A great Wall Street Journal article about how the rest of the world is finally realizing that global climate change is a sham perpetrated by greedy government, "green" corporate interests and eviro-fascists. It only took 50 or so scientists to get the ball rolling, but now there are over 700 top scientists who say there is no evidence that people have anything to do with climate change. But at least Gore made his billions...

Read the article here.

Frankly, I have to wonder if it's that too many people have become dirt worshippers, or if Socialism has poisoned their minds, or if they're just a bunch of stupid people, or simply naive enough that Algore easily convinced that absurdity is reasonable. I just shake my head over this insane "green" crap. I guess I've always given Americans too much credit. I mean, I knew I was way above average intelligence, but I didn't think that "average" was "stupid". It seems to be, though...

I thank you both for your deep thoughts.

Now please explain for me exactly which SCIENTIFIC “lies” were exposed in this article. Please restrain yourselves from resorting to the usual anti AGW straw men.

Well, the MWP is totally ignored for a start. That screws up the assumtion the most of the warming is caused by human activity.

Then there is the assumption of feedback magnifiying what little warming that might be caused by human activity. It is thrown in to support the alamist agenda. No solid science supporting it, just computer models.

Finally, just plain common sense. If 99 44/100s of the warming is caused by human activity since the industrial revolution, as St. Al and his disciples claim (Yes, I know I'm exagerating slightly, but not by much), then when the first europeans got to the eastern seaboard, Hudson Bay should have been under hundreds of meters of glacial ice. And Muir should have found Yosemite Trough pretty well filled with glacial ice.

We know we are coming out of an ice age. That means the Earth is naturally getting hotter. And no matter how many drums we beat, or how much we chant, or tax business, there ain't a darned thing we can do about it.

quote:

Originally posted by subdjoe:
Well, the MWP is totally ignored for a start. That screws up the assumtion the most of the warming is caused by human activity.

Then there is the assumption of feedback magnifiying what little warming that might be caused by human activity. It is thrown in to support the alamist agenda. No solid science supporting it, just computer models.

Finally, just plain common sense. If 99 44/100s of the warming is caused by human activity since the industrial revolution, as St. Al and his disciples claim (Yes, I know I'm exagerating slightly, but not by much), then when the first europeans got to the eastern seaboard, Hudson Bay should have been under hundreds of meters of glacial ice. And Muir should have found Yosemite Trough pretty well filled with glacial ice.

We know we are coming out of an ice age. That means the Earth is naturally getting hotter. And no matter how many drums we beat, or how much we chant, or tax business, there ain't a darned thing we can do about it.

So then, you agree that no lies of a scientific nature have been exposed in this “great” WSJ article (the subject of this topic) that supposedly “exposed lies”?

Meanwhile on to your other off topic points (none of which were addressed in this “great” article):

quote:

Well, the MWP is totally ignored for a start. That screws up the assumtion the most of the warming is caused by human activity.

This is a lie.

It is absolutely false on two counts. The MWP is not ignored in the IPCC AR4 (2007) and it does not screw up the assumption that warming of the last part of the millennium is largely caused by human influences. There is a whole section (Chapter 6, section 6) that deals with the last 2000 years of paleoclimetology with a full discussion of the “hockey stick” including the critiques of Soon and Baliunas, McIntyre and McKitrick and others. See also box 6.4: Hemispheric Temperatures in the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (page 468).
You can download chapter 6 (pdf) here: Link

quote:

Then there is the assumption of feedback magnifiying what little warming that might be caused by human activity. It is thrown in to support the alamist agenda. No solid science supporting it, just computer models.

This is a lie (but admittedly mostly because it is an overstement).

Changes in ice albedo and its effects are well documented. I will not bother to cite sources, partly because these effects are very minor.
The fact that water vapor is the single most powerful GHG is not disputed by anyone. The fact that the potential partial pressure of water vapor increases with atmospheric temperature is also not controversial. These facts are not derived from models. These facts are measured.
Changes in cloud influences are admittedly much more controversial, none the less there is significant science behind them.

Just a few studies using empirical evidence (measured, not derived from models) to either help establish model parameters, or validate them:

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

And on and on

That said, cloud feedbacks are admittedly an area of much discussion in the area of climate modeling. A fairly state of the science review can be found here (see also the 2+ pages of references on this topic at the end of the paper): Link

quote:

Finally, just plain common sense. If 99 44/100s of the warming is caused by human activity since the industrial revolution, as St. Al and his disciples claim (Yes, I know I'm exagerating slightly, but not by much), then when the first europeans got to the eastern seaboard, Hudson Bay should have been under hundreds of meters of glacial ice. And Muir should have found Yosemite Trough pretty well filled with glacial ice.

We know we are coming out of an ice age. That means the Earth is naturally getting hotter. And no matter how many drums we beat, or how much we chant, or tax business, there ain't a darned thing we can do about it.

Joe, I encourage you to read the AR4 (chapter 6 is a good place to start but the issue of ice ages is also discussed numerous other places) to help you see why this argument has little relevance and your conclusion is false.

You can download the entire AR4 (part by part) here: Link . You really should look at it before you perpetuate lies you read about it.

Arch

My guess is that anyone who truly believes humans are responsible for GW probably sleeps with a night-light.

You people (GW activists) need to get a life. There are real problems to deal with in society, and you are using resources which could be put towards a concrete end by chasing your pie-in-the-sky / Chicken Little issue.

One decent volcano puts more junk in the air than the entire civilization of man.

Uh oh, Arch drank the koolaid.

Now maneuver yourself to the article regarding the EPA cover-ups regarding this very topic, I'm including this link from nature.com because I figure you won't believe anything that doesn't fall within your blinders.

quote:

Originally posted by Axeman 11B:
My guess is that anyone who truly believes humans are responsible for GW probably sleeps with a night-light.

You people (GW activists) need to get a life. There are real problems to deal with in society, and you are using resources which could be put towards a concrete end by chasing your pie-in-the-sky / Chicken Little issue.

One decent volcano puts more junk in the air than the entire civilization of man.

(sigh) Another person who can’t stay on topic (the WSJ article), who fails to produce a single scientific argument that was exposed as a “lie” in the article, and whose best response is are ad hominems combined with the long, long, long debunked (and irrelevant as it is phrased) “volcano” argument (ANOTHER LIE). Don’t you folks ever check up on your sources or do you just believe whatever sounds good to you?

Do we see a pattern emerging here?

quote:

Originally posted by Harry.Palmez:
Uh oh, Arch drank the koolaid.

Now maneuver yourself to the article regarding the EPA cover-ups regarding this very topic, I'm including this link from nature.com because I figure you won't believe anything that doesn't fall within your blinders.

(sigh again) I am well aware of the current controversy concerning Alan Carlin and the alleged suppression of his comments. I have been following the ongoing discussions at
Fuller’s original post, Anthony’s, Anthony’s, Gavin’s, Chris’, DeepScience for a few days now.

I was unaware that the Nature blog had picked the topic up but I don’t usually spend much time there as there as very little discussion on most of the topics posted.

It may surprise you that I evaluate what I read not only on the source but how reasonable and relevant the argument is. I like to read arguments.

As pointed out in the link YOU PROVIDED HARRY, the “censored” report was lame and without serious credibility so what’s your point?

Definitely a pattern seems to forming here of people who loose focus, cannot stay on topic and seem to read only what they want to see (even when their own source says something else).

Your "sighs" show how full of yourself you are. Arrogance intertwined with self-proclaimed intellectual elitism.

Nothing more than a biased, closed-minded enviro-fascist in type, though.

Yep, that must be it.

Arch, I have read it. I have also read what some of the real researchers and scientists who have bailed out of that commitee have written about it.

I don't buy the sunday suppliment level junk that the poli-sci people behind it put out. That IPCC report reads like a Michael Moore piece. Again, the real scientists, you know, lots of stuff published in real peer reviewed journals, who have managed to get free of the poli-sci crowd, say that IPCC report is bunk. They worked on it, they saw their voices shouted down, they saw their work twisted to support political views.

And, I'm not talking about the report itself, I'm talking about the claims made by the politicians about AGW. If the distortions and lies they peddle to the public were correct, what I said holds, Hundson Bay would have had hundreds of meters of ice. And those distortions an lies are what most of the public hears.

I'll also note that they very convienently include the LIA and exclude the MWP. Give them a better graph to support their claims. This is the continuing pattern of the leftist politics of the "environmental movement" - draw your conclusion, then disign your studies to support that conclusion. Doesn't matter what the subject is, AGW, gun control, etc. If you read the reports and have any hint of the real scientific method, it is very clear. All conflicting data are eliminated. And even then, usually the results have to be twisted and massaged to support the conclusion.

Joe, you are arguing against a straw man.

I cannot, and do not defend everything that everyone says about AGW. Besides being impossible, I don’t need to.

If you want to make the point that some folks have twisted the research to make I more alarmist than it already is, I WILL AGREE WITH YOU.

I would also make the point that just as many folks twist the research the other direction – claims like: Volcanoes are just as bad, It’s the sun, It’s the PDO, it’s galactic cosmic rays, it’s volcanoes under the poles, Plants will all grow so much better with more CO2, come up again and again in forums like this and are often stated with certainty, when in actuality all these things have been investigated and the claims have usually been disproved, or if they are supported by any research at all it is a weak correlation in one or two poorly conceived studies out of a half dozen or so that found no correlation at all.

I am not here to talk about “what someone said” I am here to talk about the physical science that has been established and is alarming enough without any added hype. That is why I usually argue from the perspective of the IPCC AR4. It is a good summary of the science published as of 2005. Do I think it is 100% true? Of course not. It is the best we have though. Science is not perfect; it constantly builds on what came before it. Some theories are disproved, some become stronger. The original hypothesis that changing CO2 levels will significantly change the global temperature is now well over 100 years old. This is not new science; many have tried to disprove it and failed.

The MWP is there. It is well discussed in the AR4. It does not disprove AGW. Papers by the big name skeptics like Lindzen and Svensmark are discussed and weighed in the chapters of the AR4. Despite the overstatements you may read in places like the WSJ, very, very few of the scientists involved in the compilation of the AR4 have dissented.

Even after you remove the unsupported fringe claims by leftists and profiteers, the hockey sticks and the irises, the threat of AGW looms very large. The longer we avoid action on it the bigger it gets. It is most likely too late to avoid the 2 degree C warming set a goal to avoid by the EU. That doesn’t mean we can’t stop even more warming though.

Arch

even if global warming is true, who is to say that this is the climate we should be trying to preserve?
Whats wrong with the climate say 100, 10000, 100000 years ago?
the earth will adapt, and the cretures on it will too, and theones that cannot adapt will die. This is the way it has allways been and will be after we die.

Hey Wrong Grave Guy...

are you aware that co2 is a basic building block of our planet, that without it, none of us would exist ? And just how long have they been monitoring co2 levels ? And how old is the earth ?

See ? You just solved the non-existent dilemma all by yourself. Good work - now you can become a stand-up guy and start informing the rest of the chicken littles that GW is nothing more than a cash and power grab by your government, and others around the world.

btw, Vesuvius spat more co2 into the atmosphere than all of mankind in total. You could look it up.