Climate Change Skepticism Seeps into Science Classrooms

[Interesting article, but the warmist bias of the writer is apparent]

Some states have introduced education standards requiring teachers to defend the denial of man-made global warming. A national watchdog group says it will start monitoring classrooms

By Neela Banerjee

Reporting from Washington — A flash point has emerged in American science education that echoes the battle over evolution, as scientists and educators report mounting resistance to the study of man-made climate change in middle and high schools.

Although scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly, the issue has grown so politicized that skepticism of the broad scientific consensus has seeped into classrooms.

Read the rest at the Los Angeles Times

148 Responses to Climate Change Skepticism Seeps into Science Classrooms

  1. renewable guy January 23, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    There are several papers showing humans are the cause of the recent climate change. CO2 has caused the warming of the earth and will continue to warm the earth. The best solution is to quit co2 like you would smoking.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 24, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

      Several papers? Really? I bet that they are all based on computer models.
      Ok I was partially right. I just read the link you posted and it confirmed my original thoughts though not entirely. Several of the papers are based on computer models. The rest were statistical analyses using either data from the Hadley research unit, or a combination of computer models and Hadley research data. So these are all papers using Hadley research data because that is what the computer modelers use as well.
      I know you think you have a smoking gun here, but you really don’t because all, and I mean ALL of the data used for every one of these papers is corrupted. Don’t you think it is suspicious that every single one of these papers come to roughly the same conclusion?
      If I were you I would not rely on what you are told believe over a and look into these things yourself, as I have. My own personal research into the science of global warming, the politics of global warming, and the environmentalist agenda have shown without a doubt that global warming alarmism is unfounded, and is designed to weaken and ultimately destroy the US economy.

      • renewable guy January 24, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

        Science is the backbone of modern society. That is what has hepled any flourising economy get out front and be competitive. The same science methods are winnowing out the causes of warming over the last 150 years. Most of the natural variations have a cooling effect on the climate while the human total overwhelms the natural variation and still warms the planet. In terms of TOA net energy balance, the earth has a slight energy imbalance favoring warming.

        The skeptics do not have a plausible explanation of what is causing the warming if it not co2 and other GHG’s

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 24, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

          Carbon Dioxide Encourages Risky Behaviour in Clownfish

          • renewable guy January 24, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

            lol nothing worse than high risk fish.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 24, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

          You have a very reasonable argument Renewable guy, but there is a slight flaw in your prsentation. And that is the fact that there hasn’t been any warming for at least ten years.

          “The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

          If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.”

          “In June 2010, I published a graph predicting that temperatures will fall sharply around October 2010. Exactly this happened. Since then I have regularly updated the graphs and predictions. As the Southern oscillation index is still in the “la Nina” region, the cooling did, as predicted, last until late in 2011. As a result, 2011 was be a cool year. All the temperature records show this cooling. Now, in January 2012, I can predict that 2012 will be cool until July and, because the La Nina seems to have set in, probably for a few months longer. So don’t expect any dramatic global warming in 2012!”

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 24, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

          “For about 2 decades we have been told to urgently act against unprecedented global warming or else there will be fiery gloom and doom for the world. Yet, the opposite seems to be happening.

          The entire planet has stopped warming since 1998 and, more significantly, has started to cool since 2003. Instead of warning people of cooler weather for the next 30 years, there’s still the distinct false sense of expectation of unprecedented warming. People and governments are being urged to go entirely in the wrong direction for the wrong reasons – and at a potentially horrendous price.

          Just look at what happened in UK. Ten years ago Britons were told to expect global warming only and that snow would be a thing of the past. Yet the opposite has arrived, three winters in a row. This winter it crippled the entire nation for nearly a month in December 2010.”

          The consequences for us? Possibly global cooling, for starters—a byproduct of an extended period of “solar minimum,” in which sunspot and solar flare activity would be diminished. The sun usually runs through an 11-year cycle during which sunspot activity waxes and wanes. The last solar “maximum”—the point at which upwards of hundreds of sunspots may be active on the sun’s surface—was back in 2000. The current peak is expected in early 2013, and it may be one of the weakest since 1928

          “You know what they say about a leopard not changing its spots, but when it comes to our sun, change is all but guaranteed. In fact new research suggests the sun may be on the verge of changing its sunspots in a way that could significantly alter weather patterns for the long haul, both on Earth and in space.

          Three studies presented by scientists at a conference in Las Cruces, New Mexico yesterday predict that sunspots are set to temporarily and unexpectedly vanish in coming years as part of a solar “hibernation” period that could last for decades.

          The consequences for us? Possibly global cooling, for starters—a byproduct of an extended period of “solar minimum,” in which sunspot and solar flare activity would be diminished. The sun usually runs through an 11-year cycle during which sunspot activity waxes and wanes. The last solar “maximum”—the point at which upwards of hundreds of sunspots may be active on the sun’s surface—was back in 2000. The current peak is expected in early 2013, and it may be one of the weakest since 1928.”

          • renewable guy January 24, 2012 at 10:40 pm #


            2005, 2010 were warmer than 1998.


            last decade was warmer than the previous decade.

            I agree that the solar maiximum is coming soon, combined with El Nino another world temperature will fall.


            The above link at one minute and 40 seconds shows a visual demonstartion of how co2 blocks infrared energy.

          • Dan McGrath January 25, 2012 at 10:17 am #

            It was warmer in 1200 than in either 2005 or 2010 and 1998 was warmer than 2011. What’s your point? The climate varies. Always has.

            And here’s a peer-reviewed study from an MIT scientist that disproves the notion that increased Co2 traps more heat radiation (using real data collected over 15 years, not computer models).


          • renewable guy January 24, 2012 at 11:11 pm #


            Marc Morano put Kathyen Hayhoes email up on his website, which is a signal for the crazies to hate mail her. Nevertheless she is able to turn it around and talk climate change as an evangelical christian. Very sharp woman.

          • renewable guy January 25, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

            Dan McGrath says:
            January 25, 2012 at 10:17 am
            It was warmer in 1200 than in either 2005 or 2010 and 1998 was warmer than 2011. What’s your point? The climate varies. Always has.

            And here’s a peer-reviewed study from an MIT scientist that disproves the notion that increased Co2 traps more heat radiation (using real data collected over 15 years, not computer models).




            Putting aside the problems with their energy budget equation, Dessler looks at the values Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi use for their calculations. Rather than examine the data for two of the terms in their equation (heating of the climate by the ocean & change in cloud cover allowing heat to escape to space), Lindzen and Spencer approximate them from other observations, and their results rely heavily on assumptions about the size of these values.

            Rather than rely on assumptions, Dessler uses other observational data (such as surface temperature measurements and ARGO ocean temperature) to estimate and corroborate these values. Dessler finds that, in contrast to Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi, the change in cloud cover is far too small to explain the short-term changes in surface temperature, explaining only a few percent of surface temperature change.

            In fact, the heating of the climate system through ocean heat transport is approximately …….20 times larger …….than the change in top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy flux due to cloud cover changes. Lindzen and Choi assumed the ratio was close to 2, while Spencer and Braswell assumed it was close to 0.5.


            Huge differende between Dessler and (Spencer and Lindzen). So far the science community doesn’t go along with Lindzen and Spencer.


            You are mistaken about Lindzen’s foundation of AGW knowledge. He does believe that co2 traps heat.

          • renewable guy January 25, 2012 at 8:34 pm #


            Expecting .08C less temperature with the expectec slightly dimmer sun. If like Maunder Minimum .15C. The expected climb in temperatures is 2.5C. The effect will be insignificant.


            A less active sun may have a “global cooling” effect on the planet. That doesn’t mean the impact of greenhouse gases or the average overall thermal trend are offset. In fact it has nothing to do with offsets or equation balancing. It simply refers to the hypothetical impact of the phenomenon—in this instance, a temporarily less active sun.]

            Read more:


            Total denial that a GHG doesn’t exist is interesting. Solid science beginning about 150 years ago disagress.

          • Dan McGrath January 25, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

            Really? Then why do warming and cooling trends on Earth match what’s been observed on Mars? The Mars rovers are zero-emission vehicles, so SUVs can’t be to blame.


          • Dan McGrath January 25, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

            I don’t think anyone is “denying” greenhouse gas theory. If it weren’t for our atmosphere, the Earth would go from microwave to sub-zero freezer twice daily. At issue is diminishing returns, and self-correcting systems. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas – and it regulates temperature naturally and with exquisite, amazing elegance.

          • renewable guy January 26, 2012 at 8:31 am #

            Dan McGrath says:
            January 25, 2012 at 9:27 pm
            Really? Then why do warming and cooling trends on Earth match what’s been observed on Mars? The Mars rovers are zero-emission vehicles, so SUVs can’t be to blame.



            That would be a “Its the sun” argument.



            Above is a graph showing a very close correlation between observed temperature and rising co2 concentrations, while the suns energy output has a slight declilne.

          • renewable guy January 26, 2012 at 8:39 am #

            Dan McGrath says:
            January 25, 2012 at 10:26 pm
            I don’t think anyone is “denying” greenhouse gas theory. If it weren’t for our atmosphere, the Earth would go from microwave to sub-zero freezer twice daily. At issue is diminishing returns, and self-correcting systems. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas – and it regulates temperature naturally and with exquisite, amazing elegance.



            CO2 is the long lasting atmospheric GHG for centuries to milenia. H2O has an atmospheric residency of about 9 to 10 days. Since co2 was put in the air by humans, co2 is what drives the content of H2O in the atmosphere. If you choose to read the aritcle put out by NASA, the forcing agent is CO2 and H2O is the feedback. H2O even feeds back on itself since it blocks certain infrared frequencies causing even more H2O to evaporate into the atmosphere.

        • Dan McGrath January 25, 2012 at 10:42 am #

          Uh. Yes. We do. Look up when you’re outside sometime. See that bright thing in the sky that hurts to look at? It’s a nuclear furnace which constantly varies in activity and radiation output. If my kitchen feels warmer than usual, I don’t look in my trash can for decomposing banana peels releasing gasses to identify the cause. I check to see if I left the oven on.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 25, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

            See. This is what we get when we have a corrupt data set. We get a whole bunch of studies that say the same thing because they ALL use the same data set. Hadley CRU numbers can not be trusted. You can present study after study after study, but will always get the same results about which years were the warmest, and so on because they all use the same flawed data. I’m pretty sure I saw this coming a long time ago. In fact I’m pretty sure I said as much when Climategate erupted.

          • renewable guy January 25, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

            That big bright fusion furnace varies by 0.1% over the 11 year cycle. Over the last 2000 years the sun has varied by .1% to .2%. Over the last 30 years the sun has slightly decreased while the co2 and temperature have increased.


          • renewable guy January 25, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

            NEIL F. AGWD/BSD says:
            January 25, 2012 at 1:45 pm
            See. This is what we get when we have a corrupt data set. We get a whole bunch of studies that say the same thing because they ALL use the same data set. Hadley CRU numbers can not be trusted


            Figure 1: Annual averages of the adjusted data – the global warming signal

            Foster and Rahmstorf characterize ENSO by using the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), aerosol optical thickness data (AOD) for volcanic activity, and solar irradiance data (from PMOD) to characterize solar activity. They also tried using Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) data for ENSO, sunspot number data for solar activity, and a volcanic radiative forcing reconstruction from Ammann et al. (2003), but found these changes made little difference to their results:

            “None of these substitutions affected the results in a significant way, establishing that this analysis is robust to the choice of data to represent exogenous factors.”


            It turns out that a variety of data into their calculations and came up with the same results. There is a great deal of strength in their study.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 28, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

        “This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments.”
        The above link to the GISS study is where you will find the words I just pasted in the quotation marks. This tells me all I need to know about it. It is derived from computer modeling. Computer modeling is a form of electronic mental masturbation. Nothing more.

        • renewable guy January 30, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

          That’s why there is so much porn on the internet. Those women are just computer models:)

    • Dan McGrath January 25, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

      I failed to comment on this when I first saw it. Quit Co2 like you would quit smoking?! Really? OK. Let’s eliminate Co2 from our lives – from the Earth! For health – except, we would all die.

      • renewable guy January 26, 2012 at 9:16 am #

        Dan McGrath says:
        January 25, 2012 at 10:33 pm
        I failed to comment on this when I first saw it. Quit Co2 like you would quit smoking?! Really? OK. Let’s eliminate Co2 from our lives – from the Earth! For health – except, we would all die.


        I’m refering to using no fossil fuels to let the carbon cycle decrease the atmospheric co2.

  2. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 24, 2012 at 1:34 am #

    The thing that bugs me about this is the comparison to evolution. Evolution is a widely accepted theory and the resistance to it is mainly from religious groups who believe that God created Man, and that it is impossible that we evolved from lower forms of life. Personally I don’t believe that those two ideas are mutually exclusive, but that is not my point. My point is that the scepticism of global warming is not coming from churchies, it’s coming from the scientific community itself and the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

  3. Rob N. Hood January 25, 2012 at 2:25 pm #

    Dan- where did you get the 1200 data from?

    • Dan McGrath January 25, 2012 at 10:29 pm #

      It’s just a guesstimate, actually – based on the warmer medieval period. I figured 1200 fit in that era.

      • Dan McGrath January 25, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

        Maybe I should have said 1300.

        • Rob N. Hood January 26, 2012 at 7:59 am #

          And so you used a “guesstimate” and this whole site is (mainly) about fudging data?? Really? At least you were honest about your fudge.

  4. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 25, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

    Wow this renewable guy seems to be on a mission here. He seems very trusting of the data, and the temperature records, and these many studies he presents.
    I am not. I wish I had more time to go through all of this all over again. And I say “again” because every single one of these arguments have been gone through before here in these blogs. Right now I am a bit overwhelmed with the sheer volume of points trying to be made by renewable guy.
    The first thing I will address, and right now what I only have time for, is the solar irradiance issue.
    Solar irradiance varies roughly 0.1% to 0.2% peak to trough through the average 11 year cycle. The Sun is also increasing solar irradiance at about 10% over every 1 billion years. This is due to the fact that as it burns fuel, hydrogen, it actually burns it faster and will eventually burn it all in about 5 billion years at which point it will become a red giant, and then a white drwarf. But that is not what I want to address. Basically the solar irradiance variations we experience now have very little to do with warming. What does have very much to do with warming/cooling is sunspots, and the solar wind. The solar wind is high when we have sunspots. And it is lower when we have fewer sunspots. The solar wind deflects cosmic rays that reach us from all directions from the universe, and when the solar wind is lessened more cosmic rays bombard our planet, causing nucleation for water vapor in our atmosphere to form more clouds, and thus the clouds reflect sunlight and the planet cools.
    This was theorized by Henrik Svensmark, and confirmed from experiments at CERN.

    • Dan McGrath January 25, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

      Well stated, Neil. I sometimes want to elaborate too far, and other times (to compenstate), I’m too brief. Well and succinctly stated.

    • renewable guy January 26, 2012 at 9:42 am #

      Who? are you going trust? It appears you pick what you will believe based on what you already believe. That seems to be your position, which is what I ahve run into for the last 6 years of doing this. I am an armchair person studying the climate issue every day. Every science organization in the world either endorses AGW or is neutral. No science organization refutes AGW. The core of more co2 increases world temperature is quite solid. Its just a matter of how much. Even that is pretty well agreed upon that a doubling of co2 will bring about aprox 3*C over time if 560ppm is where the earth stabilizes. There is strong argument it could go higher.

      • Dan McGrath January 26, 2012 at 10:11 am #

        There are really only a couple dozen actual scientists doing work to support the AGW theory. Everyone else just parrots what IPCC and Hadley CRU are churning out. In contrast, check this out:

        • renewable guy January 26, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

          LOL You will keep going no matter what I put out. This is really a cultural difference rather than a difference in science. You are either conservative or libertarian and are afraid of a larger government to accomplish the work to get off of CO2. The CO2 science is solid. We will warm in the future.

          Society is in another huge change and there will always be people to resist change. That is what the Republican Party does best. There is a 10 to 1 ratio of carbon sponsored donations to the republican party over the democrats. What the carbon industry wants is to slow down the exit of fossil fuels. There is still a great deal of profit to make yet for them.

          The science is solid, the politics is still laggin behind the science.

          Point in case is the teaching climate science in the classroom. If you teach the denier version, the basic science will be wrong.

          • Rob N. Hood January 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

            Uh oh… possibly wrong case in point renewable guy. They all are here though. I am the only lame-brain liberal to persist a quixotic crusade against this other quixotic one. Certain “teachings” in public (i.e. commie) school are pokes in the right eye of the right wingers. Don’t bother, would be the best advice I myself cannot follow. That said, the responses are indeed entertaining, that is if you enjoy black humor, which I unfortunately do.

          • Dan McGrath January 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

            31,000 scientists disagree with you.

        • Rob N. Hood January 26, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

          Bbbbbut Dan…. I thought AGW was a HUGE conspiracy?! A couple dozen is all it takes? Maybe so. But like you say, the parroting of others (hmmm, cough cough) could explain such a powerful hoax. I guess….

        • renewable guy January 27, 2012 at 6:57 am #

          Most of the petition project is not even phd’s. Only 200 are estimated to be climate scientists.

          WHere as there are studies that show 97% of peer review writing scietists agree on human caused warming. GHG’s are the cause of the .7*C warming the earth has experienced.

          Again the studies above seperate out the different factors effecting the climate, with GHG increases outweighing the natural variation.

          • Dan McGrath January 27, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

            The climategate emails showed that warmists took over most of the peer review journals and colluded to keep “skeptical” scientists’ research out.

          • renewable guy January 27, 2012 at 10:28 pm #

            The scientists do not have a class system of exclusion, they have a data based system of inclusion. Good science procedures get in, bad ones are kept out. Roy Spencer snuck in the back door through a journal that didn’t understand climate science.


            The model it uses is far too simple to accurately represent the Earth’s climate
            The paper doesn’t provide enough information to replicate their results
            Their results depend on using one particular data set
            They assume that ENSO responds to cloud cover changes, when in reality, the reverse is true
            The study’s conclusions are incorrect and unsupportable


            This was spread all over the right wing blogs, fox news, everywhere through the echo chamber. And yet its really a bad science paper. THis is the quality of rebuttal put up against scientists that do their job correctly. Crying fowl just doesn’t work here. He wrote it to make the news but not for the science.

  5. Rob N. Hood January 26, 2012 at 8:13 am #

    Wow this Neil guy seems to be on a mission. And he too likes to offer sheer volume. To renewable guy: the “fall back” position here and with most all “global warming” skeptics is that “it’s” just nature doing her thing, been here before (long time ago) and we should not worry our little selves about it. Since there are some data that shows warming in past times, regardless of the rebuttal that the very low population of humans at those time/s the impact of such warming on them was of course minimal, except for benefits such as colonizing Greenland fairly comfortably for awhile, etc. does not matter to them. Nor too that for the first time in history (that we know of) humans are directly contributing to the greenhouse effect. But they have an argument for that too of course based on science that is generated by like-minded souls, possibly in the “employ” of the fossil fuel industry and/or vastly moneyed right wing think tanks. And remeber this above all renewable guy: The MIC depends for its very well subsidized (by you and me) life on cheap (relatively) and accessible OIL. And as such this whole deal (which is much more dire probably than global warming) will NOT END, unless and until we humans blow most of ourselves up in the third and final world oil war. You and I cannot fight such a desperate, power-mad, and ultra wealthy system. Something bad is going to happen sooner or later, and only then will the world peons finally wake up and remove the shackles that bind them.

  6. Rob N. Hood January 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    Sorry- pretty bleak. But I am old(er) and have fought the good fight (as much as I could) for so long with little (very) little success. Money and power win 99.9% of the time. Always have and always will. That is, unless OWS makes a paradigm type of break-through. But I’ve had my hopes dashed too many times before to get my hopes up too much. Even was fooled by Obama. But then again, I hope to always choose hope over the other.

  7. Rob N. Hood January 26, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    What boggles my mind is these rightys and libertines get what they want 99% of time, and yet ITS STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH. If Teddy Roosevelt were alive today they’d be calling him a commie. Even many of Nixon’s and EVEN some of Saint Ronnie REAGAN’S policies would be considered too far leftist today. It’s scary. They are VERY well funded and will continue to be because they are the pawns and the cannon fodder for the true elite.

  8. Rob N. Hood January 26, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    But that is how all empires collapse. No exceptions. And they can’t even see that either.

  9. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 26, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

    OK, looks like RNH is feeling left out. Anyhoo……
    I have a few moments to cover another topic and that is CO2.
    The greenhouse heat trapping theory states that continually adding CO2 to the atmosphere will trap more and more heat untill the oceans boil and we all die of heat stroke, yada yada yada..(That’s hyperbole RNH!). Ok it doesn’t say that but it does leave one with the impression that as long as you add more CO2 to the atmosphere the hotter it will get. Right? Well, not exactly. CO2 does not really “trap” heat. If it did, we would all be dead by now. CO2 absorbs a few small bands of wavelengths of infra red radiation, and then re-emits them in all directions. It does not hold on to this radiation for any length of time in fact it is almost instantanious.
    The infra red radiation comes from the Earth. Light from the Sun passes through our atmosphere and has no effect on CO2. In other words CO2 does not absorb photons. The light is absorbed by the Earth which warms the Earth. The Earth absorbs that energy and much of it is converted into many different wavelengths of radiation mostly in the infra red band of wavelengths. This process is practically constant, varying only slightly with solar TSI. This is important to remember.
    Now we get to the role of CO2. There are several small bands of these wavelengths that are absorbed and re-emitted by CO2. All of the rest of theses wavelengths are not absorbed and re-emitted by CO2, and it is the majority of wavelenths that are not absorbed and re-emitted by CO2.
    Now, there is a certain point of atmospheric CO2 levels where the CO2 will absorb and re-emit all of those certain bands of wavelenths. Now remember TSI being relatively constant that means if more CO2 is added it will not absorb and re-emit anymore wavelengths than it already is. The only way to get the increased level of CO2 to absorb and re-emit more radiation is to increase the radiation at the source, the Sun!
    Now what I explained above is a simplification of the process. The truth is that there really is no saturation point, the effect is approximately proportional to the logarithm of the concentration, so each extra ppm will do less. The link below explains it in better detail than I can.

    • Rob N. Hood January 27, 2012 at 8:05 am #

      Whatever Neil- its still a (somewhat) free country and a still relatively free internet, and there’s a thingy called free speech too. Anyhoo, let’s pay attention to Neil’s data dumping, already in progress…

  10. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 26, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

    Oh, and Renewable guy, I resent that you think I am just parroting what the “deniers” say. I have done a lot of research myself, and have been doing this for at least the last eight years. The first corner you must turn is to look into the UN. You should start by looking at The Club Of Rome.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 26, 2012 at 7:12 pm #

      “In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution. According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.” Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.” “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

      • renewable guy January 26, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

        I’ll take your word for it that is what The Club of Rome says. ARe you implying I am making an enemy out of humanity?

        That said, if you looked at the utube co2 demonstration, it completely blocked out the candle from showing through on the infrared detector. Plus there are poeple in your culture that are starting to make noises about Republicans accepting proven science. Since I am a liberal like RObNhood, you more than likely won’t listen to me. But I believe that your culture is going to make a shift in the next few years. Kathyrn Hayhoe as I pointed out earlier. Richard Alley from Penn State is one of the most prominent climate communicators in the United States. Has been a climatologist for better than 30 years.

        Above is Barry Bickmore who identifies himself as a Republican.

        I’ve recently been involved with other scientists and scholars in Utah trying to stop the spread of outright lies, half-truths, abuses of data, and distortions about climate change. Much of this disinformation is coming from (or through) some Republican members of the Utah Legislature, and the other Republican (and some Democratic) members have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

        Eventually you will be confronting more than just liberals on this issue. There are Republicans in your group that aren’t just being heard because they are being drowned out or intimidated by people like Marc Morano.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 26, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

          Ok. I am an HVAC technician. You probably don’t know this but CO2 is a refrigerant, R-744. If you are not familliar with the refrigeration process here is a short tutorial.
          A compressor pumps high temperature gas out to a condenser where it gives off heat to the ambient medium and the process of condensation takes place, and at the outlet of the condenser the refrigerant is now a high pressure subcooled liquid. from there it goes to a metering device which restricts the refrigerant and then it enters the evaporator. The resulting drop in pressure initiates the process of evaporation and the refrigerant boils off rapidly and absorbs heat from the controlled space. The refrigerant leaves the evaporator as a superheated vapor. (superheat and subcooling just mean that a substance is heated or cooled beyond it’s freezing, evaporation, or condensation point. For example 33 deg. F. water is considered a superheated liquid with 1 deg. F. of superheat.) And then the vapor is drawn into the compressor where it is pumped up to a higher temp/pressure and the process repeats. That is a basic refrigeration process.

          What happens to a high pressure vapor when it is released from a cylinder? Well, the substance is in the same state but there is a great drop in pressure, and thus a great drop in temperature. This is called the pressure/temperature relationship. It’s exactly the same thing that happens when the vapor refrigerant is pumped through a compressor. The temperature rises with the pressure. This occurs to all substances at all phases of matter. Raise the pressure of a substance you automatically raise the temperature of it. Reduce the pressure of a substance and you automatically reduce the temperature of it.

          My point is that the experiment you claim shows the heat trapping properties of CO2 is false. It really is showing the temperature/pressure relationship of a pressurised gas being released into a lower pressure container. The infra red camera is not showing the heat trapping property of CO2. It is showing a subcooled vapor absorbing all of the heat it can. If you could watch that camera feed until the temperature of the vapor equalized with the ambient temperature, you would see the image of the candle reappear. You can do this with any pressurised gas.

          I know you think I don’t know what I’m talking about. And I am not a scientist. What I am is a refrigeration technician with an A.A.S. degree in HVAC technolgy. So discount my post if you must but I know what I’m talking about here. It’s my job.

          • renewable guy January 27, 2012 at 7:08 am #

            Refrigeration works on the carnot cycle. Non GHG gases could be used. CO2 vibrates based on its atomic structure at certain frequencies. The satellites show that more energy is missing coming up out of the earth in the co2 regions.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 27, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

            The carnot heat engine is a theoretical model. It is not used in refrigeration in the real world. Are you trying to say that you know more about this than I do? Because if you are, you are mistaken. Your reply is gibberish.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 27, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

            Ok now that I have a little time, I will now explain why your reply is gibberish.
            1. You say “Refrigeration works on the carnot cycle.” This statement is not only untrue, it also makes very little sense. And that is because the Carnot theorem is basically the daydreaming of a thermodynamic engineer. It is a mathmatical fomula that idealises the most extreme possibilities of thermodynamic efficiency in a heat engine. It is something that engineers use to calculate the maximum possible efficiency, and the minimum possible entropy of a given rifrigerant. In other words it is something egineers use to help design refrigeration systems, but not a single one of them would ever say “Refrigeration works on the carnot cycle.”
            2. You say “Non GHG gases could be used.” To this I say, Duh. As I said in my post “You can do this with ANY pressurised gas.” But the effect would vary from gas to gas as they would all have different heat absorbtion rates. Refrigerants are classified as such becuase they transfer heat quickly and efficiently. So the absorbtion of heat would occur faster with CO2 than it would with Argon, for example.
            3. You say “CO2 vibrates based on its atomic structure at certain frequencies.” I say……Ok?…… Are you talking about CO2 lasers? Because that would be the only area where this fact would be pertainant. While this is true, I think, I do not see any relevence to CO2’s heat absorption properties. Perhaps you can expound on that to eventually come to a point?
            4. You say “The satellites show that more energy is missing coming up out of the earth in the co2 regions.” This statement must be something you are paraphrasing because I can’t find a match to it verbatum when I did an internet search. But I think you are talking about the energy budget for the Earth. I don’t know what you mean to say with that. In fact it is something that is still being studied, and is not completely understood by anybody at this point. And because of that there really is no way that you can say with any certainty that this means anything.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 26, 2012 at 11:10 pm #

          About the club of rome, I was kind of hoping that you you would do a little digging into it, like I did many years ago. If you would, you would begin to see the connections to the UN and the IPCC. But if you just want to take their word for it, go ahead. I just wanted to illustrate that the opposition isn’t all about big oil and fossil fuel ludditism. There are a lot of things that you don’t know.

          • renewable guy January 27, 2012 at 7:14 am #

            Since you aren’t in the business class it wouldn’t completely apply. The UNIPCC is about the least powerful group there is. They are advisory. 2500 scientists come together to compromise on what the evidence says about climate. It becomes conservative in the process. The crticism of the UNIPCC is that the climate is changing faster than the IPCC agreed upon.

      • Rob N. Hood January 27, 2012 at 8:08 am #

        They also come with the Al Queda’s, Iran’s, Taliban’s, Russia’s, etc. the list is long and ancient. Wake up Neil… or are you waking up just a little?

    • renewable guy January 26, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

      I read through my posts and didn’t notice that I said that. Just the same, if I said or implied it I apologize.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 26, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

        Actually Dan said “Everyone else just parrots what IPCC and Hadley CRU are churning out.” You said “This is really a cultural difference rather than a difference in science”. Which I took as you think we are just disagreeing along party lines, parroting dissent because we are Conservatives, or Libertarians. Which I take issue with because I used to be a Liberal, long time ago, but I was critical of the IPCC and AGW theory long before I ever heard anyone on the conservative side say anything about it. In fact I spent several years thinking I was completely alone in my thinking and once I did they were voicing things that I had already thought about.

  11. Hal Groar January 26, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    From all I have read…isn’t CO2 a lagging indicator? Therefore…temps rise then CO2 increases. Just my weird science books? Neil? Renew dude? Dan?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 27, 2012 at 1:24 am #

      Yes it does lag temperature in the proxy studies, ice core, bog core, ocean sediment core, and the like. By about 800 years on average. This is from the oceans outgassing CO2 as they warm, and it takes a long time.

    • renewable guy January 27, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

      In the ice ages the orbital variation came first and co2 solubility decreased releasing it into the earth’s atmosphere. With co2 emissions we are releasing first and along comes the heat reflected back to earth is increasing our surface temperature.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 29, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

        There is no evidence that is the case. if you look at the chart you clearly see that temperature rise PRECEEDS CO2 level rise. What they say a Skeptical science is written to sound plausable but it really makes no sense if you actually think about it. If what they say were true why would the temperature begin to drop before CO2 does? If what they say were true would it not be the case that the temperature would continue to rise due to the positive feedback they claim would happen? And obviously it did not happen. This is what I mean when I say I don’t trust your sources, they are misleading you.

        • renewable guy January 30, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

          That is the state of the science being taught in college courses. Co2 did lag by about 800 years in the ice ages during warming. Then as co2 increased it became a feedback to the natural orbital forcing and tilt of the earth. As the earth warms the solubility of the co2 in the earth decreases just as a can of soda pop does when it gets warm and goes flat. SKS has scientists who practice peer reviewed science in the their professional fields. They are a couple of steps above me in my knowledge of science. Peer reviewed science is as close to reality as you are going to get. We have warming oceans, warming atmosphere, melting artic ocean ice, ice sheet mass accelerating in its decrease. The emperical data coming in matches AGW theory.

    • renewable guy January 27, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

      This is a nice little video summing up AGW.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 28, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

        I watched the little propaganda piece you posted above. Obviously produced for a pre-teen audience. I thought it was funny because throughout the piece they were heavily implying that greenhouse gasses are solely responsible for all of the warming throughout history, showing things like an animated temerature chart moving up and up and up, and comparing our atmosphere to an actual greenhouse while standing on top of one. And then during the summation the guy said:

        “And we also learned that greenhouse gases are important, giving our Earth a nice warm climate. But they MAY now also play a part in changing the climate.”

        Oh! They may? Sounds like he can’t say it with any certainty to me. In fact if you look up the definition of the word may, it means to indicate a CERTAIN MEASURE of likelihood or possibility. If the greenhouse theory is something that is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, would it not be the case that he could have left out the word may? If it was proven fact he would have said “But they also play a part in changing the climate.” So, we all know that they can’t say that because it has yet to be proven, which is why it is still called a theory.

        Now I bet you think that the historical CO2 levels derived from ice core samples is unassailable. Right? Well I wouldn’t lend too much creedence to them, they are not as unassailable as you might think. I suggest you take some time to read this: if you do I garrantee that you will look at ice core data in a whole new light.

        • renewable guy January 29, 2012 at 2:10 am #

          Any decent science paper does not start out with the word fraud in it. Its an easy tipoff as to what the guy is about. I skipped to the end and he is tryin to make the point that some of the co2 increase may not be from humans and is instead from the oceans. If the oceans start outgassing its because they have become to warm to hold all the co2 that is in them now. That is expected to happen down the road. The co2 solubility will decrease over time and less and less co2 will go into the oceans. Eventually at some point the oceans will source co2 rather than sink it.

          I just presented a movie to a small group on global warming and its solution. Earth the operator’s manual.

          Richard Alley is a glacioloigist and climatologist at Penn State. I imagine he would know the ins and outs of reading the ice layers. Its a mere 53 minutes from a very optimistic Republican.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 29, 2012 at 4:54 am #

            You skipped to the end? Wow, that is real thourough of you. Here is a quote from one of Jaworowski’s biggest critics, and then you tell me if the use of the word fraud is not warrented.
            “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well … we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest” (Stephen Schneider, 1989)
            Oh and as far as your little propaganda movie for green energy, I skipped to the end and thought it was a commercial for green energy.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 29, 2012 at 10:28 am #


          • renewable guy January 30, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

            It’s about the time I have. I got his ideas he’s presenting.

          • renewable guy January 30, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

            Interesting little diddy that he is talking about getting emotionally excited over their science. Fine some do. But is the data correct? He could be emotional and correct data or she could Spock like and totally logical and be incorrect. It’s about the observations. It’s not even about what you want to believe, its what does the data tell you. It could be something different than what you expected. That happens often in science.

  12. Joe January 26, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    My God, discourse at it’s best. CO2 is natural. Has been, is and will continue to be. Has it increased? Yes, are we affected? No. Climate “Change” is a natural occurance. Don’t need four para’s to say it. Roy W.Spencer says it all.

    • renewable guy January 27, 2012 at 10:38 pm #

      Is the coal and oil burning emissions natural?

  13. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 27, 2012 at 12:02 am #

    Katharine Hayhoe is a computer modeler. Don’t get me started on computer modeling! I am not going to say she’s a liar. She’s not lying because she believes what her models are telling her. I will disagree with her but that disagreement is based entirely on the validity of modeling the effects of climate change via a computer model. I am not going to go into a tirade about computer modeling, been there done that, what I will do is just state my position on the validity of computer models.
    They are not reality! Computers will only calculate the variables that are input to the program. If you begin with the assumption that catastophic climate change is occuring, then whatever comes out of that model will show catastrophic climate change + whatever else is input. I can’t continue, I get too fired up over these computer models.

    • renewable guy January 27, 2012 at 7:21 am #

      Observations are plugged into the computer also. Hansen had a projection of climate that was good for its time and the climate models have improved since then.

      You have become so angry over the climate issue, you can no longer see the validity of it. Thermometers are showing there is warming. Satellites show there is warming in the long trend.

      Witho0ut co2 the computer models only show natural variation. With co2 the models project the coming climate change much closer.

      Again you are avoiding what is true in climate change.

      If a story of how climate is not changing is brought into the classroom that doesn’t match reality, that is not what education should be.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 28, 2012 at 4:22 am #

        You are completely missing the point. Computer models do not give you new information. They can only predict, or project, or calculate whatever is input to the model. If you tell the model that there will be a certain amount of temperature rise with a certain amount of CO2 then it is going to give you the answer you want. If you tell the computer model that there is an alien race living on Mars that has the conquest of Earth on it’s agenda, the model will tell you that we’re going to be invaded…. soon….. by aliens from Mars.
        If you tell the model that you are the prettiest, most talented girl in America, you will get a model that predicts that you will be chosen as Miss America in the next year or two. It really is GIGO. Which means garbage in garbage out. Whith a computer model you have to know every variable there is to accurately predict, or project future climate changes. And I have news for you. NOBODY KNOWS ALL OF THE VARIABLES! This is why Hansen’s models were wrong.
        And that brings up the point of Hansen. You said “Hansen had a projection of climate that was good for its time and the climate models have improved since then.” How was Hansen’s model any good, ever, if it was wrong? How was that good for its time if it was wrong? And how can his models improve since then if the current ones are also wrong?
        The truth is that nothing that was predicted to be happening now, ten years ago, has happened. The people you rely on for information have a terrible track record for their predictions.
        Sea level rise is not, it’s actually gone down a bit. Mt. Killamanjarro still has snow on it. There is still ice in the Arctic during the summer, and Greenland still has an ice sheet. All of these things were predicted to be dramatically affected by anthropogenic global warming. And what’s happened? Not much.
        There is nobody here that denies that the climate changes. It has been changing ever since it formed 3 1/2-4 billion years ago, and it will continue to change until it is swept away by the expanding red giant our Sun will one day become.
        The total mass of our atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion tonnes. The latest measurement of atmospheric CO2 is 391 ppm. If the anthropogenic greenhouse theory was correct then we would have already seen a major increase in global temperatures, which is not happening. This is what I mean by the science and the observations standing apart.

  14. Rob N. Hood January 27, 2012 at 8:17 am #

    Nice try renewable guy. This isn’t so much about climate for these guys, it’s a battle with “Liberals” and “socialism”, and sometimes they will even unbelievably throw in communism (that’s when they really let their hair down). Someone or all of them will deny this but it is what it is.

    • Dan McGrath January 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

      I’ve always said “green is the new red.”

      • renewable guy January 27, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

        You sound scared. Something you can’t even show. This is really a cultural thing like I was discussiing with Neil. Somehow us Liberals don’t know how to present it to your group without you guys recoiling. That is why I bring up Republicans that teach climatology. If you aren’t going to trust it, there isn’t anything I can do about it.. The science and observations stand. Your opinion is your opinion

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 28, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

      No RNH you are mistaken. The politics of the disagreement is secondary to me. I don’t care what someone’s politics are, if I disagree with them it’s because I disagree with their scientific beliefs. It is you that likes to come here and inject the political arguments into it, and it is actually just a coincidence that I disagree with you politically. Is it my fault that the agenda of the warmist alarmist just happens to be the same agenda of the environmental Left?

  15. Rob N. Hood January 27, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    Told ya so. Sort of appears Dan’s hair, what there is of it, is not very long, but he just let it down, proud-like, just as they did in the 60’s but for much different reasons! And so “the elephant is the new swastika”?! (bad pun, but I had to try, plus Dan deserves some trash-talk for his trash)

    • renewable guy January 27, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

      Its a real effort to try and reach people so that they will even listen.

      This is partly why I say it is cultural. There is a different viewpoint of the world. This difference mixed with AGW presents a real challenge.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 28, 2012 at 9:48 pm #

        No, it’s that you think there is no way you are wrong and therefore anyone who disagrees with you needs to be reached or educated. And I do listen. I just disagree with what I hear. And it’s not because I’m a conservative, it’s because I don’t believe or trust the sources you rely upon for your information.
        Why should I listen to you anyway? Who are you?

        • renewable guy January 29, 2012 at 2:29 am #

          It’s not about me . That is why I list sources. Its about the observed reality. Have you ignored the disinformation out there. Have you looked into where the models are correct? If you take a view that all AGW is wrong, on what basis.

          97% of peer reviewed climate scientists say AGW is human caused. Amongst the peer reviewed climate scientists the AGW debate is over, They are moving on. Its the social arena that you and I are in where this is differences. No science organization in the world refutes AGW as false.

          The medical field is starting to loose its authority with patients for a variety of reasons. And yet if you don’t use them at the right time like Steve Jobs, you miss out on what they are very good at.

          Climate scientists call on several science fields mostly physics to understand the climate and as many of its intricacies as possible. Their database of observations fit the observed science laws that we presently know. They are the authority on climate. If you believe otherwise than the observations, then that is your priveledge to do so. That is why I quote the science frequently. I am not the authority. If you are using WUWT for your authority, you are using people that are purposely misleading on the science. I do not accept them as authority on climate and if they have something great to share it should pass muster in the peer reviewed science circles based on quality evidence and analysis. The last part is where they fail consistently.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 29, 2012 at 5:33 am #

            “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace.

            “We routinely wrote scare stories…Our press reports were more or less true…We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment.” Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency.

            “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official.

            “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin.

            “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” Al Gore. (Eyeore).

            “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.” Sir John Houghton, lead editor of first three IPCC reports.

            “It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.” Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist.

            “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister.

            “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator.

            “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat.

            “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.” From the UN’s Own “Agenda 21”

            “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and member of The Club of Rome.

            “Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible.” Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA.

            “I think if we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically,” Judi Bari, an American environmentalist and labor leader, a feminist, and the principal organizer of Earth First.

            “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.” David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club.

            “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…” David Rockefeller.

            “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.” Mikhail Gorbachev.

            “A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis.” Gordon Brown.

            “The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises – whether real or not – is expected to lead to – compliance” Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington.

            I could go on and on and on and on but I think I have enough to make my point. And that is that you are supporting every single one of these people. You are a useful id iot.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 29, 2012 at 9:15 am #

            “First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it.” Freeman Dyson Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study.

            “It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 – 6.4 C warming. What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans.” Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.

            “The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate ‘realistic’ simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic.” Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.

            “That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.” Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

            “There is evidence of global warming. … But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.” Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.

            “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.” David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.

            “Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. … Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100.” Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.

            “I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.” William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.

            “All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide” William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University.

            Global warming “is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole” Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

            “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?” Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University.

          • renewable guy January 30, 2012 at 10:40 pm #

            NEIL F. AGWD/BSD says:
            January 29, 2012 at 5:33 am

            I see lots of socialism and other buzz words that scare people on the right. I don’t advocate socialism, I advocate a better life. I don’t really care for my options being restricted because of knee jerk, predetermined, hammered home by a central group of people. Socialism does not benefit the rich. I get that. Some degrees of socialism are good. I’m not advocating extreme socialism, but I could care less if the rich are resisting it. I do not want to see privatized water and sewer for instance. You will see your costs go up 3 to 5 times with no end in sight. Another would be the sewer system. Same scenario. Exhorbitant costs to the consumer while some guy justifies it while liveing in his million dollar house. HOw many millionaires can this society support before it caves in the society. Its not infinite.

            Privitizing some of the NASA rocket program might be ok though.

            The private sector does a great job in a lot of areas. And that’s great. And there are areas the private sector is a horrible failure at, sucking all the money they can get out of the government.

          • renewable guy January 30, 2012 at 10:47 pm #

            NEIL F. AGWD/BSD says:
            January 29, 2012 at 9:15 am

            I’m not sure what your are up to printing up all this stuff. I’ll assume this is what you object to and that the solution to AGW will somehow corrupt the world. There are market based solutions that have minimal government involvment. Ronald Reagen and George Bush both used market based solutions to resolve leaded gasoline and acid rain.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 29, 2012 at 6:19 am #

          Actually I think I will go on.

          “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” UN’s Commission on Global Governance.

          “Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.” David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports.

          “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States…De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation…Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.” John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar.

          “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.” Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General.

          “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

          “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Michael Oppenheimer.

          “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.” Louis Proyect, Columbia University.

          “However it is achieved, a thorough reorganisation of production, consumption and distribution will be the end result of humanity’s response to the climate emergency and the broader environmental crisis.” Walden Bello, founding director of Focus on the Global South.

          “The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization…Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine.” Keith Farnish, environmental writer, philosopher and activist.

          “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” Club of Rome.

          “Obama is already setting a new historic course by reorienting the economy from private consumption to public investments…free-market pundits bemoan the evident intention of Obama and team to ‘tell us what kind of car to drive’. Yet that is exactly what they intend to do…and rightly so. Free-market ideology is an anachronism in an era of climate change.” Jeffery Sachs, Columbia University, Director of The Earth Institute.

          “Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.” René Dubos, French scientist.

          “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University.

          “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation.

          “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” Club of Rome.

          “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First.

          “I would be remiss, as a scientist who studied this, if I didn’t mention the following two things: The first is that, most importantly, we need to do, as a society, in this country and globally, whatever we can to reduce population”…..”Our whole economic system is based on growth, and growth of our population, and this economic madness has to end.” John Miller, a NOAA climate scientist.

          “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth – social and environmental.” Ingrid Newkirk, a former PETA President.

          “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.” Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office.

          “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.” David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.

          “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” Amory Lovins, scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute.

          “We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” David Graber, scientist U.S. Nat’l Park Services.

          “Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.” Eric Pianka, professor at University of Texas.

          “An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth…..discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression are the only solution.” “As for those “most responsible for the present economic growth and competition”, Linkola explains that they will be sent to the mountains for “re-education” in eco-gulags: “the sole glimmer of hope,” he declares, “lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens.” Pentti Linkola, a Finnish ecological philosopher.

          “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.” Ross Gelbsan, former journalist.

          “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos.” Noel Brown, UN official.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 30, 2012 at 6:25 am #

            Sorry Dan I know it’s too long.

  16. Joe January 27, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

    Renewable guy, You seem like your on a religious journey? It snowed today in MN and will continue, as always Where I just came back from it was always 82 degrees and was 68 degrees. My God, must be climate change? Yes, climate does change. When I left it was 82 again. Suggest you read other experts side other than the left wing side?

    • Rob N. Hood January 28, 2012 at 10:47 am #

      Uh… earth to Joe. Renewable guy is HERE reading the above right-wing crap, opps I mean articles, so there goes another one of your ASSumptions.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 28, 2012 at 11:27 pm #

        Is that what he’s doing here. Could have fooled me. It seems to me that he is here to convince us of what he believes, not to seek any information otherwise.

        • Rob N. Hood February 4, 2012 at 11:20 am #

          And YOU are here, why?? Don’t be a hyprocrite Neil. Haven’t you learned that is a huge issue for you on the Right? I am doing you a FAVOR by pointing that out to you. Seems to no avail. PLUS RG is reading your stuff AND the posted articles… WHY do you have a problem with that? You only have a problem with anyone disagreeing with you, that’s all. But YOU can disagree to your heart’s content though.

    • renewable guy January 29, 2012 at 2:31 am #


      I think you are quoting weather to me. Do you know the difference between climate and weather?

  17. Hal Groar January 28, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    Evidence is mounting that there is a real Bigfoot also. I think we should start teaching that to the children, also confiscating a large percentage of the U. S.’s GDP to protect this very endangered species. We should model it and factor in the effect that humans have had on it’s environment. There should be a UN conference on how it is all the fault of the greedy hunting lobby that we can not find proof of the beast. Maybe we could get Dr. Hansen to whip out a couple E-mails about it’s diet and mating habits, modeled of course. Of course I am being ridiculous, none more then the AGW story.

    • renewable guy January 29, 2012 at 2:34 am #

      Got any evidence??
      Is it verifiable by other people?
      Do your analysis to suggest it might exist and what is the uncertainty level?

      • Hal Groar February 3, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

        Well Renewguy, Neil nailed it…and Rob was again…wrong. I find it funny that I wrote a satirical blast and Neil got it, Rob changed its meaning and you weren’t sure what the hell it was. I have a feeling that’s why we all disagree. Just remember…Neil gets it, Rob changes it and you don’t know what the hell it is! Dan is in there somewhere…hard to define.

        • Rob N. Hood February 4, 2012 at 11:21 am #

          How am I wrong Hal? Please explain yourself. It is very easy just to say you are right etc., without indicating WHY…

    • Dan McGrath March 14, 2012 at 8:33 am #

      Good analogy.

  18. Rob N. Hood January 29, 2012 at 8:36 am #

    To Reguy. Hal is even less rigorous than most here, so don’t bother with the attempt at rationalism and/or logical approach. Especially when they are being obviously hyperbolic. Although truth be told sometimes it is difficult to discern the difference.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 29, 2012 at 9:28 am #

      I swear you do not know the difference between hyperbole and satire. Hal’s post is obviously satirical. Look it up!

      • renewable guy January 29, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

        Believe it or not that was my humor about bigfoot. Is it reproducible? My face gestures need to show better.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 29, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

          I slapped my knee so hard my shin’s facing backwards! (Now that’s hyperbole!)

          • renewable guy January 30, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

            Sometimes the humor gods are not on my side:)

      • Rob N. Hood January 30, 2012 at 9:40 am #

        My tragically anal friend Neil: My point was made regardless, and yes you are CORRECT, satire probably IS the better word. It doesn’t really matter, in such a case, really does it? You Rightys sure don’t know whch fight is best to fight. Always shadow boxing at windmills. Thrown this way and that by the powers that be, so you don’t know what is truly important for even your own best interests. It’s time to wake up and grow up.

    • Hal Groar February 3, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

      Rob I am crushed! You and I go way back…I still get the willeys when I am confronted with my kids video cartoons. I may be less rigorous…but where I come from common sense is also less rigorous. I will take that road everyday.

  19. Rob N. Hood January 30, 2012 at 9:50 am #

    Hyperbole: exaggeration, overstatement, etc. Deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect.

  20. Joe January 31, 2012 at 12:55 am #

    “Renewable/sustainable” whatever you say your name is, my name is “Joe.” Must I spell it? Climate/weather is combined together. I’m a believer in Roy W. Spencer, PHD and his take on climate. Does ir change? Yes? Are we the direct cause? No. Suggest you check his website? Enough said. The previous posts are boring and nonsensical I must say.

  21. Rob N. Hood January 31, 2012 at 8:14 am #

    So Joe, let me get this straight. You are chastising someone re: your “name” while referring to him as “whatever your name is”? Really? We don’t know if your real name is Joe nor do we care. It’s IRRELEVANT, and nonsensical to place any importance on it. Now if this was a court of law… which IT ISN’T. It’s not even a coffee klatch. Get over thyself.

  22. Rob N. Hood January 31, 2012 at 8:14 am #

    Uhh, Neil… maybe you and Dan should go to a chat room…

  23. Joe February 2, 2012 at 11:20 pm #

    Can see the anti-deniers are very active lately, eh?

  24. Rob N. Hood February 4, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    Where’s Neil to dispute the definition above, etc. ? (hint: there can be no dispute cuz it’s accurate and appropriate, etc.) Where’s Hal with his “common sense” explanation about where I was “wrong”? And gosh Joe, feeling a little bit of heat finally, in this tiny echo chamber? It’s about time I say. R.G. does a waaaaay better job than me, so good in fact I’m once again considering retiring from this site.

  25. Rob N. Hood February 5, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

    chirp…. chirp…

  26. Joe February 5, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    You enjoy your posts? And who’s RH? Your alter-ego?

  27. Rob N. Hood February 6, 2012 at 8:18 am #


  28. Rob N. Hood February 6, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    Ok, nevermind. Here’s a common-sensical type question for Neil, re: his conspiratorial posts above: IF the elite (Left or Right or BOTH) have a secret plan for population reduction… wouldn’t they be ignoring climate change and avoid getting the un-washed natives (us/the world) all excited and conscientious about our environment, etc.?? Wouldn’t it make a WHOLE LOT MORE SENSE for them to trick us by not hyping it, at all, and letting the global warming chips fall where they may??? Serious question, posted for your serious attention.

    • Dan McGrath February 6, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

      You’re presuming that global warming is a real threat and that the pushers of it believe in what they’re selling. For those in the population reduction movement, global warming offers an excuse.

      • Rob N. Hood February 8, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

        How’s that Dan? Population reduction people (whoever they are) use global warming as an excuse, how and for what exactly? Please explain.

        • Dan McGrath February 8, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

          To justify their crazy ideas and proposals to reduce the human population.

  29. Rob N. Hood February 6, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    Ahhh, well that’s clear as mud. Thanks Dan! I do believe many of the “pushers” beleive in what they are doing. Just as you believe in what it is you do. As for the PRM (Population Reduction Movement…guess we can acrocynmize that, eh??!!) that would be such a samll tightly knit group of ELITE (if they in fact do exist) that you or I will probably never know of them either way. I don’t want to say you people are paranoid, but….. well, what the heck, you are. So in other words Dan- you neatly sliced those two Intertwined beliefs, as if with a Ginsu knife… pretty slick there Slick.

  30. Rob N. Hood February 6, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    And I asked Neil- not you. But you’re entitled I guess…

  31. Rob N. Hood February 6, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    And Neil had those two concepts preeettty tied up into a nice little bow…

  32. Joe February 7, 2012 at 1:06 am #

    Hood, love to read your inane comments. You make me love sanity more than you will ever know. By the way, wish to thank Dan for his efforts on Voter ID! Kudo’s. Keep it up!

  33. Rob N. Hood February 7, 2012 at 8:16 am #

    My comments are very rarely inane. It must be the dirty filter you are reading them thru. Time for some spring cleaning? No comment from Neil- the original poster of current topic of “debate”? Why is my logic re: pop. control vis-a-vis global warming data incongruant wrong? Dan tried to expalin it in his normal weasly way, but that doesn’t answer my question- UNLESS the AGW’s and the PRM are two COMPLETELY separate groups! (I believe that was Dan’s point). This could be true, perhaps even must be true (if we take several thing for granted) BUT it still doesn’t explain Neil’s posts above which imply direct convergence. Help me out here Neil… (and please Joe, refrain, this is an adult conversation).

  34. Rob N. Hood February 8, 2012 at 8:14 am #


  35. Rob N. Hood February 8, 2012 at 12:49 pm #


  36. Dan McGrath February 8, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    Dan has been temporarily replaced by a robot while he works on Voter ID.

  37. Joe February 8, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

    Keep it up “Robo-Dan”

  38. Rob N. Hood February 9, 2012 at 8:12 am #

    Hmmm, I can’t tell the difference. And talk about hating freedom- Dan is the poster child. From now on, everything that comes into your minds, stop and then think the opposite. THAT will be truth, logic, and reason! Try it, it’s almost like magic.

  39. Rob N. Hood February 9, 2012 at 10:09 am #

    And I am so disgusted with Dan’s nazi-like activities, specifically the evil and sinister voter ID nonsense, that I may have to boycott this inane site. Unlike the Dude, I can’t abide, anymore. Either way it’s next too nothing for me to stop visiting this site, in fact the natives here will appreciate having less annoying buzzing of the mosquito who carrys logic and reason like malaria, or so that is how I imagine they feel. Shallow waters spread out, but they dry up easily too.

  40. Joe February 10, 2012 at 1:42 am #

    Hood, If you call your statements “Logic and Reason” you seriously have a problem. Calling Dan a Nazi is beyond reproach. That said, reading your posts for a few months, nothing shocks me that comes from your words compliments of your weak fingers on the keyboard. Ever see daylight? Doesn’t sound like it. Someday you may enjoy like but it certainly doesn’t sound to promising. Good luck.

  41. Rob N. Hood February 10, 2012 at 8:23 am #

    Earth to Joe: “Nazi-like” – there’s a difference, but then again if the shoe fits. There is NOTHING good about voter ID, and it has nothing to do with freedom and the American way, and it is a Fascist move. Thus, Nazi-like. Get it now? I’m sure you don’t…

  42. Rob N. Hood February 11, 2012 at 9:09 am #

    In the beginning, many Nazis merely thought they were being patriotic (some even towards the end). It’s a fools game, a very slippery slope, and a trap set by the elite that only suckers fall for.

  43. Rob N. Hood February 14, 2012 at 8:25 am #

    Dan apparenlty doesn’t know it, yet, be he is one. He’s actually helping the elite accomplish what they want, all the while pretending or believeing that he is doing the opposite. That’s how these things work- in fact probably the only way it can. It is the best and most effecitve way at least for awhile. There are countless historical examples. And they all end up the same way- oppression, suppression, destruction, death, and misery for all.

  44. Rob N. Hood February 14, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    But the elite will get their way. If not now soon enough. They want electronic voting everywhere, and they will achieve that. After that, well, it’s just a scary thought. The new “21st Century Voting” (wow sounds good huh?) has a lot of appealing aspects to it. Sounds good, sure does. Funny thing though- we didn’t really need it. And the old fashioned way was very accurate and not expensive, and only inconvenient for those in big cities who had to wait in long lines. But heck, once every four years, even two, most people don’t mind a minor inconvenience like that to support and uphold something as crucial as democracy. Isn’t that what all these bloody wars are for (not really)? We are letting out kids die for “democracy” in foreign lands… Must be an important consept, huh?

    • Dan McGrath February 14, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

      I’m letting you troll up the site. That should be good enough for you. Stick to global warming here, please. I’ve asked you several times nicely to leave the voter ID debate off of GCS.

  45. Rob N. Hood February 15, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    Alternate opinions are trolling? Perhaps. But then again there’s the freedom of speech thing, which you are very good about I must admit.

  46. joe March 12, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    As stated Hood, keep on the subject at hand.

  47. Rob N. Hood March 14, 2012 at 7:59 am #

    [expletives, personal comments deleted by moderator – Note: It seems you are having difficulty with the notion of civil comments (not to mention staying on appropriate topics). Hateful attacks and profanity won’t be tolerated]

  48. Rob N. Hood March 14, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    I’m only human… and can take only so much “sugar”-coated viciousness.

  49. Rob N. Hood March 14, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    Thanks though for not making me invisible here, as elsewhere. Toleration has its limits I guess even in a great free country like this (was).

  50. Rob N. Hood March 20, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    BTW- that “other site” VERY BORING. Shoulda let me troll it for ya.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.