Brace Yourself for the Global Warming Non-Debate

Recently it was reported that last month was the warmest July for North America since temperature recording started in 1895.  This should predictably bring all of the global warming alarmists out of the woodwork, demanding action.  They like to wait for a moment such as this to seize upon possible fear, and set aside rational debate.  The media loves to jump on this bandwagon, and always places emphasis on whether it is warming or not.  Warming is only the first part of the debate, and intelligent people can part ways with the “Global Warming Agenda” at any point along the way.  Let’s try that debate exercise…

  • Is global warming occurring?

The data show that there has been some warming.  As the 1895 date above attests, we have only been measuring temperature for a little over 100 years.  How reliable is 100 year old data for us to draw conclusions from?  Other than North America and Europe, what date does the rest of the world’s data become reliable?  Is the fact that those involved in collecting the data are advocates of a position, skewing the results?

  • If it is occurring, is man responsible?

If we are to believe scientists who are convinced there is warming today, we should look at the broader picture to find causation.  There have been roughly 12 mini ice ages (glaciations) in the last million years with the latest advancement of ice taking place 15,000 years ago.  Ice sheets extended to the northern border of Kentucky, and glaciers formed the palisades where the George Washington Bridge crosses today.  In between these ice advances there is warming, or else the Great Lakes would be called the Great Glaciers.  The internal combustion engine was not around for any of these warming periods.  So we have been through these warming and cooling cycles regularly in Earth’s history.  Many scientists believe that the data says it is warming faster due to man’s use of carbon based fuels.

  • If it is warming, and it is due to man, can we reverse it?

The current suggested solution to this alleged problem is to force the implementation of environmentally friendly forms of energy.  The expense of these alternatives will force us to live in cities, adopt more mass transit, get rid of cars, and live with less of almost everything we have grown accustomed.  The most optimistic ideas, however, don’t really change the results of warming.  The Kyoto treaty which has now been rejected by most large countries, would have delivered a .2 (degree Celsius) change in temperature over 20 years.  According to Kyoto this would cost an estimated 1% less worldwide GDP.  At $70 trillion per year, 1% cost over 20 years would mean (.7 x 20) $14 trillion.

  • If it is warming, and it is due to man, and we can reverse it, should we?

This is the conversation no environmentalist wants to have.  With the sacrifices and trillions in costs to cut temperatures the slightest of amounts, is it worth it?  Is there a case to be made that warming would be a net good?  After all, there are many more deaths every year related to cold weather rather than hot.

You can get off this global warming debate train at any stop along the way.  Seeing what it costs for the solution to the problem, makes the earlier issues almost moot.  The public debate has neglected so many bigger points, yet the onslaught of vacant arguments sadly continue.

Author Bio:

Michael has been an editor and contributor at the website for over 2 years. He has over 20+ years of diverse business experience, from running complex operations where he managed hundreds of people, to starting and running small businesses such as He is blessed, or perhaps cursed, with a logical mind which he uses to analyze government, media, politics, and culture. He believes that his life experiences help him bring a unique perspective to the issues of the day.
  • mememine

    Millions of scientists in lab coats & dozens climate blame protesters in the streets proves CO2 was exaggerated!

  • mememine

    Almost ALL research was into effects and almost NEVER causes!

  • mememine

    The IPCC has NEVER said any crisis WILL happen, only might happen could happen ……

  • Puppets

    In answer to your questions: Yes; Yes; Difficult given the denialist campaign funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of mostly Exxon Mobil shareholders’ money; Of course! Do you have children? Or know anyone you care about who has children?

    Now I have a question for you: Why should anyone care what you think on the topic? It’s clear from this article you know nothing about it and unlike the best of the denialists you can’t even maintain a consistent, convincing argument. You state:

    ‘How reliable is 100 year old data for us to draw conclusions from?’

    Then, in the very next paragraph:

    ‘There have been roughly 12 mini ice ages (glaciations) in the last million years with the latest advancement of ice taking place 15,000 years ago.’

    And you figured that out from 100 year old data?

    PS: You might want to google ‘Milutin Milankovitch’ and you’ll learn something about naturally occuring ‘climate variability’ as distinct from anthropogenic global warming.

  • Iowa48

    I still contend that the Antropogenic Global Warming cult is just another fraudulent religious scam.  They advocate sacrificing tax money and government resources on their Altar of Environmentalism, just as the ancients sacrificed goats and chickens on an altar to avert droughts and earthquakes. Their sacrifice of tax money on their altar only enriches the greedy High Priest AlGore and his acolytes.  Sacrificing goats and chickens is probably more effective than money on affecting the natural cyclical warming we are experiencing.
    At keast it is more affordable. 

    • Barbara E Taylor

      Love the part about sacrificing goats and chickens, but then you’d probably get PETA in your face.  We are NOT going through ANY genuine period of “global warming”!  0.2% IMPROVEMENT – over the next 20 years?   Oh please.  Frankly, I’d like to see what would happen if all those who stand to make MILLIONS (or BILLIONS) with all their HOT AIR!  Just maybe they should try to put their alleged sensors in some place other than the middle of cities with OVER 15 MILLION in population – like some place neutral, temperature-wise.  THEN they should look at the solar cycle, because like it or not that big shiney body 93 million miles away, DOES AFFECT our CLIMATE!  In short:  there is NO global warming crisis!   Get over it!

      • puppets

        They have and they do. Just because you’re not aware of it – and don’t WANT to be aware of anything that flies in the face of your fixed ideas – doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

    • Puppets

      Indeed. And we all know tax money needs to be set aside for the next round of bank bailouts. Can’t waste it on unimportant stuff like . . . THE PEOPLE!

  • Bruce A.

    While those of in the eastern USA enjoyed a mild winter, Europe froze & suffered through heavy snows.  This is part of a weather pattern as scientists call it.

    • puppets

      It is entirely in line with scientists’ predictions who have repeatedly stated that along with a general warming trend there will be an increase in LOCALISED extreme weather events.
      Try this as an exercise. Start paying attention to news reports and see how often you hear the words ‘once in a hundred years…’ OR ‘once in a lifetime…’ OR ‘unprecedented…’ coupled with ‘storm’ or ‘flood’ or ‘drought’.
      HINT: You won’t have to wait a hundred years – or even a lifetime.

      • Bruce A.

        I will not pay attention to the news reports.  I do pay attention to the two college science professors I know, both claim the warming is a myth & will give a answer too long for this.  HINT:  Science continually digs for real answers.  Al Gore is not a scientist.

        • puppets

          Of course you won’t. Neither will you pay attention to the IPCC, NASA, The Royal Society, 97% of climate scientists, etc., etc. Instead you’ll bang on about Al Gore, who as far as I’m aware has never claimed to be a climate scientist, but is merely a reasonably intelligent, well informed man concerned about the future. You’ll stick with the views of your tame college professors because they support your own. Knock yourself uo mate. Cheers.

  • Jeff Adamson

    From Princeton
    physics professor William Happer:

    “Global Warming Models Are Wrong

    “CO2 is not a pollutant.Life on
    earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels
    than we see today. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because
    cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2
    levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have
    been greatly exaggerated.”

    Global temperatures have increased by around four-fifths of one degree Celsius
    since the “Little Ice Age” of the early 1800s. “Some of that warming
    has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming
    — much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably — suggests that a
    substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to
    do with mankind.”

    • wally

      I’ ll agree with most of prof. W. Happer’s statements that CO2 is not a pollutant.  However, I would refer to an article published as an editorial on Global Warming Hoax. In the article the statement is made that the global warming groups like A. Gore etc state that world temperature increases correlate and follow increases in CO2 that are released by fossil fuel burning by all of industry etc.. The opposite is the truth as noted in the article, that CO2 increases correlate and follow the increases in world temperature. To me and my beer drinking friends, this makes sense. When the beer is cold, the beer keeps its CO2 and loses it rapidly when the temperature increases. That same action would apply to the ocean which contains a considerable amount of CO2. The article also states that CO2 can only absorb a small percentage of the radiant energy from the earth and approximately  around 4 to 5 %. Since it is such a small % of the earth atmosphere at approximately 300 ppm, it could not be responsible for any significant warming. One statement that stood out in the article was the fact that CO2 was say 300 ppm and is a weak green house gas and that water vapor (clouds) were 24000 times as strong as a green house gas. The IPPC and A. Gore and his group neglected the influence of water vapor. Also physicist H. Svenmark analysis showed a correlation of cloud formation with the sun and solar activity which could be significant in the warming of the earth but the settled science group isn’t interested in listening. Isn’t that interesting? D. Miller had it right. ” Beware of prophets that profit”  

    • puppets

      Professor Happer no less! Great mate of the late, unlamented Fred Singer, one of the greatest denialists of them all. Not just on global warming either, but tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion et. al. I refer the reader to the excellent ‘Merchants of Doubt’ by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway for the full story on his activities.
      As for the good prof. himself? This should suffice:

      Wall Street Journal – Dr. William Happer is Wrong AgainScientists tell us that heat-trapping carbon emissions are rising, as are global temperatures, sea levels and the risks associated with climate change. But regular readers of the Wall Street Journal’s opinion page are likely to have exactly the opposite impression.
      By my count, over more than a two year period starting in late 2008, the Journal published only 4 opinion pieces that supported the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, but 39 that questioned it, attacked scientists or otherwise misrepresented scientific findings. Those trends have continued in recent months. Meanwhile, 97 percent of publishing climate scientists agree that human activities are significantly altering our climate. And our own National Academy of Sciences tells us, “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.”
      The latest op-ed attempting to contradict the science is from physicist William Happer who makes the classic mistake of cherry-picking an individual year and counting forward from there to make spurious claims about global temperature trends.
      In reality, the past 35 years have all been hotter than average globally, meaning half of all Americans have never even lived during a year with average or below-average temperatures. Four independent scientific agencies confirm the unmistakable warming trend, as did an analysis (the BEST project) from a former climate change skeptic.
      The Journal’s readers would benefit from more high-quality information about the science and less spin from ideologues.
      Scott A. Mandia, Professor & Asst. Chair – Physical SciencesT-202 Smithtown Science Bldg., S.C.C.C.533 College Rd.Selden, NY  11784

  • AnnettaF

    I don’t dispute that humankind has contributed to the warming of the earth, but I also have read about temperature extremes prior to the Industrial Age.

    It has been hot in many parts of the US, but the Pacific Northwest has been in a normal range of temperatures.

    I’ve also enjoyed seeing photos of snowfall in South Africa and for some people in their 60s it is the first snow they have seen. 

    The earth is a complex instrument and we need to take care of it, but it would be arrogant to think that human’s are the only ones who affect temperature swings or that we have enough understanding to mandate changes based on limited knowledge.

    • puppets

      So you can read and like looking at pictures. Good for you! And yes, it would be arrogant – and stupid – ‘. . . to think that human’s are the only ones who affect temperature swings or that we have enough understanding to mandate changes based on limited knowledge.’ We don’t and we aren’t.

  • Joel Wischkaemper

    Over all of these years of earth’s existence, there have been many, many natural events that created warming, and created cooling.  And if you turned off all the energy sources in this world, and and allowed the influence of mankind to sink to oblivion, the world would continue to warm, and continue to cool.  As you look at the very deep ice cores being drawn in the Arctic and Antarctic, you can watch those rises in temperature and also the moves to global cooling, and you can do that .very. simply.  This site will help all to understand much better.

    In the past, there have been green house gasses that contributed to warming, but they were natural sorts of gasses.  In this day and age, we have gasses that are creating greenhouse warming that do not occur naturally and which are building up in our atmosphere.  Look at the gasses over thousands of years locked in those ice cores, and then look at the numbers on gasses in the atmosphere today.  If mankind is NOT the cause of the warming of earth, what ever IS causing it is going to kill all of us rather soon.  But mankind IS the cause, and this world had better adopt the Chinese ‘One Child’ philosophy or mother nature will adopt the .. no humans.. philosophy. 

  • Dogmanpete

    Liberal propaganda reminds me communist and facist propaganda.  If you tell people alie for some many years, it will eventually became a truth in their hearts and minds.  Problem is that many people will not research the issue and they like how others talk smoothly.  They ignorant by choice.

    • puppets

      ‘They ignorant by choice.’

      And what’s your excuse?

  • Al Green

    liberals are liars

    • puppets

      Whereas conservatives like ummmmm – Wall St bankers! – always tell the truth.
      Why even bother posting mate, if that’s the best you’ve got?

  • Al Green

    Al Gore said malibu california would be underwater by 2020
    then he bought a $20 million  mansion there

  • Al Green

    its always hot down here in louisiana every summer,you feel like the devil is walking beside you

  • Dan Pangburn

    Anyone that is not already aware that the planet has stopped warming is advised to look at the temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide data for the last decade. It is not hard.  All five agencies report on the web. Since 2001, average global temperatures have not increased while atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 25% of the increase from 1800 to 2001. The US covers less than 2% of the planet. High temperatures here are overwhelmed by the other 98%.

    • puppets

      WHERE did you get this stuff? Since 2001 global temperatures HAVE increased. Considerably. Check your facts with someone REPUTABLE.

      • Dan Pangburn

        Average GLOBAL temperature anomalies are reported on the web
        by NOAA, GISS, Hadley, RSS and UAH. This is the data that I use. The first
        three all draw from the same pool of surface measurement data. The last two
        draw from a common pool of satellite measurements. Each agency processes the
        data slightly differently from the others. Each believes that their way is most
        accurate. To avoid bias, I average all five. The averages are listed here.


        2001    0.3473

        2002    0.4278

        2003    0.4245

        2004    0.3641

        2005    0.4663

        2006    0.3930

        2007    0.4030

        2008    0.2598

        2009    0.4022

        2010    0.5298

        2011    0.3317


        A straight line (trend line) fit to this data has no slope.
        That means that, for over a decade, average global temperature has not changed
        and that is the basis for my statement that the planet “…stopped


        The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been measured at
        various places and times over the years. The data showed that the level is
        quite the same irrespective of the location. As a result, now the atmospheric
        carbon dioxide level is measured and reported only from Mauna Loa Hawaii. I
        averaged and interpolated a few points from other sources to get a best estimate for 1800 of
        281.64 ppmv. The average value for 2001 was 371.13 and the value for June 2012
        is 393.48. Thus since 2001 the atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 25%
        of the increase from 1800 to 2001.


        No amount of spin can rationalize that the CO2 increase
        caused the temperature increase to 2001 but that 25% additional CO2 increase
        had no effect on temperature after 2001.


        I developed an equation that calculates average global temperatures, for all of the years since accurate
        measurements world wide have been made, with an accruacy of 88%.  Including the influence of CO2 only increased
        the accuracy by 0.5%. The time-integral of sunspots is an accurate proxy that I
        discovered for the net energy retained by the planet.


        • puppets

          Dan has four “coefficients”, a, b, c and d.Usually coefficients are constants without dimensions (e.g. π). I know that some engineering terms use coefficients with units, but if they are they’re quoted in units. Since Dan doesn’t explain the units for his terms in the equation , there is a real problem with a, b & d when looking at dimensional analysis (I can’t comment on c since I don’t understand the term). Possibly he meant that a and d were in units of K and b was in K-1 it might make more sense – but he didn’t say this.But wait – Dan earlier stated that the coefficients are “to be determined” (i.e. not known).They are not coefficients or even constants – he selects his terms according to the year (and even offers different versions for the same year).His “coefficients” are variables! He even states that the “coefficients” are adjusted to get the “best fit” of R2.If I’m reading this correctly, then there is no supporting science of his coefficients. His “coefficients” are nothing more than pattern matching.

          • Dan Pangburn

            Did I mention the 88% accuracy? My responses to all of this can be found at Greenfyres web site. Google that and my name.

          • puppets

            Did. Found it. Like the lady said: Talk to the scientists.

        • puppets

          The equation is meaningless for the reasons you described. It’s circular to use temperatures to predict temperatures (even if it’s using SSTs to predict global temperatures). And the model makes no physical sense, despite claiming to be physically based. It has terms that are supposed to vaguely represent physical processes, but it doesn’t have a consistent treatment of them. It’s kind of a mangled “cargo cult” version of a zero-dimensional energy balance model with no transient dynamics. It tries to integrate the solar forcing in an ad-hoc summation of forcings instead of letting a real ocean model do the integration of heat fluxes; simply adding a heat capacity coefficient does not introduce physical dynamics. It separates out the CO2 forcing from the solar forcing and treats them differently, applying a heat capacity and ocean integration to one but not the other. It treats SST as a forcing instead of a response. It ignores known significant forcings such as non-CO2 greenhouse gases and industrial aerosols. It’s just nonsensical from a physical standpoint. From a statistical standpoint, it has the confounding problems you describe, and is useless for attributing the relative human and natural influences on the climate.

          • Dan Pangburn

            All of this technologically incompetent nonsense has to share space with uncertainties in the unexplained 12%.

          • puppets

            Wouldn’t know. Too complex for me. That’s your aim isn’t it?

        • puppets

          [Your fixation with “simple equations” for complex systems is quite amusing. I love your note that “a, b, c, and d are coefficients [yet] to be determined”. Am I correct in inferring that your profound discovery is nothing more than wild-eyed dial twisting? – Ben]

        • puppets

          That is why we SHOULD be able to rely on SCIENTIST who know the data, and know the science, and know the analysis. Because they ARE equipped to effectively deal with your arguments. And THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY SAY YOU ARE WRONG.But you tell us we shouldn’t do that. We should listen to you.No. We shouldn’t. YOU SHOULD GO PUBLISH YOU DATA, YOUR ANALYSIS and have it PEER REVIEWED. Because THAT is the community that can understand and effectively deal with your “facts”. And yet… you don’t…………………………………………………………………………………..OK. ENOUGH ALREADY. THIS IS THE REAL PUPPETS AGAIN. IF YOU HAVEN’T FIGURED IT OUT I’VE JUST GOOGLED ‘DAN PANGBURN’, SPENT 15 MINS TRAWLING THE NET AND FOUND THIS AND THE OTHER POSTS BELOW. I SUGGEST ANYONE ELSE GENUINELY INTERESTED DO THE SAME WHENEVER THEY’RE CONFRONTED BY SUCH CLEVER-SOUNDING HOGWASH.

          • Dan Pangburn

            Apparently you are not aware that the data sources that I listed are all of them. All that I did was add the five together for each year and divide the sum by five. Perhaps that is too complex for you.

          • puppets

            ad hohuminem

  • JohnInMA

    From my perspective the hot summer has caused some of the most notorious “scientists” who have led the debate to ramp up their catastrophic warnings without any real new evidence.  Case in point is the NASA employee (scientist?  maybe), James Hansen who has thrown it into hyperdrive.  It is so close to being “too late” in his recent scribe, that the catastrophe is nigh upon us.  Perhaps we need to recreate the Civil Defense bomb shelters for Hansen and those who believe his words so that they have comfort they can be protected from the next great evil – in this case a deluge of water?  not clear really.  

    The import thing to remember is Hansen has no new evidence, per se.  The man who has been one of the most vocal criers, reanalyzed modern, measured temperatures.  His current statistical analyses places a much greater PROBABILITY on CO2 being the driver (and man, of course).   An academic once told me that statistics are dangerous if taken too seriously, e.g. if critical and costly decisions are made purely relying on a single of few analyses.  He always suggested that a rational mind should replace terms such as “probable” or “highly probable” with the term “probably” and retest one’s commitment to an action.

    • Shrinque

      Great post.  I would add that it is comical how Hansen is the first one to dismiss the coldest winters in the reporting period as  “weather, not climate.” Further,  in that recent screed,  Hansen fails to address July temperatures in the Andes or in Antactica. How is the Antarctic ice sheet doing while Greenland is experiencing a melt in–horrors–July?  If  one is going to screaming  “global warming!”,  one needs to consider the entire globe, and not merely one hot summer in North America.

      • puppets

        ‘Great post’. Why, because it agrees with your fixed opinion?
        And we do consider the entire globe. Again, the fact that someone who doesn’t want to know something succeeds in not knowing something, doesn’t make them right.
        PS: ‘Weather’ and ‘climate’ are not the same thing. Shocking!!!

        • Shrinque

          LOL. Aren’t you cute? And I love your highly appropriate screen name. 

          • puppets

            Ooooh. Savage! You’ve got right to the heart of the matter there. Cut my argument to ribbons by dissing the screen name eh? You people are good. Here, let me try:
            Shrinque: referring to your manhood, a psychological need or your mental faculties?
            I’m going all three.

          • Shrinque

            Your “argument”? What “argument”? All I read was a sophomoric reaction to a scientist’s questioning of a narcissistic fraud, relying on your puppet masters to move your mouth.

            And not even close on my screen name. Here’s a hint: Consider what I might do for a living

          • puppets

            “And not even close on my screen name. Here’s a hint: Consider what I might do for a living”
            I did. It’s pretty obvious. I was responding in kind to your peurile nonsense. Thought about what I might do for a living?

            And you said you were a “scientist”. Not a psychologist, which is psuedo-science at best.

          • Shrinque

            Not a psychologist, but you are getting warm.

            Psychology is not a pseudo-science, btw.

          • puppets

            “Not a psychologist, but you are getting warm.Psychology is not a pseudo-science, btw.”I don’t give a rats mate. You’re certainly not a very good “scientist” whatever it is you do. And psychology is SOOOO a pseudo science. Like I said: at best.

    • puppets

      And what of the consensus (‘general agreement about something’ Compact OED) opinion of the rest of the climate science community? Oh, that’s right! I forgot. The CONSPIRACY!!!

      • Shrinque

        Consensus is not science. The consensus used to be that diseases were caused by demon possession. Then, the consensus was that it was an imbalance of the four basic humors. Wow.

        Oh, and by the way, the consensus at one time was that the earth is flat and that the moon, stars, and planets revolved around it.

        James Hansen, Michael Mann, and the rest of AGW heads take their highly suspect data and feed it into their computers which are programmed to tell them exactly what they want to hear. Then, they take their “computer models” to a has-been  politician whose scientiifc and academic credentials include an undergraduate degree in journalism (mediocre grades), and no graduate degree of any kind (although he did spend one semester each in Divinity school and law school before flunking out and withdrawing while failing every course, respectively) to give the “lectures” and produce the “documentaries” to spread their unhinged alarmism.

        You lost any credibility you had, if you had any at all, by invoking “consensus.” Go back to studying Alinsky and Marx and leave the science to scientists like me.

        • puppets

          You’re a scientist? In what field? From where? The University of East Bum Crack? You can’t even read and make sense of a simple statement. I did not say “consensus is science”. I said there’s consensus among scientists. There’s more than a slight difference between those two statements – one any REAL scientist would spot in a flash. As for demonic possession and the four humours you are speaking of a pre-scientific age where ludicrous claims such as those had no way of being tested by observation or experiment, not a luxury you’re afforded. BTW, you’re wrong about the flat earth bit. That was never a widely held belief. The geocentric universe on the other hand remained an entrenched belief for centuries after it was proven thanks to powerful religious/ideological interests maintaining a disinformation campaign designed to maintain their own privileged positions. Sound familiar?
          And sorry. I’m not a Marxist. I know it comforts the likes of you to categorise those who disagree with you, but even Cold War-era America ultimately rejected McCarthyism as just too broad and unintelligent an attack on those who disagreed with her and her “civilising” mission.

          • Shrinque

            Ah, the ad hominem. Last bastion of the desparate.

          • puppets

            “You lost any credibility you had, if you had any at all, by invoking “consensus.” Go back to studying Alinsky and Marx and leave the science to scientists like me.”
            Couldn’t agree more.

      • JohnInMA

        Sadly, you seem to know little of science.  But from your posts to this article alone it seems you are quite the avid partisan – meaning active politically.  It’s too bad that many on the ‘warming’ side are mostly just politically active, too.  Consensus in science is NOT achieved from declaring it nor from political force (in this case used to avoid debate).  One of the fundamental principles of science is the artful and effective use of skepticism and query.  In modern times – maybe the last decade? – that is the major flaw for those politicians masquerading as scientists who want massive, radical, and costly transformations that cannot be supported by their arguments.  The debate has long since passed about the likelihood of whether the climate is changing and more towards the efficacy of man’s reaction.

        Those who want the most radical action are still left in a situation where they have become almost purely political but have the least political clout ever in their long effort.  What Hansen has done is remind us that all they are left with is to reanalyze old data to arrive at new results to reinforce their old conclusions.  No new debate.  No new approach.  

        So, while the dinosaur politicians like Hansen are left dwelling in their own self-created glory, the debate has moved into another era.  And fewer people accept the actions proposed by the dinosaurs as a “corrective” or an “abatement”.  Trillions of dollars for potentially little gain has become more of a hackneyed cry that one of meaning.

        • puppets

          “What Hansen has done is remind us that all they are left with is to reanalyze old data to arrive at new results to reinforce their old conclusions.  No new debate….” Oh really?
          “The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an “unprecedented” rate, according to NASA satellite data that shows 97 per cent of the vast mass is undergoing some form of melting.
          “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?” a NASA researcher, Son Nghiem, said.
          About half the ice sheet usually shows signs of melting in a northern hemisphere summer, but the satellite data shows that between July 8 and July 12 the melt extended to cover almost all of Greenland.”
          Read more:

          • JohnInMA

            Sticking to the topic at hand, Hansen simply produced a new statistical analysis on existing data.  He was triggered by his observations on current weather trends.  But, again, proper scientists would wonder why each new occurrence was not predicted via the models (skepticism) and modify assumptions and revise analytical methods as needed.  Hansen seems to have started along those lines, but ultimately chose to reprove his hypothesis of man’s primary contribution via CO2.  And miraculously he proved to himself that the ONLY cause could be man and CO2.  It’s not scientifically rigorous, but it neatly uses scientific calculations.

            But the bigger point, that you and the remaining scientific politicians stuck in the “man-made” rut have missed perhaps completely, is that the confidence needed to commit vast amounts of wealth and impact so many different aspects of productivity is missing.  The models are not entirely accurate.  Predictions have low confidence levels (in scientific terms).  And even the predicted outcomes should the radical transformations be enacted are very bad returns on investment.  Only if you abandon nearly all historical and modern economic principals can you begin to accept the requested ‘programs’. 

            Perhaps that is why the dwindling group of scientific politicians have revisited their cataclysmic cries. 

          • puppets

            Sticking to the topic at hand? You said:
            “What Hansen has done is remind us that all they are left with is to reanalyze old data to arrive at new results to reinforce their old conclusions.  No new debate….” To which I responded with evidence that counters that statement. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that – broadly speaking – how the scientific method works?. But now you don’t want to discuss evidence, instead you’re banging on about politics. It’s a typical tactic of the professional obfuscator.
            You say I don’t know much about science and then make dumb-arse statements like, ‘The models are not entirely accurate.’ No? Really! Of course they wouldn’t be ‘models’ then, would they Einstein? And that arrant nonsense, ‘Predictions have low confidence levels (in scientific terms)’. As a blanket statement that’s ludicrous and about as unscientific as it comes.
            If you’re really so interested in who knows what about science, why don’t you critique this article, which one minute claims, ‘How reliable is 100 year old data for us to draw conclusions from’, then in the next breath, ‘There have been roughly 12 mini ice-ages (glaciations) in the last million years with the latest advancement of ice taking place 15,00 years ago.’ Now there’s a man BORN to science.
            As for consensus and what it means, you can come across all clever-clever about that as much as you like – you really are the renaissance man aren’t you? – but I’m just a simple bloke. And if 97 neurosurgeons told me I needed to have that brain tumour removed right now or I might die, I wouldn’t be listening much to the three who said they weren’t that sure. That’s what I mean by consensus.
            And while I’ve got you here, spare me your assumptions. If your going to pretend such intellectual superiority, it’s not a tactic I’d employ. I am NOT politically active, nor partisan, nor do I want massive upheaval in my life. I’m just an ordinary bloke concerned about the future.

          • JohnInMA

            Good grief, I never suggested that a glacier melting was not noteworthy or interesting.  It simply wasn’t a part of the new Hansen study of old data nor entirely predicted.  

            A mathematical model is a tool used for estimating and prediction, among other uses.  They typically are presented with error predictions and at times include separate calculations for defining related error correction.  It’s not uncommon to create a model by the activity of ‘curve fitting’, and sometimes those activities are a means to correct a purely analytical model by comparing it to measured data.   A lot of the controversy over the published opinions of the scientific politicians is tied to the view that a more complicated form of curve fitting has been conducted with a bias.  In one case data was proven to have been artfully modified before being introduced to a test.

            Again, Hansen is representative of the flaws and stuck in the past glory when influence was on the rise.  While not wanting to debate every point and comment of the original article, my “topic at hand” was a simple example of where the debate stands.  As the author questions, even if we ignore the flaws and accept that man is a primary factor in climate change, then what?  Those like Hansen have decided the answer is to further intensify the cries of catastrophe.  Even in light of the fact that the models are proven more error prone, not less, the call is for vast and expensive programs or else. 

            The science is not convincing, and it is a distortion at best to use the “consensus” idea as a deflection on the facts as they stand about the accuracy and certainty.  While there may be almost no debate that the climate is changing yesterday and today, there is a huge debate about, say, 2030.

          • puppets

            ‘While not wanting to debate every point and comment of the original article, my “topic at hand” was a simple example of where the debate stands.’Of course you don’t want to debate every point and comment. It’s perhaps the best known tactic of the professional obfuscator – along with ‘manufacturing doubt’ – known as ‘cherry-picking’. Unfortunately you give yourself away by applying different standards to those you agree with from those you don’t. I’m not a scientist but I’m clearly better informed on this topic than the author of this rubbish article, yet you attack me for my lack of scientific knowledge. Neither am I the least bit impressed by your exposition on computer modeling. I presume you have less doubt about its efficacy in managing air traffic flows, insurance, the stock market etc., etc. But when it comes to your clearly ideological position on global warming, your doubts come to the fore.
            You are aware I presume that the science of global warming is not entirely predicated on computer models? There is such a thing as ‘data’. You must know because you find the fact that a ‘glacier’ (by which I presume you mean the Greenland ice-sheet) melting ‘noteworthy’ and ‘interesting’. Nor is James Hansen the only climate scientist concerned about this issue, yet you focus laser-like on him because you’ve found some flaw in his reasoning. Cherry picking again.
            You further give yourself away when you speak of ‘scientific politicians’. I’ve met and discussed this issue with a couple of practising climate scientists and I’m sure I’ve never met two more apolitical people in my life. The scientific community’s lame, ineffectual response to the concerted, well funded disinformation campaign they face on this issue would suggest this is the rule, not the exception. And I know you Americans LOVE a good conspiracy theory, especially when it reinforces your prejudices, but the idea that that is what is occuring here is even more moronic than statements such as, ‘The models are not entirely accurate’.
            You do a great job of sounding all ‘scientific’, reaonable and equivocal, but you’re not fooling me for one second.

          • JohnInMA

            Do you really think either of us are going to prove our points in their entirety on a comments forum of a website?

            Why are you so sensitive about your “lack of scientific knowledge”?   I’m not attacking, just pointing out that you are arguing points of scientific observation or published studies, but don’t fully understand what underlies them.  I don’t have a solid grasp on history, for example.  It would be fair to point out the same were I commenting on an article on such a topic.

            Please, take a deep breath.  I’ve never accused every scientist everywhere of being scientific politicians.  The reference is to a group who act politically, with Hansen being a prime, public representative.  Anyone using the term ‘consensus’ is likely in that camp, as well.  Those who actively berate and unfairly criticize those who disagree are solidly in that group.   For example, it is common for scientific politicians to decry someone’s credentials, especially if they are meteorologists or any other non-climate science expert.  It has a fraternal air to it, and is yet another example of deviation from good scientific practice.  For centuries, physicists have made significant contributions to mathematics and chemists have made significant contributions to physics, etc.  Even practicing engineers have contributed to pure science theory (gasp! – humor).

            My suggestion is that you take a closer look at the public face of those whom you believe.  They are most commonly scientific politicians.  Yes, there are many who are devoted to pure science and discovery.  They are not the ones working to get on the record with the most fear-inducing language predicting the greatest catastrophes possible.

            I am not a “denier”.  I simply regret that the scientific politicians have taken over the debate and made a mess of it.  There are too many unanswered and undefended discrepancies and too much reliance on political means.  The IPCC reports from the U.N., for example, should never be used as scientific support in my opinion.  For what it’s worth, I work partially in the renewable energy industry, so you can remove any fabricated image you may have had of who or what I am.  I support a transition to a variety of  better means of energy production and environmental conservation.  I just don’t agree with the way the topic has been pushed almost entirely into the political realm and isolated within the scientific realm.  Telling people that the only way to go forward is a widespread, and for all practical purposes unaffordable, series of changes to nearly every aspect of life and prosperity is a purely political action and requires impeccable evidence, which has not yet been provided.

          • puppets

            ‘Do you really think either of us are going to prove our points in their entirety on a comments forum of a website?’ No, I don’t.Am I too sensitive about my lack of scientific knowledge? Not really. As I’ve hinted, I’m confident I have a better layman’s appreciation of science and how it works – and yes, what ‘underlies’ it – than most. What does concern me is that it is a common tactic in these fora to deride ‘non-scientists’ as if it excludes otherwise intelligent, informed people from this debate. Look at all the posts here criticising Al Gore because he’s ‘not a scientist’. Or the egregious Shrinque with his, ‘Go back to studying Alinsky and Marx and leave the science to scientists like me.’ You do a similar thing, only you’re obviously more intelligent than the majority of the Fruit Loops who post here – and who clearly are ‘deniers’ – so you do it with a far greater degree of subtlety. So let’s leave the evidence and science aside for now and study your ‘politics’ instead. First the personal:*’Please, take a deep breath.’Hello! Bit condescending, Einstein. Again! And so you establish your intellectual superiority. Again! As an exercise I did take a deep breath, then read your post while holding it. Easy. So don’t bother to patronise me again by implying I might have trouble digesting your pearls of wisdom. It’s the politics of the ‘expert’ excluding the pack.Now the general:*Scientists are fine, so long as they don’t ‘act politically’.Ok. So what’s your position on such scientists as Singer, Seitz, Nierenberg, Jastrow et. al. and their associations with anti-regulatory, very much ‘political’ fronts like The Heritage Foundation? Their efforts to muddy the waters on countless issues of concern to ordinary people? The vast, undisclosed sums of money they received from big corporations for doing so? Seems to me if you were really so concerned about the politicisation of science these are the people you’d be going after first. But no, instead you attack those who’ve been forced to respond to this campaign of deliberate disingenuousness.*’. . . changes to nearly every aspect of life and prosperity is a purely political action . . .’People like you have been saying similar things for decades now. Of course, had we begun making those changes back then, whether out of fear of global warming or because it’s the right thing to do on so many levels – peak oil, environmental degradation generally, creaking, grid-based infrastructure – it wouldn’t have involved a ‘. . . series of changes to nearly every aspect of life and prosperity . . .’ Furthermore, NOT initiating said changes is also a ‘purely political action’. Just a much better funded one.*’My suggestion is that you take a closer look at the public face of those whom you believe.’Hey, I’m not a groupie. I don’t ‘believe’ any of them in particular. I’m persuaded by the theory and the science behind it. And no, I won’t be diverted from that by your cherry picking. What would change my mind would be a theory which better explains the observed warming supported by as much evidence as that which supports the greenhouse effect theory. As you and I both know, that’s essentially how the scientific method works.

  • Laodicean36
  • GlenFS

    Thanks for posting, Michael.  A few facts and rational questions can’t add to any warming affects, can they?

    • puppets

      No. It’s people like you IGNORING the facts does that.

      • GlenFS

        Just because I don’t accept leftist influenced dogma as fact does not mean I don’t care about the environment.  You need to find something real to believe in.

        • puppets

          I have.