we try and ramp up use of wind and Solar unexpected consequences are popping up.

    I’m not saying their is not a place for these sources because they are valuable supplements but thinking they will solve our energy problems is a pipe dream .

    After all that is being proposed there is no guarantee it will have any effect what so ever on the Earths climate whether it is happening or not but the price we will pay will be massive and unsustainable.

    You talk about conservation but when it is done by governmental force it is not conservation, it is called rationing.

  155. #155 by Richard Warnick on October 23, 2009 - 9:40 am


    Your fear of change seems a little over the top. Change is inevitable, and fearfulness leads to paralysis when adaptation is the best response.

    Why are you afraid of environmental justice? According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), environmental justice will be achieved “… when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.” What you call “governmental force” sounds like democracy to me.

    Internationally, environmental justice is a key principle to assure less-developed nations that we’re not trying to keep them at a relative disadvantage.

    Wind and solar are NOT more expensive than coal. For one thing, many of the costs of coal power are socialized. Industry does not pay the full expenses of coal ash disposal, CO2 emissions, strip mining, acid mine drainage, air pollution, and water pollution. Even without accounting for these costs, the wholesale price of coal power is 6 cents/kWh.

    True, even though the Waxman-Markey version of cap-and-trade is another huge subsidy to the coal industry, it might eventually bring some of the externalities of coal power into the market. (I don’t support Waxman_Markey, because the bill would eliminate the existing EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions).

    Wind is 3-5 cents/kWh. Solar is more expensive, but new technology is expected to bring it down to 5 cents/kWh in the near future. Bonus: unlike coal, wind and solar won’t destroy our long-term ability to live on this planet.

    Nobody is “trying to stop global warming.” That’s impossible, since it is already happening and will continue for some time regardless. But the cost of moving to a green economy isn’t “gargantuan.” I believe that we’ll discover that energy efficiency and renewable energy lower the cost of living. Plus, we might avoid triggering irreversible climate change if we do it now.

  156. #156 by Tom Feine on October 23, 2009 - 11:22 am

    I love it, internet commentary on global warming brought to you by a coal fired plant. We could make a difference by just turning this thing off and holding our breath 3 times a day.

    What do you drive Richard if I may ask? How do you heat? Name something you have actually done to lower your carbon footprint. Not being provocative, just want to know what a fearless environmental warrior dresses up like…so I can make a costume for Halloween.

  157. #157 by Richard Warnick on October 23, 2009 - 2:26 pm


    You know and I know that most people aren’t going to ride bicycles to work and install solar heat and electricity in our homes. We’re up against an economy that pretty much forces us to live in the suburbs and stay hooked to the utility grid.

    My carbon footprint is a bit below the national average. I live in Utah, which is bad, but I very rarely get on an airplane, which reduces it.

    House = 4.44 tons
    Flights = 0 tons
    Car = 9.05 tons
    Secondary carbon footprint = 5.98 tons
    TOTAL = 19.46
    Average = 20.40

    Your turn.

  158. #158 by James Farmer on October 23, 2009 - 3:17 pm


    In answering your question, your truth table is incorrect, at least in part, because your assumptions are incorrect.

    For example, you state:

    2. ‘Is it human caused?’ The question is essential because if it is not human caused then the 4th proposition is automatically false. If humans are not responsible for global warming then there is no possibility we can do anything about it and spending trillions on it would be an act of futility.

    In essence, you are saying if the occurrence of something is not caused by humans, then humans can do nothing to stop that something from occurring. Hmmm. I don’t think so.

  159. #159 by Tom Feine on October 23, 2009 - 4:07 pm

    Richard, Which is why I don’t care, and am happy to let her feather. That ill conceived half baked lakes and dams are going to dry up and be fully baked is ok by me apropos to your alarmist post about carbon concentrations rising.

    I mean something had to reign the human race in, why not global warming? I welcome it. Perhaps it will stop the mass consumption that brought it on in the first place. It’s not that I hate humanity, but everything has its limits. As in all things an end comes, all people try to shunt it away, but no matter what the end comes. Nothing but abandoned junk and cities from no end of civilizations. If you are right, chalk up this one…at least in the frying pan Utah will become. Awesome, the power of nature, or man, or whatever. No denying it, all of it has gone to shit one way or another, at one time or another. Seems coded in the human species. Maybe humans should focus less on materialism and dreaming about making the world do something that makes it unsuitable for us to live on it. Naw…that would make too much sense.

    I did that carbon thing, my footprint is 6. Eat your heart out energy hog. Seems like you will maintain the problem. I don’t judge you though, burn it all up I say, then it’ll be done. You the man to do it. Get a woodstove chop down forests, and make the most carcinogenic smoke possible, wood smoke!! Get after it, I won’t judge you. We aren’t here long enough for the trial.

    I don’t have any sympathy though for your bourgeoisie suburban lifestyle or the inane decision to live in a desert, your right. When it dries up you will move. Maybe you kill someone and take their water, wouldn’t be the first time.

    No one is forcing you to live the way you do. As a retired military guy you are likely living on the public paid pension so you have choices. You aren’t living on the flood plain of Bangladesh.

    See ya north of 45 degrees, going to be nice there pretty soon if what you say is true. After the beetle killed forests are all burned off, there will be lot’s of open land. Man will hopefully start anew, perhaps with a different credo, but I doubt. I figure us to be agents of chaos, Earls of Entropy. I mean evolved for some reason right? Why not wrecking shit? Seems to be the thing we do best.

  160. #160 by Tom Feine on October 23, 2009 - 4:40 pm

    As an addendum: Seeing as the populations of all living creatures rise, peak and fall with a certain predictability, and that nature balances the distribution in very unsympathetic and often horrible ways, we have made a grand mistake by breeding as we have.

    You see, we have no predators to keep our population under control within the limits of the environment. Perhaps in our evolution it was “understood” by whatever forces aware or unconscious that we might become too smart to be killed by another organism, so the program was left in us as a species to make it convenient to kill off ourselves. Perhaps that is what endemic warfare is all about, but even that is incapable of stemming the tide of human putrescence. So along come warming, and if you don’t scare yourself to death first Richard, perhaps warming and the coming climate catastrophes will finish you off for the good of all concerned, namely the Earth.

    Consider your career choice. That of willing destroyer, albeit perhaps only a helper of those other energy burning humans you called enemies. You just didn’t do quite enough in destroying competitors ability to use stuff up and make carbon. Not your fault, you were no doubt badly utilized.

    So the Earth had to do something. I’m getting the sense it is about to cook us off, just for good measure. There isn’t a thing were going to do about it either. It might be in your nature, though your test numbers don’t show it, but it won’t be in those that have not yet had their share. You left too many alive.

    Jeremy Rifkin once pointed out that 1 westerner with an auto does as much environmental damage as 100 3rd worlders, (Limits of Growth, I think) needless to say, no matter what you think of yourself, you haven’t done squat for mitigation and you flat didn’t kill enough people in your old job. Next case. If there is any justice people of that paradigm(like you) are slated for replacement with the less consumptive or someone that can get the job done.

    Though it looks like warming can do the job nicely if what you say is true.

  161. #161 by Richard Warnick on October 23, 2009 - 7:31 pm


    That’s some of your best off-the-wall commentary ever. One point of information: I didn’t retire from the Army, I did my four years of required active duty and went on to other adventures.

  162. #162 by Tom Feine on October 23, 2009 - 10:16 pm

    Ok then, you will have to struggle and burn copious quantities of carbon based fuel just to continue to live life as you have known it. For my part I only just wished you had spent more time driving the tank as I can’t see global warming soon enough. When the hell are all these extra people going to die already?

    Where are these damn catastrophes? Shit, it is more like Disney out there every day I wander out. Everybody burning fuel and joy riding around. When is this climate change going to get down to business and start wiping significant numbers of us off the planet?

    I’m thinking of running smudge pots with diesel or bunker fuel with any extra money I have, it isn’t against the law, and the carbon produced and toxins are just ungodly. Everybody burn their damn leaves so poor people in marginal environs and countries can suffer weather events that will eliminate them from the picture. It just can’t happen soon enough!! Cut down as many trees as you can, keep mowing your lawn…Anything to bring it upon us, please! I beg all of you.

    If we can’t get forced sterilization, human induced global warming is a GODSEND!! How else do you get people to die out? Damn fornicating bastards won’t stop having kids! Or driving giant pieces of shit everywhere! This is ok really though, because we need waaay more carbon in the atmosphere in order to get this catastrophe thing on like Donkey Kong!

    To wit, you all want universal single payer health care. FOR WHAT?!! So more people can keep screwing and make more people and burn more fuel and produce more carbon for their extended lives? Are you nuts? We want these people to BE GONE!! Americans and Europeans are far and away the most useless and consumptive idiots on the planet! Yet you wish to lengthen their already trivial lives?

    You have it all wrong. The whole idea after studying the record of the Earth and catastrophe is that the Earth recovers no matter what. What we need and want is to make the planet unlivable so perhaps only about a million people can survive.

    Don’t you get it? Human induced GLOBAL WARMING is the only way to save the planet from HUMANITY RUN AMOK!! We have to as a species be delivered into a deadly future in order to save the planet from ourselves!!

    I’m an doing all I can, please help. I have purchased a ski boat and 460 CID Ford to drag it to Powell, unless of course it dries up first, in which case I will be happy.

  163. #163 by James Farmer on October 24, 2009 - 12:39 am


    ah, forget it.

  164. #164 by Tom Feine on October 24, 2009 - 10:06 am

    I know, what can be said? The motivations of warmers are so contradictory as to be impossible to unravel, which is why no rational people are going to pay a whit of attention. The warmers hatred of human behavior would find an outlet no matter the reality.

    I have often wondered why perfectly well concerned warmers seemingly have no trouble driving excessive speeds, a choice which burns more fuel and makes more carbon than about any other behavior. Or have no trouble building an addition they do not need in order to be “comfortable” or drive up their real estate value, and forever covering a piece of ground to satisfy their consumptive desire increasing the demand for carbon based heat. Frankly most people of this ilk are simple assholes.

    I watched you drive an SUV all the time I have known you, and in that regard have poured enough spirit into yourself to run a 3rd world country. Why would ANYONE pay the least heed to such addled hypocrisy? Let alone believe what such a source would say from collected speculation?

    You will have to admit that the problem of our impact if what you all believe warming will do is going to be self correcting albeit a bit of a mess. I am just saying if as all brainiacs have claimed, we are at the tipping point, the sky is falling, then you will have what you all want!! The end of modern man will be the end of the behavior!

    So if you are so damn worried, there must be something you are doing besides bleeding wind out your mouth or farting out your ass to mitigate your impact. If it does exist I would like to hear about it. Just one damn thing. ONE!!

    We will review your panacea with regard to your probable mass consumption and carbon producing capacity when we hear about it.

    You own a pellet stove? WTF? Pellets come in plastic bags, are manufactured in a plant, is glued together saw dust, creates some of the worst pollution as toxic emission, and of course is entirely CARBON. My God man, as per the post above from me, thank you for doing what you have to increase carbon and bring doom upon as quickly as possible.

    I am looking for partners in the Powell boat, I figure if I find a well heeled moron like yourself, we might be able to afford to drag the thing to Baja or something. What with your life, no doubt flying around etc, you should have few objections.

  165. #165 by Ken Bingham on October 24, 2009 - 3:21 pm

    Google and Algore have teamed up to “raise climate change awareness” Oh this is nice. I’m sure we don’t have to worry at all that Google won’t manipulate their search results to give a bias result on global warming. I’m sure you will still be able to find alternate views of global warming after the first 1000th link.

  166. #166 by Tom Feine on October 24, 2009 - 4:44 pm

    Dogpile on Google!! These people are about to get their asses so kicked. The arrogance knows no dimension it seems.

  167. #167 by James on October 24, 2009 - 4:58 pm


    You must be referring to my six cylinder Rodeo and 4-Runner, the ones I try to keep tuned as best as possible so when I don’t ride my bike to work – e.g., when there is two or more feet of snow in my driveway – they run as clean as possible.

    Sorry, no pellet stove. But I used to rent a place near Sundance resort that had one. Very efficient.

    PS. I still consider you a very good bud. But I see your commentary pretty much like “debating” in Cliff’s kitchen with your fist firmly grasping the tequila bottle – no matter the factual basis behind the argument, you’ll take the extreme opposite position just to be obstinate and to work up your thirst. I really do not understand why you feel compelled to bring up the booze thing over and again. But if it makes you feel stronger in your argument, so be it!

  168. #168 by Gutting the Annelids on October 24, 2009 - 6:05 pm

    An SUV is a POS no matter the reason. I figure by now you might be smart enough to at least not admit you own one. A six cylinder? You admit that as well? Really Jim you are a total hypocrite.

    Aren’t you an alcoholic? Didn’t you store your bottle in Cliff’s house because you could not trust yourself with being responsible enough to control your drinking? Yet you would be so stupid as to demand that those you claim are mentally ill to be denied their rights under whatever litmus you would create. Be sure that if there is ever any witch hunt over firearms that James Farmer will be one of the first people to lose his right to own a firearm. You will be the poster child for drunken mental illness. Perhaps such a perspective will convince you to abandon your notions of who gets to exercise their inalienable rights. Does the word elitist resonate with you Jim? Do you hold those that you believe to be unworthy in contempt? It sure looks that way, from pig sluts to white trash. BTW it does make me stronger in my argument, especially when the hypocrisy can so easily be pointed out.

    So what are you heating with, electricity from coal, wood, natural gas? Carbon based fuel anyway. All manner of devices are efficient, that does that mean that those burning carbon leave you off the hook somehow as you cast stones at “republicans,” while engaging in the very same unmitigated behavior you criticize them of. Sad and pathetic.

    A bicycle, and a 6 cylinder SUV, a large home with no reasonable heating system. I think this about sums up the idiotic mindset of those that are living in a critical view of those they believe are the cause of global warming.

    Buds or not James, I call bullshit. What else are friends for?

  169. #169 by James Farmer on October 24, 2009 - 8:11 pm


    What the f are you on these days, bro?

  170. #170 by James Farmer on October 24, 2009 - 8:14 pm


    PS. You think my house is a “large home”? Give me a break; I live in a 1,000 sq. ft. cabin in the hills, dude. Come on!!!

  171. #171 by Gutting the Annelids on October 24, 2009 - 9:10 pm

    The bulk of the world is living in a 200 sq ft hut. You are the elite of the elite. Princeton educated Ph.d, lawyer, SUV owner, with a bike worth about 100 3rd world goats.

    I was just in SLC, at the Sacred Spring. Now I am nowhere, and everywhere, thanks to this device.

    Never see what I want. Always wondering what the implications are of life as we in the West lead. Doing my part to rid the world of gasoline and all highly structured fuel sources and organized methods of control. If chaos had a surname.. it would be Homo Sapiens, and in that I do all I can to live up to our duty.

    Buy a bigger house and shred more stuff, so this sorry legacy can come to an abrupt end. Screw trying to save it. If you knew better you would save yourself. WHY are you still in North America? Ask yourself that everyday when you wake up. I have been here for fairly obvious reasons, but those have waned with time, and a sea boat is looking good right now.

    Obama is the final coffin nail.

  172. #172 by James Farmer on October 24, 2009 - 9:26 pm


    Thanks for stopping by when in town. What up with that?

  173. #173 by Gutting the Annelids on October 25, 2009 - 9:04 am

    I never stopped in town. I run up Provo Canyon, make my visit, then descend into Carbonville, I recarbonize in Logan or Ogden. I can’t spend a moment in SLC lest I have to speak to someone. Left and right field in the same ballpark.

    Transient life. I don’t have a phone number for you, and never been to the carbon palace. For all I know you are in SF. Only thing in Utah worth stopping for is the Midway spring anymore. Moab is a dump, SLC is a poster child for no loads spending (infrastructure) other people’s money. It disgusts me as a representation of what a cock sucking populace looks like.

    The whole place just reeks of satisfied stupidity. I figure because it is the most polarized dumbest place in America (never been to Louisiana) the Federal govt’ is building it up so when the intelligent in America have had enough the government elites can run and live in place where “asssphinctersayswhut” is the native tongue.

  174. #174 by Is it getting warm in here? on October 25, 2009 - 12:42 pm

    Uh oh, another Ph.d atmospheric physicist and meteorologist calls BS on APW.

    He welcomes anyone to review the “science” that promotes this crazy nonsense so he can intellectually destroy it. I suggest you take him up on it. Debunk this man! Hurry! Time is short! Soon we will soon be overcome by heat and catastrophe, fainting away with heat stroke and exhaustion and such.

    There is no time to lose. Let’s all a lay down on the ground and make a number with our bodies to prove that the ground is cooler, wait no, that would be wrong, blasphemy scratch that…. and if we all stand up suddenly the blood will rush out of our head and we will swoon. That is caused by global warming…maybe! One thing is for sure we warmers can’t think straight because the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now so high (like my hippee pot smoking head) that it is denying my brain the oxygen to think!!

    See what you have done you idiot republicans?! I ought to get in my car, go over to your house and unplug your FOX news TV!! Or at least change the channel to National Petroleum Radio, sponsored by Wal Mart and Exxon-Mobil!!! You deniers are all the rage and the REAL problem!! You think you are pretty smart with that Glenn Beck scientist

    On further consideration we should engage in a crazy long winded fight to deny our part in this while all hanging cozy I our carbon heated homes. Why do any warmers live in the winter zones anyway, wasting fuel and making carbon. Why don’t you all live in the tropics and go to bed early when it gets dark??

    You silly warmers simply do not have enough commitment to live what you believe, though if I were a shrink, I would consider having you all committed. Hmm, no because the I would have to pay to feed and house and heat your dumb asses.

    I suggest, no expect, that other than tongue waggling warmers will do exactly what I like to do. Hang out in big groups, wafting flags made of petroleum, eating hot dogs and bon bons, or vege burgers, farting, cheesing and breathing, as they await their final reward, or at least a ride home to their carbon heated houses in a carbon powered conveyance.

  175. #175 by Ken on October 25, 2009 - 4:37 pm

    Excellent article. I’m glad you brought this to our attention.

    Here is another article that reveals the true agenda of the global warming believers.

    There is a growing movement among environmentalists that want to see a world with no more that 500 million people. The only real arguement among these people is do we do it the slow way with forced sterilization and strict population control measures or the quick way of a mass culling of world population through mass murder and genocide.

    This article illustrates too well that the latter argument is gaining steam and should alarm everyone.

    When you read this you would think this represents a small fringe position but in reality this article represents the new norm of most environmentalists today and reveals their true agenda.

  176. #176 by Richard Warnick on October 25, 2009 - 7:22 pm


    I’m sorry, I’ve been involved in conservation for almost 30 years now and I think I know better than you what “most environmentalists today” want.

    Right-wingers have tried for years to equate concern for the environment with terrorism, without success. Now you want to try genocide? Get a grip.

  177. #177 by Micheal Fox on October 25, 2009 - 10:36 pm

    You know what you want Richard, have enough humility to leave it at that.

    We have domestic terrorists of the environmental variety, I just saw their dumb ass pictures in the post office. Save what you think about your 30 year brand of politicoenvirobabble to yourself Richard.

    When does it stop this ridiculous hubris displayed by this “movement”? I had a movement this morning but I don’t brag about it.

  178. #178 by Tom Feine on October 25, 2009 - 11:14 pm

    Ken, so what’s the problem? We can only hope that the 3rd world breeds like flies and gets cars, and SUVs. Then what I talked about earlier will come to pass. Kids, kids, kids!! The ultimate in entropy amplification devices.

    The sooner people fu*k and breed the sooner the warming will come and bring the catastrophe that is required to depopulate the planet. This is why I became a Mormon!! The pattern of breeding people in the place it will do the most good, America, is why I joined and F*ck like a rabbit without protection! It’s only God’s will, and I am working on my own planet thing.

    We so need more people in the parts of the world where resources are so readily available and waste is not looked down upon socially. In fact here waste and profligate consumption is a sign of status! Oh happy day! The good Lord has seen fit to bring this religion into the world that allows for all things material to be irrelevant in the long run. The more this thing spreads the more people there will be, and the more carbon, which the warmers say will help rid our presence from the good planet.

    What was it Jesus said? Forsake the world and everything in it, like that Sea Captain hates the Sea and everything in it on the Simpsons!!

    I’m with him and his unknowable Dad. What a pair of pricks they are! The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Hey, wait a minute, apples, trees, snakes…there is something familiar with this story.

    Where is Mel Gibson with some gory anecdotal movie to help prove my point? Snakes on a Plane! Samuel Jackson as Obama, with Mel Gibson as the self hating Jew Jesus!! Satan somehow gets on board with carry on luggage, secretly hidden in a 3 ounce fluid bottle, missed by TSA, the resultant act of terror forces Americans to forgo hair washing and tooth brushing forever more!!

    The country falls within 3 months as the authorities desperately try to find Jerry Curl for our president, played by SLJ, but to no avail!! It’s over…and North Korea takes our place as hegemon, with Iran poised to confront them over their total lack of style and poise.

    Kim Jong Il enraged at such an affront decides that enough is enough and launches a nuclear attack on Europe, because really who in the hell really needs them anyway?

    All the while the increase in human population singing along with Dancing with the Stars raises the carbon level to the point that the entire nation of Equador is found cooked like a Thanksgiving Turkey.

    The movie cranks at the box office (did I write box, hhu, huh huh?) as the actors in the APW heat can in no way keep the sweat off their breasts and the Ginzo Martin Scorsese as director takes full advantage of the climate change to dress his actors in clingy T shirts and shorts so as to increase the box receipts.

    I wrote box again!! Didn’t even mean to.

  179. #179 by cav on October 26, 2009 - 8:40 am

    I’m heartened to see the rational thinking directed at problem-solving (even though the ‘problems’ are of the magical variety) has finally taken sway in this forum.

    When there are ten billion believers, burning the planet, living in leaky houses and parked on the freeways morning and nite, the starkness of it all will be a little more easy to apprehend.

    Thanks for all your input.

  180. #180 by Is it getting warm in here? on October 26, 2009 - 2:51 pm

    Ok 10 billion people, not going to happen at this rate. We don’t have the power to do it. You shouldn’t care about leaky houses, you are living in a Desert, it will be the least of your worries, now maybe cooking off in the Utah pan…that is a possibility, but how would that be different than the period when Utah was covered by 900 ft sand dunes, better known as the Wingate formation?

    Or the more recent reality where the area of SLC was under 800 ft of water less than 20k years ago.

    I know what you should do… is worry like a rat terrier, that way Americans can lose some weight, forget Oprah or Jenny Craig, nothing like unsubstantiated panic to strip the fat right off you. Once we are all skinny we may have a different perspective, always a possibility when a person can use the stairs instead of an elevator.

    Of course the worst case scenario you paint will only last a few years before the grand die off, so as far as the planet is concerned it will be like a blink of an eye.

    This is all about the planet isn’t it? If man is the infestation…how concerned are you about mice after you put the poison out? Don’t you want to save the Earth for just its own sake? Have a little altruistic attitude there Cav, in what way do you need me here, or I need you? It’s all about the Earth man.

    The only rational solution is to continue as if nothing is happening and wait for the inevitable. All hail the tipping point! The sign of self correction. Hybrid car? ( forehead slap) you could have bought a V-8!!

    Let’s get down to business, have some more kids, I hear the Chinese and Russian mail order brides are fairly supple and compliant. Be sure to accelerate mindlessly from light to light and take all the routes where the billions of other people’s money are being spent so you can better rush and accelerate mindlessly to wherever you are going.

    Did I mention I just love Utah? We should export the paradigm to the rest of the world. What? Oh yeah, you guys are already trying to do that. Jesus with a 400 HP V-8 lifted pickup!! Just imagine what the Savior could have done to the merchants in Temple with that Boss Hog!!

    Be sure the madness continues….

  181. #181 by Ken on October 26, 2009 - 6:53 pm

    The global warming hoax is a crime against humanity because it will require poverty stricken nations to stay that way so they will not raise their carbon footprint.

    There are already moves to keep desperately needed power plants from 3rd world countries for that very reason.

    These countries cannot afford the luxury of renewable energy and the “environmental justice” crowd naively believes that forcing developed nations into paying for wind and solar farms will make up for this difference but when the money flows to these countries it will be to build up their military before it is ever used on infrastructure.

    “Environmental justice” will be a curse to povertry ravaged people and an absolute windfall for war-lords and dictators.

    Welcome to the 21st century.

  182. #182 by Richard Warnick on October 26, 2009 - 8:09 pm

    I think Josh Marshall coined the term “up-is-downism” to describe this right-wing penchant for believing the exact opposite of the truth.

  183. #183 by Cliff Lyon on October 26, 2009 - 8:16 pm


    Screw the ‘poverty stricken nations.’ Ever heard of individual responsibility?

    You bleeding heart liberals make me wanna PUKE!

  184. #184 by Borepatch on November 22, 2009 - 11:10 am

    I know that this thread has been quiet for some time, but the whole Global Warming debate has recently busted wide open.

    In particular, it casts considerable doubt on the integrity of the peer review process.

    Posting here as it’s pertinent to this thread, and there’s no article on the home page.

  185. #185 by Richard Warnick on November 22, 2009 - 11:52 am

    Nope, not busted open. But the global warming denial campaign continues to be well organized and funded.

  186. #186 by Weer'd Beard on November 22, 2009 - 6:26 pm

    I reject your reality and substitute one of my own crafting!

    SO THERE!!!!

    Man I’m so glad that unlike “Progressives” reality doesn’t disappear when I open my eyes!

  187. #187 by Borepatch on November 22, 2009 - 6:38 pm

    Richard, I really don’t see where you get the idea that it’s the skeptics that are well funded. If you get the CRU files and look through them, you’ll find budgets of almost UKP 100 million. That’s around $170M.

    And that’s only one research site.

    How much funding do you think that the skeptics get, and from whom? And do you have any facts to support this?

    Links to which files to look at here:

  188. #188 by Borepatch on November 22, 2009 - 6:41 pm

    The reason that I posted a comment was that in our comment exchange, you made a great deal out of peer review. There is considerable evidence that the peer review process was subverted by Mann and Jones.

    IOW, your reliance on peer review becomes a circular argument.

    Please take a look at the CRU data with an open mind. There is a lot of food for thought there.

  189. #189 by Weer'd Beard on November 23, 2009 - 9:25 am

    So you pushed info that was false, claimed it was true, and berated those who disagreed with you and ignored the evidence presented.

    Are the “Progressives” at OneUtah correct about ANYTHING?

  190. #190 by Richard Warnick on November 23, 2009 - 9:27 am


    You are comparing budgets for scientific research with budgets for a different purpose, that of propaganda and lobbying. The denial industry doesn’t release budget figures, but from leaked memos we know that in 2006 ExxonMobil alone spent $14.5 million on climate change denial.

    As for peer review, no system is perfect but your argument is that essentially every climate researcher is wrong. Despite the fact that we are seeing the effects of global warming now. Go to Lake Powell, or check out the satellite images.

  191. #191 by cav on November 23, 2009 - 9:54 am

    Two starkly contrasting ‘realities’.

    My, my.

  192. #192 by Richard Warnick on November 23, 2009 - 10:55 am

    Yeah, the real reality and the fake one. It’s like when the conspiracy buffs pounced on one footnote in the 9/11 Commission’s report and said “Aha! Bush and Cheney did it!” Ignoring reams of evidence about what actually happened.

  193. #193 by Weer'd Beard on November 23, 2009 - 11:19 am

    So to prove GLOBAL warming Richard show ONE Lake in the DESERT.


    “Progressives” are an endless supply of Irony, aren’t they?

  194. #194 by James farmer on November 23, 2009 - 11:31 am


    I find it interesting, to say the least, that you so readily base your arguments re the fallacy of gun control legislation on studies that are readily attacked and oftentimes debunked (or at least brought into sharp question) by the opposition, yet you readily characterize as unreliable or disingenuous evidentiary standards or peer review that, at worst, are no better than those used to support opposing arguments to gun control legislation when it comes to global warming/climate change


  195. #195 by Richard Warnick on November 23, 2009 - 11:32 am


    I could show you a lot more, but you have not the eyes to see. I could show you vanishing glaciers in Montana, beetle-killed forests in British Columbia, rising sea levels causing the islands of Samoa to shrink…

    The list goes on and on. Not predictions, effects happening right now.

  196. #196 by Glenn Heofer on November 23, 2009 - 11:44 am

    Yeah, are you aware that sea level has risen almost 400 feet in the last 13k years Richard? There are whole hosts of civiisations underwater, and there will be a few more before it’s over. We cannot control that. In this context if you have been living on an atoll that is 15 feet above sea level, you had to know your day would come, to pack up and move.

    Then of course there is this latest scandal with the warmers fudging their data. This is the 3rd time now they have been caught at it.

  197. #197 by Richard Warnick on November 23, 2009 - 12:20 pm

    I invite everyone to continue this discussion of whose reality is actually real on my new top post: Climate Change Exceeds Worst-Case Scenarios.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: