Replies

And then there’s the other side - you can count on Science Blogs to have global warming defenders. And to call anyone who asks questions “denialists.”

Science Blogs could just as well be the same guy posting under different names. There’s one or maybe two who are not atheists, none that I’ve been able to find who are pro-life or conservative.

The party line over there is that the numbers don’t make any difference, since they’re only in the contiguous lower 48 states.

Here’s a sample of the last 24 hours on the “Planet Earth” page
http://scienceblogs.com/channel/planet-earth/

#
August 11, 2007
#
The Scientific Activist

Archives • About • RSS

Global Warming Denialism at Its Best August 9, 2007, will go down in history as a great day for global warming denialism. On Wednesday, the 8th, well-known global warming denialist Steve McIntyre published a post on his blog about NASA finding a flaw in some of...
#
The Intersection

Archives • About • RSS

Flummoxed by Flossie Overnight and up through this morning, Hurricane Flossie in the Northeast Pacific—having started out as a category 1 storm—rapidly intensified into a weak Category 4 with a well defined eye, as you can see in the infrared image below: I...
#
August 10, 2007
#
Gene Expression

Archives • About • RSS

When Babylon was Jewish TNR has an interesting piece (here is a cache version of the first page) about Jewish-Christian polemics (in both directions). It is mostly a review of Peter Shaeffer’s Jesus in the Talmud; a scholarly work which predictably appeals to anti-Semites....
#
The Island of Doubt

Archives • About • RSS

1934 warmest year on record? How will Al Gore, James Hansen and all the other “enviromoonbats” recover from this embarrassing revelation? Probably without breaking a sweat, I would think.
#
denialism blog

Archives • About • RSS

No! Bad media! Do I have to roll up a newspaper? Big Tom warned me in today’s cranks post of the ABC news’ headline Global Warming Tipping Point in ‘09?” in regards to this paper from the Hadley Centre on new more sophisticated...
#
commonground

Archives • About • RSS

In the Slick of the Cricket Charter boat captain Frank Mundus, who was mytholgized in Jaws, officially retired more than a decade ago from shark killing, still has a taste for shark blood, and has not lost the knack for hooking what he calls monsters of...
#
commonground

Archives • About • RSS

Counting Food Miles to Curb Global Warming For enlightened foodies the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot has traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho and a chuck roast 600 miles...

For any period of global warming that is primarily caused by increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the laws of both physics and logic require all three of the following conditions to be true:

The temperature of the troposphere must increase at a faster rate than that of the lower atmoshpere
The rise in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide must be followed by an increase in global average temperature, and
The rise in global average temperature must be preceded by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately for those who have ulterior, political motives for having you believe that global warming is caused by human production of carbon dioxide, none of the three necessary conditions hold:

Since satellite measurements began in the 1960s, at no time did the temperature of the troposphere ever increase at a faster rate than that of the lower atmosphere--in other words, to believe that global warming is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide is to believe, for no known reason, that the laws of physics do not apply in this special case
There have been many periods, such as the last 9 years since 1998, and also the period from the 1940s to the 1970s, when increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have not been followed by increasing average global temperatures--so either the laws of logic do not apply, or else increased levels of carbon dioxide do not cause global warming, and
The ice core data show that carbon dioxide levels almost always rise only after a preceding rise in average global temperatures--so either the laws of cause and effect are reversed, or else rising levels of carbon dioxide are not a cause of global warming, but are instead an effect thereof.

From the article Up against the warming zealots:

To the utter dismay of the global warming lobby, the world does not appear to be getting warmer. According to their own figures (from the UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data confirms this. This is clearly awkward. The least one should expect of global warming is that the Earth should be getting warmer.
Then there's the ice-core data, the jewel in the crown of global warming theory. It shows there's a connection between carbon dioxide and temperature: see Al Gore's movie. But what Gore forgets to mention is that the connection is the wrong way around; temperature leads, CO2 follows.
Then there's the precious "hockey stick". This was the famous graph that purported to show global temperature flat-lining for 1000 years, then rising during the 19th and 20th centuries. It magicked away the Medieval warm period and made the recent warming look alarming, instead of just part of the general toing and froing of the Earth's climate.
But then researchers took the computer program that produced the hockey stick graph and fed it random data. Bingo, out popped hockey stick shapes every time. (See the report by Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Virginia and others.)
In a humiliating climb down, the IPCC has had to drop the hockey stick from its reports, though it can still be seen in Gore's movie.
And finally, there are those pesky satellites. If greenhouse gases were the cause of warming, then the rate of warming should have been greater, higher up in the Earth's atmosphere (the bit known as the troposphere). But all the satellite and balloon data says the exact opposite. In other words, the best observational data we have flatly contradicts the whole bally idea of man-made climate change.
They concede that CO2 cannot have caused the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, which was greater and steeper than the recent warming. They can't explain the cooling from 1940 to the mid-'70s. What are they left with? Some mild warming in the '80s and '90s that does not appear to have been caused by greenhouse gases.
The whole damned theory is in tatters. No wonder they're defensive.