Global Whining vs. the Truth

Excellent article, Mr. Sussman. Just make sure Heidi Cullen doesn't get wind of it, or she might have you charged with high treason and locked in the iron maiden (due to CO2 emissions, burning at the stake is no longer sanctioned by the AGW brigade).

Very thorough and even-handed analysis, Brian. I look forward to reading your book.

I was reading something today at

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/

about how NASA has been using data very selectively to highlight and emphsize warming rather than static temps or cooling.

As someone with advanced statistical analysis skills I've grown tired of explaining to lay folk that correlation doesn't mean causation. It only means that two variables appear together more often than not - there's no causal relationship implied. I've also grown tired of patiently explaining that computer models, while useful, don't capture all of the variables at play and therefore can't possibly be taken as definitive proof that anything is going to happen or not happen. The chance that key variables have been left out, or that we don't understand the interactions of groups of variables is too great for them to be taken as much more than rough estimates.

I also like to point out that the nice coloured maps that show the world going red in the next fifty years are but one of hundreds of thousands of possible outcomes of those models. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that certain sets of variables run through the same models show significant cooling rather than warming.

The politicians have seized on this flim-flam in order to exert greater control over their populations and fleece them of ever-increasing amounts of money. It's a scam of the first order.

There is a typo. CO2 is 3/100ths - OF 1 PERCENT - of the atmosphere. If it were 3/100ths in your analogy, it would take up 3 yards on the figurative football field. Way off.
A simple google search for "percentage of co2 in the atmosphere" will give you many sources

Whoops, better fix that CO2. 300ppm isn't 3%

I am confused. Central Park has shown an incredible warming increase of nearly 4F. West Point has shown a significantly lower increase of about 6F. Is this some kind of New Maths.

Excellent article. Carbon dioxide, however, makes up slightly more than three ten-thousanths of the atmosphere - almost nothing; a trace gas.

In data primarily gathered from ice cores, we see carbon dioxide levels were 500 times higher during the Cretaceous period, some 160 million years ago.

If precipitation accumulates on an ice sheet at the rate of one millimeter per year, the ice will be one hundred miles thick after 160,000,000 years.

Ice cores from Greenland only go back a couple hundred thousand years. Vostok ice cores are the best and they only go back 400,000 years.

Considering that more humans produce more carbon dioxide, and further considering that plant growth is promoted by utilizing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen, which is what humans need, is this not a virtuous cycle? More humans, more carbon dioxide. More carbon dioxide, more plant growth to feed...more humans. As I said-- a virtuous cycle.

Excellent! I loved every line of it, and I urge you to keep the articles coming.

I've also read State of Fear, and I found that I was seriously ignorant of many of these facts.

Bravo.

JH

Thanks for this informative article, Brian. The Crichton novel truly is a must-read. His football field is an excellent analogy. Another illustrative example was by meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, who at IceCap.us wrote: "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."

One point of clarification: In the 1930's the U.S. had only 48 states, so perhaps the Pahala, Hawaii record shouldn't apply here?

http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
Jewish AND Republican?? Oy gevalt

The global warming hysteria is the result of a deliberate fraud. People need to understand this. Otherwise say goodbye to both your money and your freedoms.

This article is another fine example of the hoax that has engulfed government leaders and kool-aid drinkers around the world. If Charles Ponzi were alive, he would be smiling with envy. I am constantly appalled at the lack of logical thinking applied to the issue of 'global warming.' Much like the old coon-dog with diminished eyesight, the proponents of impending climatic disaster always seem to be barking up the wrong tree. The present 'theory' proposes that the minutely increased levels of co2 in the atmosphere have been brought on primarily by the exhaust of automobiles and industrialization and that these increased levels of co2 are responsible for increased global temperatures. This is a complete fallacy arrived at by taking certain data out of context. The simple fact is that for a period in the late nineties, every planetary body in the solar system was warming up due to an increase in solar activity and it is a matter of record that increased levels of co2 'follow' warming cycles in the atmosphere - not the other way around.

The 'inventor of the internet' and his minions would have us believe that exhausting carbon into the atmosphere is an unnatural thing for the Earth and its inhabitants, but I would submit that this is the natural order of things on our planet and has been for countless millennia.

How can I say this, you ask? Consider the fact that until very recent times the Earth has always been home to extensive herds of large herbivores that inhaled oxygen and exhaled co2. This has been going on since before man even appeared on the planet - for millions and millions of years. It is the natural order of our planet and man in his time is doing his part, by our emissions, to carry on the activity that was once performed by the creatures we have supplanted. Need I remind anyone that the continent of North America was, until very recently, the home of upwards of sixty million very large bison?

Consider also the fact that there are still large herds of herbivores running wild in areas that man does not inhabit and don't forget the vast schools of fish and marine life that once swam the oceans - all exhaling co2. One can only imagine, that by man's decimation of these herds and schools, there may have been a brief time in the not too distant past that co2 levels were actually decreasing -- before the age of modern industrialization corrected it.

It is true that co2 levels are increasing at a higher rate than would seem appropriate, but this is likely a direct result of deforestation in the Amazon basin (and other tropical climates), which was until recent times responsible for removing approximately thirty percent of the co2 in our atmosphere and replacing it with oxygen, something vital to our survival. Another thirty percent is removed by the artic forests and the rest is synthesized by the remaining areas of plant growth around the world. It is estimated that up until about three hundred years ago, 12% of the Earth's surface was covered in dense jungle undergrowth. That figure is down to about 5% now and the destruction of the tropical rain forests is proceeding at an alarming rate. Over 232,000 square miles of Amazonian rain forest has been destroyed primarily by slash and burn techniques. The forests in the basin are being cleared at a rate of 6,000 square miles per year resulting in an estimated carbon release of 500 million metric tons. By contrast, the total carbon emissions of all autos in the U.S. in the year 2004 was 314 million metric tons - a significantly smaller figure. This doesn't include the denuding of rain forests world wide, but it wouldn't be out of the question to conclude that these slash and burn techniques of an irreplaceable resource in third world countries could nearly double the yearly output of carbon emissions. Don't forget, these plants have been taking in carbon and storing it for countless millennia and when they are burned, that carbon is released back into the atmosphere.

The simple question begs to be asked: If you remove 10% percent of the atmospheric filtering power of the Earth to remove carbon dioxide and other gases harmful to humans, what will be the result? The answer is obvious. So why isn't there an outcry to stop the deforestation of the jungle? This is the obvious problem.

Please don't misunderstand, the production of fuel efficient cars and the cleaning up of pollution of our air and water resources should receive the highest priority, but wholesale prohibitions on drilling for oil when it can be done in an environmentally safe manner only puts us at the mercy of foreign powers who do not share our beliefs in democracy and freedoms -- and only makes them more powerful. Not using the resources at our disposal (reasoning based on flawed science) is lunacy of the highest order. The greatest example of where this kind of thinking can lead is the legislation mandating the use of ethanol. America's Midwest, which was once the breadbasket of the world, is rapidly converting to the production of corn with the result that in the very near future millions of people in third world countries will be facing starvation on a scale that has heretofore never been seen - not to mention the effects on the world's economy. In retrospect, how much sense does that make?

How is it possible in a world full of 'enlightened' intellectuals that a man could take an increase of a few parts-per-million of co2, make a movie correlating it when a slight and questionable increase in global temperature, and then receive a Nobel Prize for the scam?

I am very much a conservationist, but the 'consensus' on global warming has distracted attention from areas in the world where there are very serious environmental issues that are not being addressed and the real issue has practically nothing to do with drilling for oil.

Mr. Sussman still fails to see any benefits of addressing global warming such as cleaner air, cleaner water and energy independence. You don't have to believe in AGW to recognize those benefits. Failure to realize that others see the same benefit is why Mr. Sussman's political party of choice does so poorly in California.

Doesn't he recall what Reid Buckley said to him earlier this week regarding conservatism and the environment?

Last time I checked, 3 yards on a football field is 3%. 3/100ths is 0.03%. Personally, I accept the 3/10,000ths per cent of atmospheric gas that is made of carbon dioxide.

Environmentalists don't give a rat's ass about living in harmony with the environment. What they do care about is a pristine environment, free from the abhorent effects of man. They would love to see the plans of the environmentalists in Tom Clancy's 'Rainbow Six' realized.

And next year they'll no doubt try to again pass a cap and trade bill that ought to be named The Al Gore Enrichment Act. This act would reward Mr. Gore for his evangelical fervor of the environmentalist's religion and it would also help destroy the economy. By the time the famines start in the U.S., people will have forgotten how far they had fallen.

Well done, everyone! Well done!

Regardless of whether the earth is growing warmer, growing cooler, or staying the same, the left will always use this as an excuse for why their policies and ideologies must be embraced and implemented.

This is nothing more than marxism through other means.

Unable to sell Marxism on economic grounds, and having increasing difficulty selling the Gramscian variety on sociological grounds, they've moved on to selling a new variety based upon Ecology.

But regardless of the excuses used, the end result is the same; poverty and misery.

This ecology based approach to pushing Marxism is especially damaging because it seeks to deny economic growth to 3rd world nations, which is in truth the whole point anyway.

Economic development in the 3rd world is a dire threat to those on the left because it represents an end to their last best chance to remake the world in their own image.

This is why they despise what the call "globalization." The idea of lives being improved in the 3rd world through free market processes is more than they can stomach.

You would think that nonsense like this would be a thing of the past. It is not for two very simple reasons: Evil never sleeps and stupid never dies.

To anonymous at 3 a.m.. The West Point drop in temperature is 0.6 degrees F, not 6 degrees. Not New Maths, you just missed the decimal point. Makes a BIG difference.

"Mr. Sussman still fails to see any benefits of addressing global warming such as cleaner air, cleaner water and energy independence"

This is the problem with the GW crowd. As soon as they fail at one thing, they move the target, but keep the same line of action. Makes you wonder what the real target is? If you want to sell the public clean air, clean water, and energy independence, then do it, but don't lie to them about MMGW and say the ends justify the means. The real target? Control, aka power. Always has been, always will be.

To:Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 03:07 AM

Yes, It is new math, It's called "Decimal points" Get back to us when you figure it out.

Francis Dullard,

Republicans haven't fared well in California because we have a population that has been trained to keep its hands extended for the next government handout. We know which party caters to illegal immigrants. They can't vote, but their ethnic brethren can. If you've ever driven through Democratic strongholds in California (my beloved state) you'd know they don't give a damn about the environment. This is a serious issue which requires a serious response, not political posturing.

Trevor - that,s .6 degree(point 6, as in six tenths of one degree). Not new math - just a failure on your part to read carefully and then use your mistake to challenge someone else.
A very good article. AGW is the biggest scam ever pulled on people; and is nothing more than an attempt to exert control over people on a more massive scale than has ever been attempted before. It is to be hoped that more and more people will recognize this con game for what it is before or economy - and civilization - is destroyed by these charlatans.

Maybe the cap and trade should be applied to Albore.
Cap his mouth and trade him to Chavez or any other socialist regime.

To Anonymous 3:07am, the quoted figure was 4% versus POINT 6%.

This article is right on. I've studied the global warming data from various sources extensively and it is obvious that CO2 emissions are not a problem. The liberal global warming alarmists are really just trying to it to control world economies, maily the U.S. economy which many would like to see fail. For detailed statisctical proof against CO2 causing global warming see:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf

One of the biggest problems facing those of us who want to deal with (the real) facts and address the actual threats to our environment are the ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with the alarmists and "panic de jour" crowd. Nowhere in Mr. Sussman's article is it implied that he fails to see any benefits of addressing global warming such as cleaner air, cleaner water and energy independence as posted by B.W. Philpot. Why would one try to discredit someone else without addressing the factual material in the article unless one doesn't have a leg to stand on? I don't know what Sussman's stance is about the environment, but that was not the point of his article.

I've got a question for B.W. Philpot. How long ago was it you heard that out of the last 10 years, 6 or 7 of them were the warmest on record? Can you tell me why there hasn't been much press when the official records were changed to reflect that the dust bowl years were actually the warmest? Is it because this "inconvenient truth" doesn't support the global warming story?

Decisions being made based on the unsubstantiated global warming theory, man-caused (questionable) or otherwise, have a much greater chance of negatively affecting our environment and energy independence than doing nothing. Just because the alarmists have a bigger voice and can shout down their opponents as well as cause their job and research funding loss doesn't mean it is science. And just because the scientists who are in a better position to know (than the pundits) but don't have a voice, doesn't mean they are wrong. Given the flex in global temperatures over the eons, isn't it a bit arrogant to think that we know what the correct temperature is? Or that we can really control it? God is laughing. Nature has adapted quite well and species have come and gone. What if it does warm up a bit? That will increase the world's crop producing capability. There are other plusses as well as the negatives.

Why carbon dioxide? Water vapor is by far exceeds carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Methane is huge. Maybe we ought to stop eating beef because of the methane, beef that also exacts a toll on food crops and the land. If we take action just for the sake of doing something and without knowing the actual impact or desired end result, isn't that foolish? Maybe we ought to do as in medicine. First do no harm. Much of what has been proposed as solutions will actually harm the environment and put a drag on the economy. Rather than cap and trade programs, what about investing in finding solutions to things we can influence such as becoming more energy efficient. We won't be able to afford either the appropriate research or solutions if we create an economic fiasco for the sake of tilting at a fictional global warming/climate change windmill.

Geoff Gale,
The only thing I've seen that makes me give credence to global warming is Nova's "Dimming the Sun". You said correlation isn't necessarily proof of causation. Many point to the cooling period in the early 70s, when we were told a new ice age was looming. Now people are attributing the decrease in temperatures to a decrease in sunlight reaching the earth, owing to the pollution that is high in the atmosphere. Israeli scientists have been measuring the rate of evaporation for decades, as a tool for their agricultural programs and the rate of evaporation, a measure of how much sunlight is reaching the earth, has gone down. Even if temperatures in the past were much higher, is that relevant? We want temperate climates that will allow us to grow food. Just how daft is James Hansen when he posits the theory summarized below? Thanks.
In the early 21st century, it's become clear that air pollution can significantly reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth, lower temperatures, and mask the warming effects of greenhouse gases. Climate researcher James Hansen estimates that "global dimming" is cooling our planet by more than a degree Celsius (1.8°F) and fears that as we cut back on the pollution that contributes to dimming, global warming may escalate to a point of no return.

Dear Oracle,

Try using your real name, if you have one. Then we can have a civilized debate on Republicans and the environment w/o the ad hominen attacks. (Try cutting and pasting if you can't spell a name.)

Dear Oracle,

Try using your real name, if you have one. Then we can have a civilized debate on Republicans and the environment w/o the ad hominem attacks. (Try cutting and pasting if you can't spell a name.)

No Wil. It was 4° vs. 0.6°.

If you want to tweak the alarmists ask them to do some paleoclimatology and estimate the temperature when the first blue-green algae appeared to convert CO2 to oxygen in the atmosphere.

http://machiasprivateer.blogspot.com/2007/08/secularist-death-match-darwin-v-global.html

Excellent Mr. Sussman, I look forward to reading your book.

One question; would you mind speaking to our people in congress-the ones who know so much more than we do about what is good for us!!!!!

I'm tired of this climate change demagoguery! It's simply the enviro-nutz latest strategy for telling us how to live our lives! Why aren't they worried about the Chinese? Even the hate America crowd at the UN has been forced to admit that 16 of the 20 most polluted cities on earth are in China.

Here's a suggestion-why don't Al and the other radical environmentalists move there and protest them for a while......

That way, they could make their principled views known; and after they had passed away in prison they could rest easy knowing they had done their part to reduce the evil human population that they are always wringing their hands about!!!!

Serious people know that we need to leave the world at least as clean as we found it for our progeny's sake. Sensible conservationists know that it is through technology, and not demagoguery, that we will continue to progress humanity in a way that is more synergistic. And, rational environmentalists realize that people should not be sacrificed so that they can feel good about themselves.

Snowcamper -- Should we ignore climate change, try to become acclimated to it, or try to stop it? From a policy point of view, those are the only questions that matter. Whether you believe GW exists or not, only a fool that wants to be excluded from the policy-making process would argue that we should ignore climate change. A clever politician would see the common ground between the alarmists and the skeptics, and achieve a consensus on good energy and environmental policy.

If conservatives prefer bullying instead of consensus building, they can continue to watch policy-making from the sidelines.

Conservatism and environmentalism are a good ideological match. Why are we conservatives so eager to concede environmentalism to the Democrats?

Mr. DeGolier,

I'm a little puzzled by your question. My comments were in fact supportive of Mr. Sussman's essay. I included the mention of cleaner air and water to illustrate that proponents of drilling can also be in favor of cleaner air and water resources. As to your question, I believe my opinions expressing GW as a hoax should be sufficient.

Snowman -- Enough of the foolish "alarmist" vs. "denier" type debates. All that does is keep folks from reaching a consensus on the matter while ensuring that hucksters like Al Gore and Brian Sussman will sell plenty of books. There is a much better way to frame the debate so we can implement sensible energy and environmental policies. If conservatives want to play a part in that policy-making, they need to stop banging the environment-vs-ecomony drum.

Conservatism and environmentalism are a good ideological match. Time for the Republicans to stop conceding every environmental issue to the Democrats.

Thank you, Brian! A population can be controlled if enough fear is instilled. That way government and a few elite can control the masses and become the "savior" of it's people. At what cost?
Once laws are passed they are rarely recinded. I remember the 70's when fear of global cooling was the topic of choice. Now our children are being indoctinated toward global warming. Who was it that said: "He who controls the textbooks, controls the minds?"? Was it Stalin?

I would find this article more credible if it didn't refer to people with opposing views as whiners.

Name-calling reduces your argument to something emotional instead of intelligent. Or, maybe that's what your audience is looking for.

With egg on my face and deepest apologies to B.W. Philpot. Because of the spacing, the credits for the posts appeared to me to be at the top rather than the bottom of the posts. My comments were directed instead toward Francis Drouillard.

Good to see the totalitarians, Obamatons and eco-nazis have found AT. Makes me wish for the days pre-comments. In that time, I held hope that fellow Americans with differing views weren't completely uncorked.

So much for second naivete.

Brian:
An absolutely SUPERB ARTICLE! You are a terrific warrior against the scurge of liberalism in the US. Your radio program on San Francisco's KSFO station is on the short list of the BEST in the US.

To all the liberals out there who still believe in (the farce of) man-made global warming, even after reading Brian Sussman's terrific article, consider reading the following article about the views of Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace!

He states that environmental wackos are a main contributor of global warming. Read on...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9862029-54.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

Here is the text...
January 31, 2008 9:54 AM PST
Do environmentalists contribute to global warming?
Posted by Michael Kanellos Post a commentWe could put a bigger dent in greenhouse gases, says Patrick Moore, if it weren't for environmentalists.

Expanding the use of nuclear power would let the U.S. and other nations reduce dependence on coal, one of the biggest producers of carbon dioxide and other pollutants (and industrial accidents). Nuclear plants emit virtually no greenhouse gases, and more plants would also give the green light to the electric car industry.

"They (environmentalists) are the ones who are screaming that the sky is falling and that the climate catastrophe is coming and it's going to be global and it's going to cause 40 to 50 percent of all the species to become extinct and it's going to be the end of civilization as we know it," he said in an interview with CNET News.com. "And yet, they are against nuclear energy just because there could be an accident somewhere. How could one nuclear accident be worse than the whole world being destroyed?"

But here's something about Moore's background. He is a co-founder of Greenpeace. After he left the organization, he began to think about climate change and is now a very public nuclear advocate. He even works with the Center for Sustainable Energy, a nuclear trade group.

And, he likes to point out, he's not alone. Environmentalists and scientists like Stewart Brand and Jared Diamond are also pro-nuclear. Still, there are issues with disposal.

Moore also looks at the political and safety issues surrounding nuclear. Check out the full interview here.
--------
Keep up your terrific work, Brian Sussman!

Rob S.
Pleasanton, CA

Al Gore is a rainmaker. Remember them from the old west? They moved into parched towns ahead of weather fronts and tricked the town into paying them to "make it rain". Of course, they did nothing except collect the cash and let nature take its course. Similarly, Gore will use all this "cap and trade" nonsense to destroy competiton for the select companies he has invested in, rake in billions, and then become an even bigger hero when global warming never becomes a major problem thanks to his "saving us".

He's just another lousy two-bit con-man, and anyone with a spine ought to spit in his eye if they ever see him. That's all the dirty stinking crook deserves.

G.R.DeGolier,

Don't presume I believe GW is anthropogenic or that I believe it can be stopped. However, climate does change as that is the nature of climate. Don't you want to know what will happen to precipitation patterns or food-growing regions as climate changes? Those are important considerations governments all around the world.

If you don't want to know, why not? Afraid to concede a point to the other "team?" Can you see how foolish it is to debate the issue as framed by either Mr. Sussman or Mr. Al Gore?
I don't believe Mr. Sussman cares what happens, since he's said as much on his program. In my view, he's hostile towards environmental laws for the wrong reasons. Shame on him.

Hey Francis, How does a little more Co2 dirty the air? I want clean air, clean water and less pollution. But Co2 isn't pollution, it's an essential gas to life on this planet. Just because someone doesn't buy into the MMGW nonsense doesn't mean they don't love the environment, they just are using a little critical thinking, something our candidates for he white house seem to lack.

I recently read a posting by a climate scientist in 'accuweather.com' where weather was defined as 'random oscillations in a non-linear system' or--- loosely unified chaos. The influences are myriad. A German scientist recently criticized climate prognosticators for not factoring in measureable Einsteinian gravity waves from the galactic core's, effect on the Sun's magnetic field. The earth floats in the mind boggling energy fields of the solar lagoon, which, in turn, floats in the galactic sea, which is nudged by the inter-cosmic energies of our local galactic cluster.(Not to mention the 'Big Void' they just discovered between the clusters.) All measurable as of late. Lightning is now believed to be triggered by extra-terrestrial gamma rays. Don't even try to connect these dots, kids. It's like one of those delicately balanced whirligig mobiles hanging over your infant's crib that is influenced by a slight puff of air from the kitchen window! We are caught up in existential paralysis by politicized over-analysis.(A little poem there.) Go out in your front yard tonight and gaze at the Milky Way and enjoy a soft summer breeze that just might have its origins 'out there.' What 'Theory of the Universe' do I subscribe to? I prefer Cab Calloway's Big Band Theory. Heidi ho!!

G.R. Degolier,

Thanks for the clarification. It's an easy mistake to make because Brian Sussman's name is at the top of his essay and the names of the commenter's are at the bottom of their posts. I was a bit confused myself when I started reading the comments. As to Francis Druillard's comments, he has failed to recognize the fact that until very recently the opposition to Al Gore's fiasco has been shouted down every time a comment has been made opposing the views of the GW crowd. The train has almost left the station, so to speak, and I for one don't believe we can shout long enough or hard enough to try to stop this craziness before it's completely out of control. My thanks to Brian and anyone else who has the courage to speak out against it.

Back in the 1930's, when I was in school, we learned about a type of government wherein private indivuals owned all businesses, but the government controlled all aspects of the economy; what a company could(must) produce, what they could(must) sell their product for, etc. Perfect! The government had scapegoats for any failure in the system, and fail it did. We don't remember much about the theory of that government, only the fate of the scapegoats --- prison camps and gas chambers. Who will be the scapegoats as the government falls deeper into this NAZI ideal of governmental control? AGW is the ultimate weapon to enslave us all.

As a physicist who, for sixteen years, has been reading the scientific journals for data relating to climate, I am thoroughly convinced that mankind's influence on climate is too small to be detected. On a more general note - pessimistic as it is - I have developed my own "Greene's (sic) Law:"The more important the decision, the less likely it will be made by anyone that understands the science." What I viewed going on in the Senate this week reinforces my belief in this law.

@ Francis Drouillard
"Mr. Sussman still fails to see any benefits of addressing global warming such as cleaner air, cleaner water and energy independence. You don't have to believe in AGW to recognize those benefits."

If the problems that need addressing are pollution and energy independence, then let's face them for what they are, and not hide them behind climate change fears. If they're legitimate problems, then they need to stand on their own in the marketplace of ideas. I'm not sure that anyone who has posted in this comment thread is wishing for greater energy dependence, dirtier air or more polluted water. But it's eminently clear from reading what they've posted that they don't find the co-opting of science and politics by those who would shove an agenda down their throats while rifling through their wallets and purses an acceptable approach.

In spite of many proclamations by adherents of the new religion of climate change, the science is not settled on AGW. There are far too many variables spread across far too many disciplines of knowledge for us as a species to know with the kind of certainty needed to drive political, economic and social decision-making what it is that we're facing. That's not even considering the potential interactions of all those variables, possibly on time scales that defy our best attempts to understand them. No, the science isn't settled. Or perhaps it's better said that the science is only settled for those who have closed minds.

While you've staked out some higher moral ground in your first sentence, you fail to deliver any evidence that following the path of remedying global warming is going to achieve any of the three "benefits" you cite. Where is the concrete evidence that fighting climate change is going to reduce energy dependence, clean the air, or the water? Please, feel free to enter the debate, but please don't preach to me about your high-minded moralism until you come to the table armed with some facts and some solutions of your own.

I noticed that in one your other replies you tipped your hand that you're not just out to improve the environment and our position with respect to energy creation. You say "Snowcamper -- Should we ignore climate change, try to become acclimated to it, or try to stop it? From a policy point of view, those are the only questions that matter." This is a clear indication that you think that AGW is the real problem, not the other things that you laid out like three red herrings across the path of the debate in your first statement. You know, that sort of tactic in debate is inherently intellectually dishonest, and I suspect that it's this kind of dishonesty that irks most people in this forum. It's straight from the Saul Alinsky school of social brainwashing - change through any means necessary - honesty is just some bourgeois canard that shouldn't stand in the way of the social reformer - say anything to get your way - the ends always justify the means. And Saul Alinsky borrowed that bit from Karl Marx. History is littered with despots and satraps who thought that the ends justified the means. Personally, I think that's wrong.

In another reply you say "Enough of the foolish "alarmist" vs. "denier" type debates. All that does is keep folks from reaching a consensus on the matter while ensuring that hucksters like Al Gore and Brian Sussman will sell plenty of books. There is a much better way to frame the debate so we can implement sensible energy and environmental policies.", and yet you seem to be engaging in that very behaviour - chiding us all that we're deniers or flat-earthers or something worse. Exactly how are we going to reach "consensus" when debate about the facts surrounding climate change is off-limits? That's a logical inconsistency that I'd like explained. Just holding a different opinion about climate change isn't a crime, nor is it heresy. Until those who want to control our politics, policies and pocketbooks relent and engage in the kind of meaningful open debate that will produce a consensus, there can be no consensus. To not recognise that speaks to your failure to understand the nature of consensus.

Hey, I'm all for this Utopian dream of energy independence, clean air and water, but while we're talking about it, we need to understand the cost and the other impacts. The last thing we should do is act rashly. Our history books are full of lessons about what happens when we act rashly. In the arena of energy, look at the tarnished patina on the shining jewel of biofuels. Look at the Congressionally mandated CFL complete with its payload of highly toxic mercury they carry, which will eventually work it's way into the environment. Look at the devastating impact of wind turbines on bird populations. Look at the slow environmental disaster of hydro generation. Do I need to go on?

My suspicion is that until we find a practical way to contain nuclear fusion, we'll be dogged with contradictions, pollution and energy dependence of one sort or another. But we need to keep in mind that in this universe, as far as we can tell, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Even fusion power will carry with it some drawbacks and limitations.

Concerning above comments suggesting policy consensus on climate change is worthwhile;

It is not worthwhile to achieve policy consensus on the AGW hoax absent acknowledgment that human effect on global climate is nil. The data used in support of AGW is flawed. The data supporting a non-manmade cause for global temperature fluctuation is not flawed, and in fact, falsifies AGW.

Since there is no question that breathing dirty air is unhealthy, cleaner air is a different matter, and that battle needs to be taken to China and India. No reference to the AGW hoax is either required or called for when addressing consensus for cleaner air.

This is a concession to the truth, not a concession to the Democrat Party, the party of marxists, whether they admit it or not.

Excellent article I have nothing of substance to add.

However to the person touting the fringe-benefits of mass hysteria, the abolition of scientific rigour and literally throwing money down the drain I think you're missing something..

Easily enough you could turn that energy into support for things which don't do the above AND provide some serious benefits to society.

For instance support:
-Improvement of sea defences.
-Investment in GM research.
-Taking steps away from foreign oil.
-Reducing real pollution of the air. CO2 is NOT a pollutant and is in fact vital to life on earth(without CO2 there is no plant life and therefore no animal life).

Just some suggestions.

What's most important to note is that decreasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere won't save the world, it won't save a single person should we find ourselves in a significantly warmer climate. Some of the suggestions above just might.

Damn you Wally! "Maybe we ought to stop eating beef because of the methane, beef that also exacts a toll on food crops and the land."

Now you've given away their next jihad. Once Cap and Strangle gets passed, and Universally Rationed Health Care gets forced upon us, there will be nothing stopping the Vegan puppet masters of the silver-tongued, socialist con-man Obama from outlawing meat because it's "bad for us". And since government will dole out health care to those they deem worthy, vegetarianism will be forced upon us.

Mark my words, we'll be arguing about this in 2012.

While human industrial activity may have a negligible effect on global warming, what about human population? More people means more trees cut down, more fields planted, more fossil fuels burned for heat and electricity, more cars, more everything. People mock Zero Population Growth, but maybe they were right all along. US population is set to rise to over 400 million by 2050, doubling the population in just a century. How much forest and open space and wildlife can we preserve if this pace keeps up?

Right on target Brian! This eco-fraud forced upon us by so called environmentalists has to be stopped. I know otherwise intelligence men and women who believe AGW as if it's fact. It's sad. Some years ago I read "fallen angels" a scifi novel about what happens when the eco-frauds get their way and end technologial advancement to stop AGW. The result: an ice age! This situation reminds of the backstory for the novel. Let's hope and pray the tide is turned.

Those who have made the point that we should still be for things like cleaner air and so forth have missed an important point. We in the free and developed nations began addressing such considerations over a century ago because free people demanded better living conditions. The horrible smog in London and the smog I remember in the Bay Area during my youth has gotten much better, for instance, even though we have more people and more cars in these locales. But when things get better, bureaucrats do not want to give up their positions and their power, so they have to invent new problems to hold on to their sinecures and perhaps to increase their governmental empires.

Great article Brian. I'm one of you listeners in the Sunnyvale area. What always bugs me about questions concerning the existence global warming is exemplified by this web site. Right next to the start of your article is the hyperlink stating "Is Global Warming Real?" When you click on it you get to vote yes or no. I wish people would get it straight. The real question is "Is human caused global warming real?" Of course global warming is real! It's been going on in cycles that include global cooling for millions of years. If global warming wasn't real there'd still be glaciers in Yosemite Valley for crying out loud. What I wish the global warming alarmists would do is try to explain why the mechanisms that caused the glaciers in Yosemite to melt 10,000 years ago cannot be the same mechanisms that are dominating our climate right now. Why is it all man's responsibility all of a sudden as opposed to normal cycles that have been happening for millions of years? I don't hear that explanation however. Until I do, I'm not able to believe what the alarmists are claiming. Thanks for you article Brian.

When the ALGORIAN Cult of Global Warming came out with the movie I was at first willing to believe that a great many people, including many of our politicians were simply uninformed and taken in by a lot of scientific tap dancing.

I have since revised that opinion drastically. When it penetrated the heads of the political class that this was the end-all opportunity to "enslave" the US population and break the bank at the same time, AGW became the watchword of the Liberal.

Greed and Power are driving the AGW agenda. It sure as hell has nothing to do with CO2 as a pollutant.

It is a crying shame that both of our presumtive nominees for POTUS are adherents.

Cap And Trade, what a crime!
LEE

Excellent article indeed.

To the alarmists, environmental extremists, undercover socialists and Marxists, etc., you have done what you cannot stand, or want to allow...motivated sensible people learning details about the core "scientific" aspects of your so-called "theory", which falls apart under even a layman's careful, even-handed study of the subject(s).

Did I ever study climate in college? Somewhat, only as part of classes in the history of science and technology (which fortunately focused on classic early scientific arguments, such as Catastrophism vs. Uniformitarianism, a close relative of the current debate, and for technology, particularly the invention of temperature gauge, as well as the arugument over the existence of something called a vacum)and archaeology (which touched on pre-historic changing climate, prior to the industrial revolution, and the evolution of the human species as well as other life forms). Geology was perhaps my favorite, as it showed me how much different the Earth is in its time scale compared to living things--different to such an extent it is sometimes hard to grasp for many people.

For all the college courses I had way back in the 1980s, I've never learned more about the climate science than I have in the last year under the motivation the man-made Global Warming "accepted theory" provided. I started on even ground, and continue to look in depth, at both sides and the science behind the debate.

The result is my belief that the AGW-Climate Change theory is truly the biggest scam confronted by the process of scientific research since the early days of science. I truly now feel the Flat-Earthers are not the ones identified by Al Gore and the AGW science, news, political, blogging, army--unless they are all looking at themselves in the mirror. It is AGW extremists who are the Flat-Earthers, the Catastrophists, and the disbelievers in the true scientific method. AGW has escaped the realm of science, and is indeed a political, religious movement, much more dangerous than a hundred years of debate on whether there is water on Mars or not, which is still going on. Yes, those were part of my college education as well, all of which requires further layman's work in order to fight the falsehoods of AGW.

Knowledge is power, both offensive and defensive, and that is why alarmists must not allow that for the masses before laws are passed to entrench this belief for generations. The needs to twist truth, misrepresent it, or run from it as Al Gore does, are all-encompassing. Discuss AGW too long without passing laws, and AGW falls apart like a house of cards. Will common sense win?

Eventually I believe. But, one can only hope it is sooner, not 100 years from now when nothing predicted has come true. For those that will hit me back, thanks friends, as I long considered myself an environmentalist. But now what being an environmentalists means is that anything, ANYTHING, that changes one iota of the Earth, from this day to the next, is disparaged as the sole result of man, CO2, and western culture.

AGW is apparently advancing this way...Eventually not only humans, but the Earth itself, will be blamed for its own natural being, and the AGW argument will have come full circle--i.e., the last words spoken by the last alarmist, say, "Al Gore the Eighteenth" could probably go something like: "We must, absolutely must, destroy the Earth, as it will not stop changing! Damn the wind and the rain and the rivers and seas for their awesome powers breaking stone; damn the molten interior and the iron core for their hidden strength which builds mountains and trenches and makes the continents float; damn its quakes and volcanoes; damn the measurements of tallness or deepness as they are not one and will not remain as one as told to do; damn the spins of the Earth along with its orbits of the Sun, as well as those of the solar system and galaxy--they will not stop but carry us for thousands of miles per second without our permission or guidance; damn the Sun as it burns when hot and chills when not. Damn the change of everything! Damn them all! We must damn the Earth to itself, as it will not stop changing, even though we no longer touch it, eat it, or use it for anything but for one moment of life. We no longer like even that, all for her! We that have saved the Earth from ourselves cannot live with the never-ending change that marks its very existence, shape, and form, all done by the unknown God at its heart, and strange partner the Moon which pulls upon the oceans every day! All are undoubtedly acting with the intention of destroying mankind. It has been proved by the great calculator!!!! We shall defeat this unkind God!!! We must destroy the Earth!!! Come on everyone, who is with me!?!?" Let's go!

With that, the alarmists will have to decide. "Everybody run and jump off a cliff, its the only way!" Or, will the tide of "skeptical" science finally shift from a ripple to a wave, i.e., "Wait a minute here...in reviewing the data we may have gone a little overboard."

No, I'm not worried about CO2 - I am worried about the people who are worried about CO2...
...and Gore flatulence.

They say Mars is warming. Wonder why? SUVs?

Sheeze, I feel a lot better. Finally found a crowd that still has a brain and gives a damn.

All I can say is this; the Gore-Bot and his minions of mindless Utopian freaks need to be stopped. Old Marxism with a new face. Not hard to recognize at all. But why are there so many believers?

Whether global warming is or is not happening is irrelevant to what should be done (or not done) about it.

Even if global warming is real, the inconvenient truth is that stopping it will cost trillions of dollars. Trillions of dollars is a lot of money. Trillions of dollars is money that could be better spent. It's the denial of opportunities that will keep poor countries poor and keep the world behind. In other words, the cure is worse than the disease.

Those who oppose carbon taxes and the like are making the wrong arguments. They are questioning the science, and doing a bad job of it, while they should be questioning the economics.

I agree with Brian, I just wish he had a better editor at American Thinker. The CO2 number. It's Capitol Hill, not Capital Hill. There are a couple of other minor oversights. I hope your book has better editing because I plan to send it to a lot of people, and I don't want to be embarrassed by this kind of thing. The analogy of the football field is a little old and hackneyed by now. The fact that CO2 is a miniscule part of the environment does not mean that small changes in the amount cannot do much harm. The body has trace elements in it that, if changed in the amount by very little, can make one sick. There are far more effective arguments to use to support the absurdity of global warming than the football field analogy. Please use them. Other than that, Go Suss!

Yeah, if you need a proofreader, I'm available. There's also "significantly less manmade interference then...". Less...than.

As always, you see the truth through the lies.

OH dear me Jim;
I'm sorry but first you have to put an end to the lies and bad science that is at the core; That's what is really relevant.
The truth is man causing global warming and global warming itself is a scam fed by bad science and helped along by greedy politicians that would enrich themselves and impose greater governmental control over the population--
Those that question the "bad science" aren't doing a bad job of it; it's just that the ignorant media love touting horror stories without any knowledge and they have teachers feeding Innocent minds propaganda because the teachers are ignorant.
One should follow the money alright, look where Algore is invested.

I may have missed note of it but remember that 1998 was an "El Nino" year whose warming effect disappeared the next year. Secondly, "cloud cover" is a very important regulator of climate whose effects in the models are minimally accounted for at best or even fully understood. Thirdly, an article in the July 30, 2005 issue of "Nature" cited a study that American and Brazilian scientists found that trees were returning carbon to the atmosphere after only five years not just at the end of their lifespan which could be 75-100 years or more. This could mean forest destruction, while bad, may
not be as important as some think. As for the Kyoto Treaty, the "Economist" Magazine regularly documents its failure in Europe. In his book "The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol," Prof. David Victor predicted this calling Kyoto an unworkable sham - and he is no skeptic on GW. Finally, if you want to see why "Cap and Trade" is a socialist scam, just read the United Nation's 1992 "Agenda 21" Plan - a 700 page "global governance" plan which "proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on earth...including an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources." Anyone read "1984," "Brave New World," "Fahrenheit 451," "Animal Farm," and "Darkness at Noon" lately?

AGW enthusiasts A Ten Hut! In your wildest dreams you would stop all Anthropogenic CO2 production. Yes? And that will "save" the planet will it? So the 3% CO2 we produce will be sufficient to do what? When has this planet's climate ever been stable? So the other 97% CO2 Mother Nature adds doesn't actually do anything?
If you lot had brains you would be dangerous. Next time you look up and see the sun, pause for a moment and reflect on the possibility that variation in the sun's output might have more of an effect on climate than the miniscule CO2 output of mankind.

Pamela makes a good point concerning the media and our school systems.

I am constantly deprograming my three sons, the oldest being sixteen.

Our schools and universities are nothing more than indoctrination centers for the left wing agenda and our 24/7 media feed bolsters this agenda.

Next time you speak with a thirteen year old ask him or her to explain the bill of rights.

"And historically, CO2 has been significantly higher than today. In data primarily gathered from ice cores, we see carbon dioxide levels were 500 times higher during the Cretaceous period, some 160 million years ago. Many theorize that the dinosaurs were able to grow to such sizes because of the indescribable abundance of carbon fed foliage and overall atmospheric conditions present during that era. Certainly the SUV could not be blamed for those high levels of CO2. Dinosaur flatulence, perhaps?"
One must be careful when suggesting the earth as being millions of years old. This just falls into another false science called Evolution. Reptiles are known to never stop growing until they die. Now according to the Bible in Noah's time, before the worldwide flood, mankind lived to great ages as well all the animals. Due in part because of a green house effect. There was a great canopy of water above the earth (this is where most of the water came from to create the flood. More water came from under the earth - read the first 9 chapters of Genesis). But anyway, the reptiles lived to great ages and so grew to very large sizes and so thus we have the 'dinosuar'. Many have become extinct no doubt as does a lot of species. But we probably still have 'dinosaurs' among us but they just don't get as big. Again, don't fall for the evolutionary belief of the earth being millions of years old. Just more false science just like global warming.

Many thoughtful posts here concerning the science of debunking AGW hysteria. I can only add that liberals, being much closer to being Marxists on a political scale, fundamentally thrive on lies whereas conservatives are much more comfortable knowing they are standing on the the solid ground of truth. Any compromise between the truth and a lie - is just another lie. There can be no such compromise on this issue because our country's future, our freedoms, our standard of living, the real foundations of scientific thinking and even many aspects of true ecology are all at risk if we compromise in any way. Put a stake through this evil thing's 'heart'. This article and many other's like it are leading the way to do just that and I thank you!

Thomas Kirk: Why do you dwell on CO2? I didn't say it was an air pollutant. Surely you know that air pollutants are released along with CO2 when we burn fossil fuels.

Reducing CO2 emissions is a good goad because it will further improve air quality and take a step towards energy independence.

Now, you can argue how best to achieve such a goal, but it is still a worthy goal that can be realized.

Anonymous 6/912:26PM:

Wow, really insightful argument but about what can be expected from a True Believer. First, set up a straw man based on a false premise, then knock it down. Of course all of us who can see there is no science that supports the AGW hoax are Bible-thumping ID Creationists. Therefore because we don't accept evolution we also don't accept global warming.

No one posting here made any inference whatsoever the likes of what you are suggesting, but then again, warmists like you have to resort to these ridiculously pathetic types of arguments or you'd just have to keep your mouth shut. Come to think of it, maybe you would be much better served following that tactic. Really sad.

Suss-Man! Way to go!

Rouillard, you can't be serious? I'm not buying into the "we should do it becuase I think it is a 'worthy goal'" nonsense.

It is not a pollutant. We are not contributing to some huge amount of CO2. That it is even being considered as such is due to a science ignorant legal decision.

I have also wondered about the WX monitors along Interstate 5 in California.

When installed they were an off white color for the housings. Later painted dark green to match the oleanders -I wonder what Central Valley summers + dark green did for those thermometers.

Think the readings climbed?

Just like the bank in Latte Land (Walnut Creek).

I await your book, Brian. Udaman!

Geoff Gale: You sure do a lot of projecting.

I agree, those that are hyping AGW to achieve cleaner air and water as well as energy independence would be better served tackling those issues straight up. That doesn't mean we can ignore GW because it isn't AGW. We must know how climate change will bring so we can fully acclimate to it, and even take advantage of some of the benefits it will bring.

You also spend far too much time responding to something I didn't write. I have never suggested we try to stop GW since I don't believe it can be done. However, I recognize that attempts to stop GW have the benefit of further conservation for one, which is one of the best things we can do right now to move towards energy independence.

My questions of Snowcamper hardly support your assertion that I believe in AGW.

Please point out where I called anyone a "denier" or "flat-earther."

I have never suggested that we reach a consensus by excluding the facts about GW from the debate.

And no, I don't believe AGW skeptics are heretic criminals.

It's pretty clear to me that you don't want to achieve consensus on an important, either because you're too stubborn or too stupid. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

Tom Trollhammer,

That's Drouillard with 2 D's, one at the beginning and one at the end. And yes, I am serious about building a consensus to achieve greater conservation, cleaner air and water, and energy independence, the latter being the most significant to me.

If the efforts needed to achieve that goal conform to some of the innocuous proposals of those that want to "stop" GW, then I'll go along with them. For example, if they want to impose a minimum amount of flyash to be used as a cement replacement for concrete, I'm all for it. It would be easy to implement and it can result in significant reductions in fuel consumption, which helps achieve energy independence and cleaner air. Is the latter too hard to swallow to achieve the former? I don't think so.

Why would you object to those goals or the approach used to achieve them? They're simple and straightforward, and easy to understand. Is your ideology so fragile that it can't withstand a modest achievement by your political opponents? C'mon! We're all American here.

As for CO2, I have neither stated nor implied that it is an air pollutant. However, CO2 is usually emitted along with other gases and particulate matter that are air pollutants. So it's fair to say that a reduction in CO2 emissions indicate a reduction in other gases and particulate matter that do contribute to air pollution, although CO2 itself is not an air pollutant. You can learn that on your own without attending a re-education camp or salivating over a TVweatherman-to-entertainer's new book on AGW skepticism containing information easily culled from WorldClimateDaily or ClimateDebateDaily.

Bjorn Lomberg, environmental economist hated by AGW alarmists, has it right in my view. Approach GW from a perspective that includes costs and benefits.

I agree with most folks here on that point, but caution against starting by opposing "alarmist" total costs being proposed by the other side. That's a consensus-killing approach. Find common ground -- implement the easiest measures with the biggest payoff first, and the more difficult measures to achieve will follow.

Your article, whilst entertaining, appears to have missed some major elements: the Mesozoic era
had higher carbondioxide levels due to increased volcanism, which likewise led to the heat & subsequent fifty year chill through the 1930's up to the 80's.
However, if you enjoy poisonous fumes, then perhaps
you should try jogging during rush hour traffic in summer. I'm told that upper respitory distress is normal,
but double check your health plan first to be sure ;)

B.W. Philpot, you are too stupid to be a citizen of this earth. I mean that literally, you are just taking up space, we simply can't afford pea-brains like you. So your argument is that because CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere, it can't be responsible for global warming? Have you bothered to research the radiative forcing of CO2 relative to Nitrogen and Oxygen in watt/square meter? Didn't think so. So lets try this. Do you live in the Bay Area? Cool. So do I. Lets go have a drink at a bar. In fact, lets get HAMMERED, I mean wasted. How high do you think your blood alcohol will go? .08? That's legally drunk. How about .12? No, c'mon man down that shot! OK! Now we're talking. .2? .3?
Lets say we walk (or are carried out) at a level of .4 WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? C'mon thats ONLY FOUR_TENTHS OF 1%!! IT'S less than half a percent! Surely it's not going to kill you! Just like CO2 won't kill our climate based only on its percentage!
Want another drink!?

"Want another drink!?"

You could use a few yourself, hothead. Simmer down before you rupture something.

Since you didn't bother to explain "the radiative forcing of CO2 relative to Nitrogen and Oxygen in watt/square meter," we're going to assume you don't know it either. Even so, your analogy is bunk: alcohol is not a normal component of the bloodstream, whereas carbon dioxide has always been part of our atmosphere. Despite what your cult says, CO2 is not a pollutant; it's always been there.

You're from the Bay Area, huh? No big surprise there; the fact that you could call anyone here stupid, yet out-stupid any of us any day of the week, was a dead giveaway.

I hope everyone reading my post realizes I AM A FIRM BELIEVER IN GLOBAL WARMING, MAN MADE. And no, not cuz of Al Gore or some stupid whiny liberal, I did the research and looked at the numbers. I am SICK AND TIRED of you people trying to be the "cool contradiction" to Global Warming. I WANT TO SEE FACTS. NUMBERS. EQUATIONS. You deni