Education: The Global Warming Challenge

Many of the activists on Global Warming don’t believe that educating people about this crises works, that education won’t do any good for those who refuse to be educated. Or that people in Utah who are not on our side won’t be educate; or some variant of these.

What I see, however is that the best scientists and leaders of the movement are right now trying desperately to educate. James Hansen is one example. His lecture on Monday night at UNC, Chapel Hill is here.

Why I say education is needed, and we need it ourselves, is that the science and the data related to Global Warming (GW) and Climate Change (CC) are constantly changing.  The implications and likely results of what we are doing becomes more dire each week. If we want to ask for policy changes and personal changes because of GW & CC, it would seem that we should know the situation, at least have conversational knowledge of the topic, or we should know where to go to get the current best information. We probably need that at-hand if we are going to talk to those in our communities about it, deniers or not. So education and accurate communication is crucial when the situation gets more dire each week.

Much of the science is straightforward, much of the data is clear and simple. I don’t think that learning the science of GW & CC—at least to get to understand that catastrophe is soon approaching–is more difficult than learning how to drive. Yet, we learn driving because we see it as necessary to operate in our world. Because GW & CC is not yet seen as necessary to understand by many, perhaps most, does not mean that we can’t take the position that it is important for everyone to understand the basic science and data.

To those who say that science and data won’t be learned and most won’t learn or listen, I say that many things very difficult to learn and tough to absorb are learned and listened to when it is important to those who have to (from their point of view) learn the material. And if we ask for the basic data related to GW & CC to be understood and ask the leaders of our state to ask for it as well, then we have taken the simple position of at least asking our choir and our allies to get up-to-speed. It also assumes that policies needed to address the worst aspects of this crisis will follow basic understanding of the information related to it. Can policy change happen any other way? Hundreds of people that I have talked to recently that are on our side do not know what to say, nor do they know where to tell people to go in order to get the most basic answers and counter the most absurd statements of the “deniers.” Now it is true that it is much easier to obfuscate, and that there are clear financial rewards for some to mislead—the Western Business Roundtable sending out press releases promoting fringe folks like Roy Spencer is an example–but we could be expected to have at least a basic understanding of the data and science to counter the most outlandish claims.

For example, I would suggest that we should know how to refute the foolish assertions of the deniers related to “climategate” and glaciergate…….. or at least know where to go to get those refutations. Clear and credible refutations exist. I find that many of our allies can’t express to their families what they believe about the climate, frequently because they are not sure of the credible information and how to address the simple things people say that can be readily refuted.

If you follow where I am going, the important point about changing the culture and educating our larger communities so that all of Utah can be given good information about GW and CC means that those on our side must be educated and then they can share that education around the dinner table, the water cooler and the church social hour. What people tell me who know in-their-hearts that the Climate Crisis is real is that they don’t know what to say or how to convey the gravity to others.

So where are we?

What we do know is that what we have tried so far has done precious little to address this crisis. We know we are getting deeper in-the-hole by burning more and more fossils. We know also that many people have had ideas about what would work to address this crisis, they have tried and they may be still trying to push those ideas, and their work has yielded nothing. We also don’t have good object lessons or historical examples related to this looming catastrophe, a crisis too abstract and too distant from everyday life or everyday outside temperature, to guide our actions.

To rely on education and asking people to grasp relatively simple science is what I am suggesting. Meaning I am suggesting that we ask people to look at reality. And we ask them to consider the science as well as it’s implications.

That covers basically what I am trying to suggest. Below, I try to elaborate the gap between what is known by the science and what is understood by the public, even our own converted public.

* There is an enormous gap between what the data, information and science happens to be compared to what the public understands. For examples, the average increase in temperature for the last century is about .8 degrees C, or about 1.4 degrees F. The increase is higher over land masses because of the inertia of the water masses (the oceans). Therefore, the reality, or I would say the fact that the earth is warming is beyond dispute. That is, we have the measurements. There is universal agreement on the warming itself. There is no dispute about observed and measured warming.
* Similarly, the inertia of the oceans explains in straightforward terms that an 8th grade student could understand why the warming over land masses is greater than over water masses. Water, and the ocean’s depth is frequently measured in kilometers, is much more slowly warmed. Simple stuff.  Therefore, there is much more warming built into the system already that will occur by the forcings realized in the future related to CO2. This is science so basic that it could be called common sense.  Our best, James Hansen explains this week that much more warming is in the pipeline. This makes the warming coming “no matter what” relatively easy to understand.

*There are many observed and real changes in earth ecosystems and areas since we began our most intensive burning of carbon/fossils in the last hundred years. Glaciers are decreasing. The albedo (the ratio of the light heat energy reflected by our planet to that received by it) feedback effects from melting are not disputed. That means simply that with decreased ice, temperatures do rise. Again no dispute there. Sea level is rising. In this area, there is no dispute about the data.

Our task then would seem to me to be to focus on the data, the science and observed phenomena that are the result of undisputed global warming. The undisputed data and real world observations can take the sting away from “climategate” and “glaciergate.” We know that the deniers will relentlessly obfuscate. We know that the Corporate/Fossil fuel interests will continue to lie and deny. Nonetheless, our Glacier National Park soon will have no glaciers. Our western forest fires are consistent with the simple warming already upon us. Pine beetles have consumed and devastated 30 millions of acres of pine forest in British Columbia. See the 10 minute film,Mountain Pine Beetle: A Climate Change Catastrophe . The evidence of warming and its catastrophic effects are all around us. Warming then, is not in dispute. How CO2 warms by greenhouse effect also is not in dispute. Therefore, to decrease warming, sequestering carbon is required. Burning more carbon is insane from that simple and understandable viewpoint.

So, the legislature is not our target. The people on our side and those confused in the middle are our target. And our first message is that the warming is real and undisputed. Its effects are clear. The remedy is straightforward. There is a caveat here, however. The caveat is that by simply reducing the amount of burned carbon, the CO2 in the atmosphere will not dissipate. The reason for that, and this is misunderstood by even the vast majority of graduate students at MIT for example, is that the level of CO2 emitted worldwide must decrease to about one-half of its current rate worldwide, in order to stabilize the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This article illuminates the “bathtub effect” which explains that caveat. So, reductions in burned carbon must be worldwide and dramatic in order for the warming to slow down and the ecosystem disruptions to dissipate.

The measured data does demonstrate the likelihood that if we keep burning carbon and increase CO2 to the extent of just one part/thousand in our atmosphere —a point reached recently in geologic time, when the data shows that for 25 million years the temperature was some 8-to-10 degrees C higher, enough to eliminate most terrestrial species—then we will end civilization. See Hansen’s ppt related to that here. The point is that while correlational data does show that complex life was eliminated on the surface of the earth when CO2 reached one-part-thousand, and we are moving in that direction so quickly that melting ice could release enormous quantities of CO2, in methane form, that could multiply the warming off- the-charts virtually overnight


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Ken on February 6, 2010 - 8:07 pm

    Haven’t you heard. The theory of global warming is falling like a house of cards. The latest poll in Britain shows that belief in AGW has plummeted in the UK since November where now only 26% believe that “climate change” is man made which puts AGW in the realm of fringe beliefs.

    It seems like every day inaccuracies and downright falsehoods are being found in the UN IPCC report. Climategate ended the warmers monopoly on information. Never again will scientists be able to make outlandish claims without being challenged. The IPCC is going down in flames because it’s writers felt they were so beyond reproach that no one would dare challenge them, and before Climategate this was true. The AGW community had succeeded in silencing opposing viewpoints but they cannot do that anymore and all past claims are now subject to renewed scrutiny and the entire theory is having trouble holding up to it.

    So now I say to the warmers. Don’t give me evidence. What I want is proof. Absolute proof that man is causing global warming. I want to see absolute proof that withstands rigorous testing from all sides. I want to see proof that does not come from some imaginary scientist consensus but from hard cold facts that are beyond question. I don’t want to be told they are beyond question but shown the proofs that x + y = AGW that is as clear as 2+2 = 4. Until I see this I will rigorously question all claims of AGW and oppose all attempts to impose draconian laws based on unproven and politically manipulated “science”.

    Your idea of “education” is nothing more than indoctrination and evangelizing of a discredited religion.

    Lets keep religion out of our schools. Isn’t that what the left keeps insisting?

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2010 - 8:26 pm

    You’re right, “Climategate” and “Glaciergate” are just the latest in a long series of denialist disinformation campaigns. It’s a constant barrage of nonsense. I believe in pushing back, but also in not allowing ourselves to be distracted by the need to counter all the falsehoods.

    So far, the effectiveness of the disinformation breaks along partisan lines. The ABC News-Washington Post poll found that 54% of Republicans saying they believe global warming is occurring, compared to 74% of all Americans.

    The public is also aware of the dangers of global warming. A recent CBS News poll found that 70 percent of Americans consider global warming to be a “serious problem.” However, a Pew poll tells us that doing something to save the planet ranks dead last in public priorities for 2010.

    Strong leadership is required much more than mere education. The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority and the responsibility to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. No congressional approval needed. If the USA is going to join the global consensus on this issue, President Obama will have to use his powers as Chief Executive to get it done.

  3. #3 by Ken Bingham on February 6, 2010 - 8:43 pm


    If the EPA chooses to flex its muscle and dictate extreme measures then the first “skyrocketed” (Obama’s words) power bill that comes in will cause such a massive outcry that Congress will have to act against the rogue agency. Otherwise it will permanently destroy the Democrat party.

    The falling poll numbers in Britain will also happen here. Britain has been living under repressive rules for years in the name of global warming so they have seen the devastation it has wrought. The United States has not gone through this so belief in global warming is still high but that will change with new revelations of scientific malfeasance is uncovered.

    Once the American People are forced to drastically reduce our lifestyles under the name of dubious science we too will see a drastic reduction in AGW support and all politicians that pushed it will see their political fortunes evaporate.

  4. #4 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2010 - 8:49 pm


    If you’re not worried, then perhaps you can explain why industry shills in Utah and Washington all seem terrified that the EPA will issue strong regulations.

  5. #5 by Ken Bingham on February 6, 2010 - 8:54 pm


    Dictatorial policies of this administration do scare me but I know ultimately these extreme polices will produce a dramatic backlash that will sink the Democrat Party. Global warming is a losing battle for Democrats but it will probably be too late before they realize it.

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2010 - 9:25 pm


    If the Republican Party had done something about global warming when they were in power, instead of suppressing the EPA findings, then it wouldn’t be completely up to the Democrats to lead.

    I too am worried about dictatorial Obama administration policies, such as the continuation of Bush’s warrantless surveillance and preventive detentions, and making a hit list of American citizens. But I would welcome decisive action on global warming.

    The “skyrocket” quote was from a meeting between candidate Obama and the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board very early in the presidential campaign, January 2008. He was wrong. Recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency say a cap-and-trade energy plan might raise a typical family’s utility bills by between $80 and $340 a year.

    Of course, the ACES cap-and-trade bill passed by the House of Representatives was a giveaway to the coal industry. It’s dead. Congress failed, that’s why we need the EPA.

  7. #7 by Ken on February 6, 2010 - 9:51 pm


    The truth is that all global warming legislation is dead now. Yes you will get some lip service but I believe the real threat of draconian measures are behind us. If Obama directs his goon squad at the EPA to set extreme standards then Barack will face a barrage of opposition worse than health care.

    Obama’s track record of trying to ram things through is very dismal. Along with health care Just look at his attempt to try terrorists as common criminals. That has turned into an absolute fiasco. Terrorist trials are the new radioactive waste. No one wants it in their neighborhood. Can you blame them?

    Thank goodness Bush and the Republican party opposed global warming measures. All global warming skeptics are now being vindicated and shown to have been correct all along.

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2010 - 10:08 pm


    “Goons” at the EPA? What, don’t they have any jackbooted thugs available? 😉

    Republicans, including Sarah Palin tonight at the Tea Party clambake, are all up in arms over the idea that we might “try terrorists as common criminals.” Never mind that the federal courts have tried hundreds of accused terrorists with a 91 percent conviction rate. No, let’s tear up our Constitution and reward al-Qaeda with a propaganda coup!

    If you want an example of an “absolute fiasco,” look no further than Guantanamo. They got two guilty pleas, and both of those guys are walking around free now. The vast majority of Rumsfeld’s “worst of the worst” were released by the Bush administration without ever being charged with a crime!

    Republicans used to try and scare people by claiming there was a communist under every bed, now it’s terrorists.

  9. #9 by Ken Bingham on February 7, 2010 - 6:22 am

    One thing I am sure is that James Hansen of NASA will spend the later part of his life in a Federal prison for his actions in willfully and knowingly deceiving the world on global warming.

  10. #10 by cav on February 7, 2010 - 8:53 am

    Earth to Ken…come in….

  11. #11 by Uncle Rico on February 7, 2010 - 11:16 am

    Earth to Ken…come in….

    Ken is in church today where I’m sure he is demanding not mere evidence, but absolute proof from his bishop that withstands rigorous testing that the historical record and religious texts upon which his beliefs are based are true and accurate. Until he sees this proof, he will rigorously question all claims by his church and oppose all attempts by it to impose draconian restrictions upon his conduct based upon nothing more than unproven and manipulated “facts.”

  12. #12 by shane on February 8, 2010 - 12:07 pm

    Rico, you owe me a new screen for my laptop, this one has tea all over it….

  13. #13 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on February 8, 2010 - 1:36 pm

    Uncle Rico–

    Ouch. I don’t know which is worse: that you’re implying that Ken should apply logical rigor to his faith or that you’re implying that AGW belief is a product of faith.

    Really, the two are in very different spheres of belief. It’s when they cross over that’s a problem. Ken is in the faithful doubter crowd when it comes to global warming. He requires absolute proof, which will never be provided because, like belief in God, it can’t actually be proven satisfactorily. We’ll never convince him. He’ll always have another excuse as to why AGW “proof” (a totally non-scientific concept) isn’t satisfactory.


    It’s a common fallacy on this site to post poll data without posting ALL of it, or providing analysis. Your presentation implies a false dichotomy–that 24% believe in AGW, and the rest are on your side. The reality is that the percentage of people in the AGW category went down by 15%, but the people who believe that GW is real but don’t know if it’s man-made or not went up by 6%. And the other 9%? Well, 2% more think GW is real but it isn’t man-made, another 7% started believing it’s not real at all, and 3% in the “don’t know if it’s real or not” category now believe it isn’t real.

    So, of those who are still welcoming debate/believe in AGW, we’ve got a healthy 64%. You, on the other hand, are stuck down in a 35% minority. Be careful before you declare a victory.

    Besides, why is your focus so incredibly politicized? Do polls matter? You may think we’re fighting a culture war, but, to me, it’s a human one. AGW believers are fighting for human survival and for responsible stewardship, and meanwhile you’re crying and moaning because you have a party line to toe. Well, I hope the political atmosphere you worship can give you breath during the next inversion, because the earth’s atmosphere isn’t going to bend to public opinion.

    But, hey, while we’re on the topic, what do you think of this poll? Are you going to become a liberal because polls show they’re more supportive of your religion (or less frequently tend to be religiously biased)? How much do polls matter when it comes to the truth, anyway? It must comfort you to live in Utah, where Mormonism wins in the polling, because it helps you to believe that the church is true.

    Do you know how long the IPCC Report is? About 3000 pages, as likes to point out. It was written by 640 authors, with thousands of contributing authors. It is bound to have errors, improper attributions, poor analyses, and a few people’s pet values injected into it. That doesn’t mean it’s completely false, or that all those people came together to promote a huge work of propaganda.

    I accept the possibility that AGW theory may be false. I really don’t know for sure. I do know that it’s a good idea to cut back on pollution. I do know that obsessive consumerism encourages enormous resource waste, irresponsible stewardship principles, and abuse of foreign laborers. Gosh, it just seems like such a good idea to do something, anything to improve the way our economic monstrosity influences the earth and the people in it, but no–you’re so afraid of cap and trade that you’ll fight alongside people who expressly benefit from destroying the environment.

    Thanks for your contribution to human development, Ken. Before you jump off the cliff with the whole capitalist bandwagon, maybe you should analyze the motives of those you side with and what actions reasonably follow. I perceive it best to cautiously move forward, and so I am willing to critically analyze the AGW folks and the anti-AGW ones. You seem so bent on staring AGW down, though, that you don’t even see the devil sneaking up behind you.

    Like it or not, your absolutism puts you on the side of some pretty evil people.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  14. #14 by Dwight S. Adams on February 8, 2010 - 3:09 pm


    I want to test you. Tell me, do you trust the topographic data that has been gathered about the world? I mean, there has to be thousands of pages of data compiling it all. But I’ll bet there are a couple of errors in there, aren’t there? There might even be a few bits of data entered intentionally incorrectly, be surveyors who wanted to inflate the geographic importance of local mountains, and so on. Do you suppose those errors constitute proof that the world doesn’t actually have any mountains or valleys? Could it be that a few bad surveyors have been concealing that the world actually is flat, in more than one way?

    So you have a couple examples (less than 10 pages out of 3000, if they’re representative samples) of AGW fraud. Big deal. You still have a long way to go to reveal the vast conspiracy.

    Your basic declaration has been that you won’t accept evidence; nope, you have to have evidence so strong and sure that it constitutes proof. You know that no evidence can be so strong as to constitute proof. We both know that scientists could positively prove that greenhouse gasses trap heat, but then you’d just deny that the greenhouse gasses we emit stay in the air. That’s because, for you, the mere possibility that there’s an as-of-yet undiscovered natural cause of the change in atmospheric content that just so happens to match human emission trends is enough to convince you that, until God himself comes down and tells us to be better stewards, we need not act.


  15. #15 by Richard Warnick on February 8, 2010 - 3:31 pm


    Had you studied cartography, you would know that maps often include fake data. During the Cold War, Soviet mapmakers lied about the locations of towns. In the U.S., secret installations like Area 51 were deliberately omitted. Makers of street maps still routinely insert bogus dead-end streets so that if a competitor copies their map they can prove it in court.

  16. #16 by Kindle 3 on July 10, 2011 - 6:17 am


    Dictatorial policies of this administration do scare me but I know ultimately these extreme polices will produce a dramatic backlash that will sink the Democrat Party. Global warming is a losing battle for Democrats but it will probably be too late before they realize it.

  17. #17 by burn barrel on July 10, 2011 - 8:12 am

    So what is wrong with warming? Be specific. Considering that the volume of ice melted in the last 13k years had a volume of 80 million cubic kilometers, and its melting caused sea level to rise by 400 feet, it is nothing unusual by the standards of Earth history.

    It can be well argued that the only reason thatbwe have 7 billion people on Earth is because of NGW, naturally occurring global warming, the power of it so massive and all encompassing that utterly changed the landscape and sea levels of the face of the Earth.

    So again…what is wrong with warming? There are only silly answers of fear and loathing coming from the AGW supporters, nothing substantive. It would behoove any climatologists to discover the mechanism of how the enormous volume of ice melted beginning 13k years ago and continuing today unabated, rather than speculating on the prospect of man’s activities causing warming for which the evidence is spotty and contrived.

  18. #18 by burn barrel on July 10, 2011 - 8:21 am

    Dwight, AGW supporters are no more fighting for human survival than Christians and Muslims are. They all rely on a belief pattern based on unsubstantiated evidence, rife with self serving conclusions and outright and emerging falsehoods.

    The reality is that man adapts and thereby ensures his survival, or not. The prospect that AGW supporters are going to save the world is ridiculous. For instance, the volcano that recently blew up in Iceland is estimated to have released more carbon than all of man’s efforts to mitigate CO2 since we became aware of it. There are thousands of active volcanoes, thousands more under the oceans. The AGW prospect is a farce, and we do not have the capacity to change anything more on Earth frankly, than our underwear.

  19. #19 by Richard Warnick on July 10, 2011 - 2:30 pm

    Dictatorial polices! 😮

    Nothing on climate change that I know of, but the Obama administration has kept Guantanamo open, refused to prosecute torturers, maintained and possibly expanded Bush’s widespread warrantless domestic surveillance programs, and maintained an assassination list of Americans to be killed in cold blood.

  20. #20 by Richard Warnick on July 10, 2011 - 2:33 pm

    burn barrel–

    I like your new name. Way to go dismissing decades of scientific research without bothering to address specifics.

  21. #21 by burn barrel on July 10, 2011 - 8:38 pm

    Answer the questions visa vis the last melt off with any scientific evidence and the current speculation may have some credibility.

    To wit, we were entering an ice age based on “science” in the 70’s, now we are to be done in by warming, despite the obvious evidence that we have melted off on a vast scale and warming overall has been the norm for the last 13k years mostly uninterrupted.

    Whatever has happened to the Earth, eukaryotes have survived on this planet of 1 billion years, we made of that. I have no worries other than humans wasting their efforts clamoring things they cannot change and wasting resources in the goose chase and wasting the opportunities to actually adapt.

    I would advise that the process of science has nearly always been wrong, with humans being convinced of something or other based on their prevailing science only to discover in time they have been wrong or held misconceptions about what they “knew”.

  22. #22 by burn barrel on July 10, 2011 - 8:43 pm

    Address CO2 production Richard recently, from natural sources, and the incident fact that it is far greater than man’s, making the whole AGW prospect moot and a total waste of time for other than political reasons.

  23. #23 by Richard Warnick on July 11, 2011 - 1:37 am

    Are you back to denying that climate change is really happening, or are you simply denying that CO2 has anything to do with it?

  24. #24 by burn barrel on July 11, 2011 - 6:26 am

    So you are addressing nothing.

    It has obviously happened, warming that is, there is no melting 80 million cubic kilometers of ice without it. The postulation is that IF CO2 has anything to do with, the last blow up of the Icelandic volcano reversed all of AGW adherents man made efforts to mitigate it since they became obsessed with the idea that it does affect climate.

    The point is, the climate changes, it is constant and consistent in the evidentiary depostitional environment studies. The real question is since the application of the AGW mantra has no sound basis in science what is really being pursued for. Simple distraction from far more pressing problems, or a instance where typical human hysteria blows an issue into its man sized proportions. The world has and will do as it has and will.

  25. #25 by cav on July 11, 2011 - 7:45 am

    Peak oil, burgeoning population, and nuke waste were just sub-plots that now deserve their own headlines

  26. #26 by burn barrel on July 11, 2011 - 8:49 am

    Peak oil…hmm, the Russians have never believed in it, and the abiotic theory of oil they adhere to was established in 1870. As I survey North Dakota we are looking a t a strike now accessible by technology that is the equal of Saudi. The Oil Sands are as yet untouched here, and Saskatchewan has not even really begun to produce energy, waiting on the regulatory environment to do it right. There is gobs of carbon based energy right here, right now.

    Nuke waste, big problem, and we are now to live the prospect of our own mutation at its hands. Rather what evolution has been all about. Burgeoning population, that problem will solve itself as simply as any rabbit population does, there will be predation, and die off, just the way things go. The Earth and her environs are pretty self correcting, a fact that is troubling for humanity who somehow sees themselves not included in the means by which this happens.

  27. #27 by Richard Warnick on July 11, 2011 - 10:04 am

    When anyone starts in about “sound science” it’s because they don’t like the conclusions of actual scientists.

  28. #28 by burn barrel on July 12, 2011 - 5:20 am

    Well Richard, the predictions of climate events put forth by mainstream politically motivated science have been so wrong, repeatedly, that there is no intelligent reason to pay any attention to it. That is the hitch, if you want anyone to believe in your hypothesis then it is requirement that what you claim to be backed up evidence that is demonstrable and consistent with your predictions.

    AGW models are a joke, then there is the now obvious fraud of cooking the data, for naturally, political purposes. It is why the “theory” of AGW isn’t getting any traction.

  29. #29 by Richard Warnick on July 12, 2011 - 8:54 am

    I used to be appropriately skeptical about the models, but that was years ago before real-world events indicated the models actually underestimate the effects of climate change.

    So its not just a theory anymore, it’s happening.

  30. #30 by burn barrel on July 13, 2011 - 8:24 am

    It has little to do with man, it is the simple fact of life on Earth, that climate changes..Of course it is happening, I cannot understand the myopia of people who cry the climate is changing without acknowledging that 80 million cubic kilometers of ice has melted in the last 13k years, yet claim AGW but can make absolutely no specific scientific accounting for the recent past climate changes of so enormous and impact that have raised sea level by 400 feet in the short 13k years.

    If all the ice on Earth were to melt the anticipated rise would be 200 feet, 1/2 of what has occurred in the last 13k. Are you worried yet? I’m not, there had to be something to challenge human hegemony and over-population in a naturally corrective system, and this may be it. Bring on the real change, it is what progressives wanted anyway.

    It doesn’t matter Richard to cry about it, climate will change, we will adapt, and the smarter of our species will get along with that fact rather than wasting time, money and energy, and committing scientific fraud to somehow claim man is completely responsible for climate change, for their own misguided purposes.

  31. #31 by burn barrel on July 13, 2011 - 8:33 am

    Welcome to the folly of man. In the face of the reality that sea level has risen 400 feet in the last 13k years we have a sorry lot of people that have built their homes and assets on ground currently 3 feet above sea level. 3 feet. I have very limited sympathy for the choices they have made in the face of a world that does whatever it wants, to all species and their crap, mother earth doesn’t have a vote on whether or not stupid humans should have their ill considered assets inundated or not. Sheesh!

  32. #32 by Richard Warnick on July 13, 2011 - 8:49 am

    Let’s not forget thermal expansion of the ocean. JPL recently projected sea level rise of 32 cm by the year 2050, with contributions from the following sources:

    Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets – 15 cm (47%)
    Glacial ice caps – 8 cm (25%)
    Ocean thermal expansion – 9 cm (28%)

  33. #33 by burn barrel on July 13, 2011 - 1:13 pm

    Drop in the bucket, and in the case of the actual warming the last 13k years of 400 feet nominal to the problems humanity will face. 32 cm is a bout 15 inches. The average sea level rise for the last 13k years per 100 years is 27.8 inches. There is nothing new or different about rising sea levels. All that referenced in the last 13k years is naturally caused melting for which “science” has no definitive cause for.

    At some point we will see cooling, and in fact we are seeing it, the last decade being cooler than any prognostications of climate modelers using AGW as their mantra.

  34. #34 by Richard Warnick on July 13, 2011 - 1:24 pm

    “Sound science” = truthiness.

    Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows. And the 1990s were the warmest ten years ago and, before that, the 1980s were the warmest.

  35. #35 by brewski on July 13, 2011 - 1:35 pm

    That is, except for the medieval warming period.

  36. #36 by Richard Warnick on July 13, 2011 - 1:40 pm

    We’ve been over that before. The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon, so apples and oranges.

  37. #37 by burn barrel on July 13, 2011 - 1:43 pm

    Bull, warmest since when? Since people kept track? Since 1880 when the world was not creating CO2 at our current pace?

    Address the fact that we are simply at a point where an enormous volume of ice has melted, and therein the loss of albedo, and self generating weather and cloud cover created by massive continental glaciers has disappeared resulting in more ice melting. It is the result of changes begun at the end of the last ice age and there is nothing humans ever did to cause that, nor anything they can do to prevent it. What is your point in this Richard, it is warming up? We are to be flooded? Ok. Man has been flooded consistently as sea level rose to it’s current level beginning at the end of the ice age 13k years ago (400 feet). What would there be but the Sun to change the course of this long standing truth about Earth’s climate? Man was uninvolved for the bulk of it. It has been warming up for millenia, and we are not the source of it, and neither is CO2, it being a lagging indicator, as when things warm up, life runs riot, resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere..

    In addition Nasa is indicted in the same fraud that was proved out involving the IPCC, and Hansen has as much credibility as Obama at this point.

  38. #38 by brewski on July 13, 2011 - 1:52 pm

    There are lots of things I’ve been “over that before” with you, but that doesn’t seem to deter you from repeating falsehoods and myths indefinitely.

  39. #39 by James Farmer on July 13, 2011 - 2:00 pm

    burn “glenn” barrel:

    You still fail to take into account current production of CO2 and its effect on the atmosphere. Your argument is so circular, your head must be spinning several hundred rpm just thinking about it.

    Tell you what. Why don’t we set up the 1U server to just screen print on a regular basis – say once a month – your “hypothesis” against AGW. That will make your neck feel better and save the planet the heat you generate each time you sit at your computer and type the same fairy tale.

  40. #40 by Richard Warnick on July 13, 2011 - 2:21 pm

    I suppose the fact that there was no fraud, and no indictments of any kind, won’t register with Glenn.

  41. #41 by burn barrel on July 13, 2011 - 2:55 pm

    It is the adherents of AGW whose heads are spinning, they are not taken seriously by anyone, and there is no movement to mitigate CO2, only in the minds of academics. As for fraud it is proven out over and over and the attempt to hide the decline came from an admission right out of Micheal Mann’s mouth. It surely isn’t “science” backing up claims of AGW.

    James, what is the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere? There is no consensus, and none being created after the cooking of the data by Nasa, the IPCC, Hansen and the rest of the fraudsters. Nasa is now a largely defunct agency looking for some relevance, I mean really, Russians are going to carry us into space because you see, Nasa is done and no longer has the money or competency to compete. We are going to rent seats on the space bus. That’s the agency I’m going to put my faith in?

    In addition, tell me why rising sea levels and warming are bad? It has only been going on for 13k years en masse, and we as a species acheieved our complete dominance of the Earth during this time. Why is the sky falling for the chicken littles of AGW. Take the time to tell us, be specific, and for each dire threat I will tell you the benefits of warming and what man will do to adapt. We surely are not going to stop the path of Earth’s climate with windmills and solar panels. Carbon of our making is so inconsequential that all our efforts to mitigate can be and have, with the recent vulcanism in Iceland, in one Earth directed event.

  42. #42 by burn barrel on July 13, 2011 - 3:02 pm

    The argument furthermore is not circular. Do this one thing Jim.

    Tell us how a volume of ice that lay upon the landmasses of Earth came to melt in 13k years, rising sea level by 400 feet, encompassing a volume of ice now melted that is greater than 80 million cubic kilometers. All this without the benefit of CO2 of great or rising volumes, natural or man made. All the warming which caused this massive climate change has nothing to do with carbon or man, by the definitions of the theory of AGW they simply cannot.

    Once you can do this we can move on to the prospect that the small scale melting of ice we see today has something, or more likely nothing to do with man or CO2. I don’t imagine you will do any of this James, because you aren’t that much of reasoning scientist, and to wit, scientists and brains better than yourself have as yet been unable to answer the questions I have asked. The hypothesis of AGW does not stand on the data. Period.

  43. #43 by burn barrel on July 13, 2011 - 3:08 pm

    We surely are not going to stop the path of Earth’s climate with windmills and solar panels. Carbon of our making is so inconsequential that all our efforts to mitigate it can be and have been wiped out, with the recent vulcanism in Iceland for instance, a single Earth directed event. No true, it more likely that the Earth and heavens have made our fates, for that is the truth of past climate changes, which were happening, ongoing, long before simians and humans dreamed up that they were at the center of the universe and the cause of all things. AGW is an egocentric theory and oh so typical of the hubris based human society.

  44. #44 by burn barrel on July 13, 2011 - 3:18 pm

    Why nobody believes in AGW.

    The insistence of it is purely political, and what is great is that Obama is done, has no power, and if he wants to be re-elected will have to shed the falsified findings of the fraudsters. It’s over..when is the last time you saw the load of a fraud Al Gore in public?

  45. #45 by burn barrel on July 13, 2011 - 3:19 pm

    The battle to pass off the AGW fraud is lost. It is worth quitting shilling for it so as to not appear foolish.

  46. #46 by Richard Warnick on July 13, 2011 - 3:59 pm

    Iceland volcano gives warming world chance to debunk climate skeptic myths
    Climate skeptics’ favorite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption

    Where oh where is Al Gore?
    Climate Reality Project: Al Gore Confronts Deniers With Global Event In September

    Politics and truthiness versus science.

  47. #47 by James Farmer on July 13, 2011 - 4:14 pm

    glenn: It is circular because you assume what you set out to prove.

  48. #48 by burn barrel on July 14, 2011 - 7:14 am

    You guys got nothing, which is why the religion of AGW has been debunked and is going nowhere. There are 10’s of thousands of active volcanoes making CO2 and a variety of other greenhouse gases. No one cares anymore so much as there is nothing we are going to be doing about the vast bulk of CO2 production. Besides, there is no proof that it is causing climate change anyway.

    Brilliant James, so by your feeble determination, basically all hypothesis which set out to prove what one assumes or disprove, are circular. In your bumbling opinion then the “scientific method” is simply a circular logicians path. I suspect very much that you simply say what you did because is sounds intelligent when in fact you really don’t know what actually means.

    Address the mechanism by which 80 million cubic kilometers of ice have melted before man’s participation in the environment in a meaningful way imagined by AGW adherents, all this melting happening in the last 13k years.

  49. #49 by burn barrel on July 14, 2011 - 7:37 am

    The article you posted Rich, claims the volcano as the 47th largest emitter of carbon on Earth. In WA. the largest emitter is still Mt St Helen’s. Add to this 10’s of thousands of active volcanoes, subtract the the political posturing and deperate attempt to make CO2 a viable political issue and voila, you get articles like the opinion piece you posted. There is no real aspect of science anywhere in the article. Very weak.

  50. #50 by cav on July 14, 2011 - 8:01 am

    I see it as possible we’re missing some very important factors in the climate change scenarios in very much the same ways we’ve all been snookered by ‘austerity’ when it comes to the debate about our economy.

    We’re engaged alright, but only to the extent (at bottom – we’re helpless – or so we are told) and with the information (any reason not to believe there are motivated purveyors of certain threads of information?) spotlighted by the most powerful – and therefore many frighteningly thrash, when there’s plenty that can be done and known.

    How we get herded into the strict framing of issues that provide no solutions other than those most favorable to the most powerful, has always been a source of astonishment to me.

  51. #51 by cav on July 14, 2011 - 8:11 am

    I guess that makes me a ‘teapartying, global-climate-change denier – but so many are missing so much, I can’t help but get the feeling we’re arguing about whether mustard ought to be slopped onto the pie-shell before the fruit filling, or to hold it as an amendment to our coffee;


  52. #52 by burn barrel on July 14, 2011 - 8:15 am

    Here is the reality kiddos, the fanatics have had their moment in the Sun, and now after braying wolf no one is listening. One of the risks of being cock sure and advertising it.

    If you want to convince people of AGW, you are going to have to get rid of proven fraud Al Gore as your front man.

  53. #53 by burn barrel on July 14, 2011 - 8:20 am

    Always remember that our green buddy Al in fact comes from oil magnate family, and that cap and trade will only make the use of hydrocarbon fuels more costly, keeping the price high, which of course benefits who? Cui Bono? The oil magnates. companies and their chattel. Thank you AGW people for being your useful idiot selves.

  54. #54 by burn barrel on July 14, 2011 - 8:31 am

    …finally James, the only “proof” I am sustaining, is the one concerning the melting of a volume of ice so vast it defies human conception. That much there is no argument of, what the problem is, is that no one has made a claim scientific or otherwise of solid determination of how this happened. Since the warming is ongoing and never really stopped overall, then addressing AGW without incorporating the above facts and discovering the larger mechanism is unscientific, self serving at the very least to AGW motives, or simply an act of grand ignorance, not to mention a waste of the citizen’s money.

  55. #55 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2011 - 8:48 am

    “Proven fraud Al Gore” I suppose is a reference to the one statement in “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006) where he indicated potential sea level rise from global warming without specifying the time frame. It was a misleading omission.

    Meanwhile the climate change deniers are delivering out-and-out lies on a daily basis, not only on Faux News but everywhere they can get a hearing.

  56. #56 by cav on July 14, 2011 - 9:12 am

    Happy Bastille Day…It occurs to me Al Gore wouldn’t be soooo fat if he were headless! But that goes for a really large number of the mighty.

    Oh well, I’m off…there’s cake to consume…

  57. #57 by brewski on July 14, 2011 - 10:37 am

    Even if Al Gore is not a scientist, was a little loose with his facts, has the personal carbon footprint of a small country, and generally isn’t very smart, I do agree with one thing he said:

    “Former Vice President Al Gore has a novel approach for dealing with global warming: tax carbon dioxide emissions instead of employees’ pay.

    “Penalizing pollution instead of penalizing employment will work to reduce that pollution,” Gore said Monday in a speech at New York University School of Law.

    The carbon tax would replace all payroll taxes, including those for Social Security and unemployment compensation, Gore said. He said the overall level of taxation, would remain the same.”

  58. #58 by burn barrel on July 14, 2011 - 10:41 am

    Nobody knows what is going to happen, though given the FACT that sea level has risen 400 feet in the last 13k years it would be a good idea to stop making up reasons why it is or it isn’t based upon emotionalism and junk science. The evidence suggests cooling in the last decade, even the warmistas themselves have admitted it. The Earth has warmed, it is warming, ice has melted, 80 million cubic kilometers in a very short time, and there is NOTHING we paltry effected humans are going to do about it, other than adapt to the conditions, a life skill humans have in abundance.

    People pointing out the AGW fraud don’t need to look for venues to point out the fraud, it is seeping into the public psyche like flood waters into an ill prepared basement. It is because the political attempt to get cap and trade off the ground as a source of revenue for world wide parasitical bureaucracy is so obvious that the wholesale fraud is now fully come to light.

  59. #59 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2011 - 11:00 am

    “The evidence suggests cooling in the last decade…”

    What evidence? Link, please.

    BTW nice work digging up an Al Gore speech from five years ago that probably even Gore has forgotten.

  60. #60 by brewski on July 14, 2011 - 12:18 pm

    I don’t know why you are dismissive about Al Gore’s idea. Whether or not it was yesterday or 5 years ago does not change the matter that it is a pretty damned good idea. I am surprised that you are not wildly for it.

    Also, I would not call it “digging up” since it was a pretty prominant story at the time. I suppose you would call anyone mentioning the “Mission Accomplished” speech [which by the way he never said] was “digging up” something that he probably has forgotten.

  61. #61 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2011 - 12:24 pm

    We can never forget Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech (that’s what the White House supplied banner read, although the writers took those exact words out of the speech at the last minute). The reason is obvious: 4,333 U.S. service members have died in Iraq since May 1, 2003. In an unnecessary and illegal invasion and occupation. If Bush has forgotten that speech, shame on him.

  62. #62 by brewski on July 14, 2011 - 1:17 pm

    If Gore has forgotten then only good idea he ever had, then shame on him.

  63. #63 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2011 - 1:31 pm

    Gore’s idea would probably not get anybody killed, but a complete overhaul of the tax system is a non-starter to say the least. He might as well propose a constitutional amendment on greenhouse gas emissions.

    All we have to do is have the EPA issue regulations, but the Obama administration is probably delaying that process until after the 2012 election.

  64. #64 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2011 - 1:50 pm

    On the subject of forgetfulness, apparently Faux News host Eric Bolling and former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino have both forgotten that the 9/11 attacks happened while Bush was President.

  65. #65 by brewski on July 14, 2011 - 2:21 pm

    ” a complete overhaul of the tax system is a non-starter to say the least”
    I don’t think this is true.

  66. #66 by brewski on July 14, 2011 - 2:25 pm

    Sort of like those who forget that Obama voted against raising the debt limit and threatened the full faith and credit of the United States for petty partisan purposes.

  67. #67 by James Farmer on July 14, 2011 - 2:32 pm

    brew: I don’t think folks have forgotten about Obama’s former position re the debt ceiling, which is in stark contrast to rethugs who are actively trying to rewrite history as set forth by Eric Bolling – rethugs actually believe these lies!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: