Comments (105)

• David C

  One thing I found startling, two years ago they didn't even know plants emitted methane - now they know they are the number one source of it by orders of magnitude. My issue is, how could they miss that in all their dire and unchallengable predictions and still be the slightest bit credible. Not only that, but methane acts as a "greenhouse gas" far more than CO2 and there is much more of it. Will they regulate plants now? Will they regulate farmers and forests? The home garden and lawn?

  But then look at this article. The first thing it boldly declares is that it doesn't matter and it's the "shift" that's the issue. ( Methane, Plants and Climate Change) How could somebody who objectively and impartially observe the facts even say anything remotely close to that? The are not credible. In a major "science" publication too.

  I guess I'm barking up the wrong tree. Only a fool would think that Al Gore and the UN ever were about science.

  Published: May 2, 2007 9:21 AM

• David C

  oops, the article url is...
  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=1367E15B-E7F2-99DF-346DBF33877B8596

  Published: May 2, 2007 9:22 AM

• Brad

  ***As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"***

  I don't compel people by Force when I know that my understanding is imperfect and the "facts" have a habit of changing. I conduct my life based on the best known information I have, and bear the consequences. I refuse to unleash a torrent of Statism on other people to adhere to my understandings only to be proven wrong later. I refuse to give the State a blank check, who then can fall back on "errors and omissions" when their actions are proven to be detrimental.

  And you, sir?

  Published: May 2, 2007 10:03 AM

• George Gaskell

  Whatever the problem is, Statism is not the answer.

  If Statism is the proposed solution, then I know, ipso facto, that either the "problem" is false, or the proposed solution won't fix it.

  Published: May 2, 2007 10:16 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  Very interesting article, Jeff. It gives me another reason to waver between the "mainstream skeptics" like Patrick Michaels and those I like to call the "strong skeptics." The former accept the idea that global warming is anthropogenic and caused by methane and CO2, while the latter question that it is even anthropogenic. To my knowledge, the jury seems to be out on who is right. What is more certain is that the alarmists (like Gore and his acolytes) are gross exaggeraters at best.

  Published: May 2, 2007 3:45 PM

• TokyoTom

  Jeff, thanks for the interesting link. I suggest that readers note that the author's actual areas of expertise lie outside of climate science, and also take a look through the comments.

  By the way, have you looked at any of the links I have offered by those who have expertise in this area, such as Exxon?

  Or, concerning the economics, such as Nordhaus, Stern (discount factors aside), Bruce Yandle, Terry Anderson, John Baden, Jonathan Adler (http://volokh.com/posts/1177606109.shtml)?
  

  Published: May 7, 2007 1:24 AM

• Scott D

  "I suggest that readers note that the author's actual areas of expertise lie outside of climate science..."

  In other words, "Hey, look, judge the evidence for yourself. Oh, you disagree? Well, you're not a climate scientist. You don't matter."

  I think that the important point to take away from this article is the entanglement of politics and science that the author points out. Politics can't help but influence the science at this point, which is a bad thing, no matter what the truth about global warming really is.

  Published: May 7, 2007 7:35 AM

• TokyoTom

  Scott, care to explain further what is wrong with noting that the author's actual areas of expertise lie outside of climate science? Is this information simply irrelevant, or are you bothered because you think it cuts in a way you prefer it not to?

  Well, welcome to the human race.

  Published: May 7, 2007 10:43 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  TT,

  Serious questions, since I don't know the answers and would like to:

  What proportion of climate modelers have expertise (defined as a degree in climate science or its close equivalent) in climate science?

  And what proportion of climate scientists have expertise in statistics and computer modeling?

  It seems to me that statisticians and computer modelers can study the climate science on their own and become pretty knowledgeable about it. And it seems to me that they would have important things to say about climate science insofar as it employs statistics and computer climate models.

  Just because you don't have a degree in something doesn't mean you aren't an expert or at least pretty knowledgeable. It doesn't a priori invalidate your considered opinion.

  Published: May 8, 2007 12:18 AM

• Scott D

  "Scott, care to explain further what is wrong with noting that the author's actual areas of expertise lie outside of climate science?"

  First off, that is a blatant exaggeration. It is like saying that a biologist's area of expertise lies outside of medicine, and that he therefore cannot address health questions with any degree of expertise.

  "Is this information simply irrelevant..."

  Yes, it is irrelevant. The author highlighted several pieces of known evidence that drew him to his conclusion. He did not claim to be better at the science than the scientists, but merely holds that enough evidence has surfaced to cast AGW into doubt, and that the counter-evidence is not being addressed in a satisfactory manner.

  "...or are you bothered because you think it cuts in a way you prefer it not to?"

  Tom, your tactics are what bother me most. I do not claim to know the truth about AGW and will continue to withhold final judgment until I can be certain of the answer. I have seen many skeptics' arguments fold under scrutiny, while a few have thus far proven to have worthy arguments that deserve further investigation. However, rather than explore these questions further and debate the merits of the argument itself, you either attack the skeptic's credentials (as above), or you appeal to an authority opinion for the answer.

  The one point in the debate that I am certain of is that a state-initiated solution to AGW will never work, and it will bring with it unprecendented hardship for mankind. Also, it will most likely worsen the problem in some unforeseen way. Anyone who believes otherwise is blind to the evidence of history.

  You hold it out for us, begging the question, "See, nothing else will work. We need to impose carbon taxes." Well, my friend, if it comes to that, you can bet that catastrophic warming will be the less disastrous outcome. The evidence for that is more solid than anything the climate scientists could amass in the next a thousand years.

  Published: May 8, 2007 5:29 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  Indeed, Scott... You've identified two of what I see as distinguishing characteristics of an alarmist. Another is attacking the critic's source of funding. All three debating tactics are examples of logical fallacies.

  Published: May 8, 2007 8:32 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  Oops... make that three you've identified. The third being "horrible crisis is imminent, so we must take drastic and coercive action now." The first part of such a claim is unproven and the second would be a non sequitur anyway.

  
  I formulated a corollary to Azimov's corollary to Clarke's First Law of Prediction (see the whole blog post for more info):

  "When scientists, no matter how distinguished or elderly, rally around an idea with great fervor and emotion, announce a crisis of potentially catastrophic proportions is imminent, call for drastic and coercive action now, and denounce skeptics as ignorant laymen, partisan hacks, or enemies of science - they probably haven't looked in the mirror in a long time."

  Alternate ending: "something fishy is probably going on."

  Published: May 8, 2007 8:39 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  First scientists discover that the earth is warming and attribute it primarily or solely to human activity.

  Recently it was discovered that Mars is warming. Can't be anthropogenic. What could be the cause?

  Now it appears that Neptune has been warming since 1980 too. Can't be anthropogenic. What could be the cause?

  Looks like it might be the sun. Hhmmm...Mars...Neptune...but not the earth?

  Published: May 8, 2007 3:38 PM

• TokyoTom

  Geoff:

  Thanks for the response, which i missed until (and have been away).

  1. You ask: "What proportion of climate modelers have expertise (defined as a degree in climate science or its close equivalent) in climate science?

  And what proportion of climate scientists have expertise in statistics and computer modeling?"

  I don`t know the answers to these questions, but you could ask them at climate science blogs such as Real Climate, or even get the details of the IPCC report drafters and reviewers from the IPCC.

  2. "It seems to me that statisticians and computer modelers can study the climate science on their own and become pretty knowledgeable about it. And it seems to me that they would have important things to say about climate science insofar as it employs statistics and computer climate models."

  "Just because you don't have a degree in something doesn't mean you aren't an expert or at least pretty knowledgeable. It doesn't a priori invalidate your considered opinion."

  I agree. Maybe David Evans, who Jeffrey says "was on the payroll of the global-warming industry" has a considered opinion. But his article does not indicate that he knows climate science or climate modelling, and he does not mention how others with such expertise have responded to the points he raises. I have not troubled to myself, as I have already done so many times over the past year. I have just pointed out that the fact that he worked for the Aussie government in estimating carbon emissions from forestry and land use change does not make him particularly qualified to pass judgment on the matters that trouble him.

  Regards,

  Tom

  Published: May 19, 2007 11:24 AM

• TokyoTom

  Geoff:

  Thanks for the response, which i missed until (and have been away).

  1. You ask: "What proportion of climate modelers have expertise (defined as a degree in climate science or its close equivalent) in climate science?

  And what proportion of climate scientists have expertise in statistics and computer modeling?"

  I don`t know the answers to these questions, but you could ask them at climate science blogs such as Real Climate, or even get the details of the IPCC report drafters and reviewers from the IPCC.

  2. "It seems to me that statisticians and computer modelers can study the climate science on their own and become pretty knowledgeable about it. And it seems to me that they would have important things to say about climate science insofar as it employs statistics and computer climate models."

  "Just because you don't have a degree in something doesn't mean you aren't an expert or at least pretty knowledgeable. It doesn't a priori invalidate your considered opinion."

  I agree. Maybe David Evans, who Jeffrey says "was on the payroll of the global-warming industry" has a considered opinion. But his article does not indicate that he knows climate science or climate modelling, and he does not mention how others with such expertise have responded to the points he raises. I have not troubled to myself, as I have already done so many times over the past year. I have just pointed out that the fact that he worked for the Aussie government in estimating carbon emissions from forestry and land use change does not make him particularly qualified to pass judgment on the matters that trouble him.

  Regards,

  Tom

  Published: May 19, 2007 11:24 AM

• TokyoTom

  Sorry for the double post. For some reason this browser (Opera) doesn`t close the comment window after I click "Post".

  Scott D.:

  I have partly addressed your comments in my response to Geoff.

  1. David Evans himself makes no claims of expertise with respect to the matters that trouble him, and his website notes that he "has a background in mathematics, computing, and electrical engineering. He also researches mathematics, in the areas of Fourier analysis, calculus, the number system, and multivariable polynomials." While he has clearly been involved in helping the Australian government the forestry/land use carbon stocks in Australia, his experience in that capacity is largely irrelvant - except perhaps in a private capacity if he has devoted considerable personal time to the matter - to understanding the evidence for the various factors that contribute to climate change.

  It is perfectly fair - and relevant - to note this. You and Geoff seem to want to hold Evans up as some kind of authority figure for matters that Evans himself claims no expertise. I find it rather odd that you find my comments to be a "blatant exaggeration". Perhaps you should consider why you react that way.

  2. I am sorry that my "tactics" are what bother you most. Like you, I do not claim to know the "truth" about climate - other than that the climate IS changing, is extremely complicated and will never be fully understood by humans. I too have seen many skeptics' arguments fold under scrutiny. I agree fully that all arguments deserve further investigation. However, when you accuse me of "rather than explor[ing] these questions further and debate the merits of the argument itself, you either attack the skeptic's credentials (as above), or you appeal to an authority opinion for the answer" - you are making an unfair personal attack based on incomplete evidence. You might wonder why I have not directly addressed any of Evans` arguments, but you miss the point - Jeffrey Tucker did not raise particular arguments to be addressed, but simply wanted to introduce an anti-AGW argument based on what he considered to be an authority. The correct type of response to such an argument is to question Mr. Evan`s authority, not the various arguments that Evans separately makes.

  Further, if you`d care to do any research on my "tactics" here at Mises, you might quickly see that I have posted year for over a year and have exhaustively and patiently responded to all questions. The points raised by Evans I have already addressed elsewhere on this blog. If you have questions that you wish me to spend time addressing, the best way to do that is not to attack my "tactics", but to simply ask if I have a view on something.

  3. You say "The one point in the debate that I am certain of is that a state-initiated solution to AGW will never work, and it will bring with it unprecendented hardship for mankind. Also, it will most likely worsen the problem in some unforeseen way. Anyone who believes otherwise is blind to the evidence of history."

  The one point in the debate that I am sure of is that there are no effective property rights in the globals atmosphere (and a host of other open-access resources/public goods). Does that mean anything to you?

  You say "You hold it out for us, begging the question, "See, nothing else will work. We need to impose carbon taxes." Well, my friend, if it comes to that, you can bet that catastrophic warming will be the less disastrous outcome."

  I have strongly advocated no policy position. Perhaps we can talk more about the role of government in clarifying/enforcing property rights.

  Regards,

  TT

  Published: May 19, 2007 12:01 PM

• TokyoTom

  Geoff, I hope you`ll be kind enough to tell me directly if you think I am an "alarmist" and what, if any, "logical fallacies" you think I exhibit.

  You say that one "distinguishing characteristic" of "an alarmist" is "attacking the critic's source of funding." Isn`t this something that Austrian economics teaches us to do - to consider rent-seeking as a motive. And isn`t the same tactic one of the skeptics, to point to the funding of climate scientists and to the rent-seeking of carbon emitters and traders?

  It seems to me that one distinguishing characteristic of the Austrian skeptics is to discard completely Austrian insights - other than possible rent-deeking by evil enviros and their industry backers - and to ignore the absence of effective or enforceable property rights in the atmosphere and other open-access resources/public goodsproperty rights. Austrians prefer to avoid discussing matters of principle, but to focus on matters on which they have little expertise. Why is that?

  Published: May 20, 2007 8:51 AM

• Dennis

  TokyoTom,

  I do not believe that Austrians "ignore the absence of effective or enforceable property rights in the atmosphere and other open-access resources". I believe most Austrians admit this is a problem.

  Speaking for myself, what I object to is drawing from this correct observation regarding property rights the conclusion that AGW exists in the first place, and that if it does exist its proponents can reasonably show that its magnitude will have negative consequences for humans.

  Published: May 20, 2007 9:38 AM

• Dennis

  I should have added at the end of the directly above comment that “the conclusions do not logically follow from the (admittedly correct) observation.”

  Published: May 20, 2007 9:44 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  TT,

  I don't agree with your characterization of Austrians in general. It may be true of some but not of all.

  As to whether or not I think you are an alarmist. The jury is still out on that one. You've been a fairer debating partner than ChrisB. I'm withholding judgment for now but your remarks to me over at the Liberty & Power blog (the post on peer review by Higgs) were rather worrisome to me. I also worry about excessive certainty about the negative effects of global warming. Even the IPCC seems to me to make far stronger scientific claims and policy recommendations than it ought to do based on the state of the science. And Al Gore and his fans go much much farther than the IPCC. For one thing, climate models are not reliable enough to be making predictions about future climate and to be basing policy recommendations on. Also, I don't trust RealClimate very much. They seem very ideologically biased to me.

  Regarding funding, it is legitimate to criticize the effect various sources of funding have or may have on the scientific process in general. Thus, I question the strength of the so-called consensus (both on AGW and on the possible severity and effects of global warming). I see an imperfect (yet probably indispensable) peer review process that is probably undermined by the subject being so moralized and politicized. I question whether alternative viewpoints are getting a fair hearing in funding reviews and journal peer reviewing and the media.

  But it is not sufficient and is indeed a logical fallacy (ad hominem) to criticize or dismiss a particular scientist's substantive claims on the basis of his alleged or real, partial or whole, source of funding. It is a personal attack on his integrity for one thing. And for another, it does not speak one iota to the validity of his substantive claims.

  Nearly every environmentalist I encounter attempts to discredit and suppress critics (from AGW skeptics to skeptics of doom and gloom) by raising the funding issue. I am especially disturbed when self-described libertarians do so. Any good libertarian ought to be critical of corporate "capitalism" but it shows a remarkable lack of understanding (especially for a libertarian) to be critical of corporate funding while being blasé about government and other special interest funding.

  Published: May 20, 2007 12:20 PM

• TokyoTom

  Dennis, thanks for your response.

  I appreciate your concession that effective and enforceable property rights are absent with respect to the atmosphere (and perhaps other open-access resources).

  I agree with you completely that this "admittedly correct observation" does not logically imply that either AGW is occurring or that it will have negative consequences for humans. However, I do object to your implication that I have "draw[n] from this correct observation regarding property rights" either of those two conclusions. Instead, I have consistently provided direct arguments for them - and offered the absence of effective and enforceable property rights as an Austrian explanation for WHY such phenomenon would occur despite general environmental improvement in the Western economies, why the rhetoric concerning climate change is bound to grow more heated (as market mechanisms are not available to settle conflicts) and why rent-seeking has been occuring and is litle to continue.

  Regards,

  TT

  
  

  Published: May 22, 2007 5:41 AM

• TokytoTom

  Geoff, thank you for your magnanimity in withholding judgment as to whether I am an "alarmist".

  However, may I continue to point out that you have provided no useful definition for this rhetorical term, which seems to be more that a bit loaded, and thus perhaps perilously close to either a strawman, demonization or emtional appeal? While it may be helpful for you in defending pre-existing views, it seems hardly conducive to truly exploring the terrain.

  Of course I think it is perfectly fair (and commendable) for you to question the basis of people's judgments, and I concur that much of the political debate and positioning is rather shallow and lacking nuance. However, I think that this quite normal and simply in the nature of political discourse - many of those who are cautious about accepting the evidence for climate change or who generally opposed to government interference quite commonly take shallow and reflexive positions in return.

  And on a matter that many consider important, including scientists, I do not consider it surprising - or wrong - that a number of scientists may take strong personal positions; that is their right (and they may consider it their obligation) as informed citizens, as others noted in the comments on the remarks by Higgs concerning peer review. http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/38532.html. Please note that I do not consider that scientists, merely because they perceive a problem, are uniquely positioned to assert any authority as to how society should respond to such problem.

  On the issue of fundings, I think you are trying to eat your cake and have it too. You find it fine to "criticize" generally "the effect various sources of funding have or may have on the scientific process in general", while arguing that it is "a logical fallacy (ad hominem) to criticize or dismiss a particular scientist's substantive claims on the basis of his alleged or real, partial or whole, source of funding". One may take issue with your definition of ad hominem - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem - but in any case, you should apply your standards consistently, and make sure you are not rejecting the work of ALL climate scientists because of the biases that you think funding systems may influence. It is a little too convenient that you rush to the defense of sientists on one side of the debate while seeking with broad strokes to dismiss or downplay those on the other side.

  And finally, I find it worrisome that you continue to rely so heavily on rhetorical strawmen in your comments to me. You close by posting the strawman of (1) "nearly every environmentalist [you] encounter" who (2) "attempts to discredit and suppress critics" by (3) raising the funding issue - thus implying that I am unfairly attempting to attempts to discredit and suppress critics. Would you be so kind as to make the accusation directly, based on something I have said here, and support it? For the record, please note that I made no claim that David Evans's position should be dismissed based on his funding, but rather indirectly (by question) made the very general statement in response to you that it is a very Austrian position to consider rent-seeking as a motive in all cases where a battle for government action or inaction is underway. That is completely fair and cuts many different ways, so I find very puzzling that you seem to find my statement to be "especially disturb[ing]" - unless of course I completely misunderstood you and you did not intend to address that strawman to me.

  On top of this you add a further strawman by statting that "any good libertarian" "shows a remarkable lack of understanding ... to be critical of corporate funding while being blasé about government and other special interest funding". If you intend to suggest that I am "blasé about government and other special interest funding", I guess I have to express my puzzlement at what I have said that leads you to such a conlusion. Do you care to support this suggestion, or do you simply find it to be a useful debating technique to assume what you wish about those you exchange views with? Or did you simply mean to imply that I am not a "good libertarian" - and that it is perfectly appropriate for good libertarians (like you?) to throw around unsupported brickbats?

  Tom
  

  Published: May 22, 2007 7:16 AM

• TokyoTom

  Jeff, Geoff and Scott:

  You might care to note that James Annan, a climate scientist who takes bets on how the climate will change (like Brian Schmidt, with whom David Evans has agreed to a bet - http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-global-warming-bet-for-7-10.html ), has decided to directly address the reasons that David Evans says he is skeptical. There is interesting discussion in the comments as well. http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-david-evans-is-wrong-along-with-all.html

  And further, please note that New Scientist has just posted online an extensive discussion on the most common climate change myths and misconceptions, each with extensive links. You might find this to be helpful also.
  http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/05/climate-myths-special.html#nbicomments
  http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462.

  Please note that I offer this as one of my sneaky, underhanded tactics that everyone seems to complain so loudly about, despite the apparently lack of any interest in asking me to provide any links to science to support my views.

  That fellow seeker (but off-beat drummer),

  Tom

  Published: May 22, 2007 7:31 AM

• Scott D

  Tom:
  It is perfectly fair - and relevant - to note this. You and Geoff seem to want to hold Evans up as some kind of authority figure for matters that Evans himself claims no expertise.
  Me:
  

  He did not claim to be better at the science than the scientists, but merely holds that enough evidence has surfaced to cast AGW into doubt, and that the counter-evidence is not being addressed in a satisfactory manner.

  I hope that has clarified my position. If that is the standard you wish to hold, that only climate scientists can have an opinion about the activities of climate scientists, then you need to rethink it, because it makes everything that you, me, or anyone else want to say in the matter irrelevant.

  We know that CO2 increases have historically lagged temperature change by several hundred years. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation for this. Evans points this out. I don't see why he has to be a climate scientist to point out this fact, along with noting the negligent response to it from climate science.

  Instead, we get the argument that, since CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will raise temperatures, we need to quit worrying about what got the ball rolling in the past. On the contrary, I think that this is a critical issue. If we can understand what initiated warming in the past, we can decide whether or not a similar phenomenon is occurring now, or whether AGW is really the final answer.

  The one point in the debate that I am sure of is that there are no effective property rights in the globals atmosphere (and a host of other open-access resources/public goods). Does that mean anything to you?

  It either means that the problem has not been fully defined yet and/or that government has actively intervened to prevent property rights from being established. So let's not jump to a (statist) solution. Fair enough?

  Published: May 22, 2007 12:34 PM

• Dennis

  What strikes me as most significant regarding this article is that as a result of more temporally accurate ice core data, it now appears that over the past 1 million years the initial rises in atmospheric temperatures preceded the increases in atmospheric CO2 levels by roughly 800 years.

  Obviously, A can not have initially caused B, if B temporally preceded A. Something so critical to cause and effect as the temporal sequence of the variables can not be taken lightly.

  Furthermore, the hypothesis that a warming atmosphere eventually causes the oceans to warm, which causes some of the vast amounts of CO2 that are dissolved in the oceans to be released into the atmosphere is reasonable. My understanding is that gasses dissolve less readily in warmer than in colder liquids.

  I do not believe that you need to possess a doctorate in climatology or a related discipline to understand the basic processes and causal factors at work here.

  Given this new evidence, i.e., the evidently more accurate ice core data, I can not understand why reasonable individuals do not retract their calls for immediate and substantial action to reduce man’s CO2 emissions. In this regard, I do not believe that I am being irrationally skeptical or reactionary.

  Interestingly, the climate data discussed in the article go back 1 million years. Since man has only produced CO2 emissions of any consequence over the past roughly 300 years, it is an indisputable conclusion that human CO2 emissions had nothing to do with the warming events that occurred prior to roughly 300 years ago. Whether these warming (and cooling) events were caused by non-human CO2 emissions or by another factor or factors are, I believe, a notably unsettled question.

  Published: May 22, 2007 6:08 PM

• TokyoTom

  only climate scientists can have an opinion about the activities of climate scientists

  Scott, spare me the strawman. Everybody gets to have whatever opinion they wish. Hopefully some of us are in engaged in the effort of weighing the evidence, including the opinions of others. David Evans gets to have his opinions and questions, but I get to point out that he's not particularly well-qualified to be trotted out as an authority ("I was in the belly of the beast - listen to me!") which is how I perceive Jeff's intent.

  we get the argument that, since CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will raise temperatures, we need to quit worrying about what got the ball rolling in the past.

  This may be a political position that some are taking, but I don't think that scientists are. They remain very interested in puzzling out the climate, including past behavior that could not have been human-affected. In particular, there is a lot of interest in the evidence that climate can dramatically and rapidly change.

  We know that CO2 increases have historically lagged temperature change by several hundred years. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation for this. Evans points this out. I don't see why he has to be a climate scientist to point out this fact, along with noting the negligent response to it from climate science.

  Evans does NOT claim that climate science has been negligent in responding to the apparent lag issue; he simply does not describe what climate scientists think about the lag issue at all. But of course I agree with you that Evans does not have to be a scientist to raise the lag issue.

  Generally, climate scientists recognize that in the past CO2 levels have lagged initial temperature increases that were initiated by other forcing factors. This evidence does not deny that the strong evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the rising CO2 levels played a role as a postive feedback factor in leading to further temperature increases. Nor does it tell us that in the present situtation, where humans are undeniably responsible for increasing CO2 (and other GHG levels and for albedo forcings) that we have any reason to think that temperatures will NOT increase. The basic physics of GHG and albedo forcings is NOT disputed - all we have is competition over what other climate forcing factors may also be at work.

  In fact, this forms the basis on David Evan's bet. David Evans specifically notes at his website that:

  I think it likely that the current global warming is mainly due some other cause, which may subside in time, but that the warming due to the extra carbon will continue (since we keep increasing the extra carbon). The increase in extra carbon would put an upward bias on the natural temperature variability, an upward-sloping channel on a graph of global temperature. We might want to curb carbon emissions some day.

  You may wish to note that the lag issue is specifically addressed in this paper at the New Scientist site I linked to above:

  http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

  There is also discussion at Real Climate and elsewhere, that I have previously linked to.

  It either means that the problem has not been fully defined yet and/or that government has actively intervened to prevent property rights from being established. So let's not jump to a (statist) solution. Fair enough?

  I'm sympathetic, but not so fast. We know that there are many so-called "environmental" problems that really are disputes over resources where there are no clear or enforceable property rights. Why can we not try to think systematically about these problems (including the problems entailed by direct government ownership or regulation) - starting with the more tractable ones like ocean resources - and to explain them with some degree of sympathy to those who are concerned about these problems, instead of focussing first on denying that there are problems or in ad hominem attacks on the "alarmists"?
  

  Published: May 23, 2007 12:16 AM

• TokyoTom

  Dennis, I agree with your first four paragraphs.

  Since man has only produced CO2 emissions of any consequence over the past roughly 300 years, it is an indisputable conclusion that human CO2 emissions had nothing to do with the warming events that occurred prior to roughly 300 years ago. Whether these warming (and cooling) events were caused by non-human CO2 emissions or by another factor or factors are, I believe, a notably unsettled question.

  To quibble a bit, I suspect you are aware that there is some evidence that, through agriculture and land use patterns, humans may have affected climate much earlier than the industrial era.

  As I noted to Scott, climate scientists recognize that in the past CO2 levels have lagged initial temperature increases that were initiated by other forcing factors. This evidence does not deny that the strong evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that the rising CO2 levels would have been a postive feedback factor in leading to further temperature increases. Nor does it tell us that in the present situtation, where humans are undeniably responsible for increasing CO2 (and other GHG levels and for albedo forcings) that we have any reason to think that temperatures will NOT increase. The basic physics of GHG and albedo forcings is NOT disputed - all we have is competition over what other climate forcing factors may also be at work. So far, while we are aware that there are non-human forcing factors, we have no strong evidence that any other candidates are playing a significant role right now.

  Regards,

  TT

  Published: May 23, 2007 12:31 AM

• Dennis

  TokyoTom,

  In response to your last posting, here is what I believe we know about the topic. We now know that the temperature changes have preceded increases in atmospheric CO2, again a very significant finding as it relates to cause and effect.

  We also know that CO2 causes warming in lab experiments; this has not been demonstrated in the complex real world climate. Moving from a controlled lab experiment to complex real world climate is a major step. Yes, we do have climate models that predict current and future CO2 caused warming, but these are the same general type of models that at times can not even accurately predict next week’s, even the next day’s, weather. I also note that if the argument that initial real-world warming is caused by CO2 is suspect then the feedback argument must also be suspect.
  
  In short, given the evidence currently available, there is no good reason to conclude that the hypothesis arguing that increases in CO2 cause warming in the extremely complex real word climate is any more correct, especially given the temporal sequence of the variables, than other explanations for global warming, including the cosmic ray theory.

  Published: May 23, 2007 7:46 AM

• N. Joseph Potts

  I never cared very much whether CO2 emissions caused global warming. What I cared about was whether government would grab this lever for controlling people and their activities (OF COURSE it would).

  Of course, such measures CAN'T work until they've caused the deaths of over a billion people (and they most definitely can), but the route to that billion deaths and the many likely to follow has concerned me deeply ever since the idea was first broached.

  The only thing more important to the welfare of people on earth today than combustion is respiration. And they're practically the same thing, aren't they?

  Published: May 28, 2007 9:01 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  After re-reading the article on the front page, it seems to me that an important thing to do is show how science can work without government funding, on the free market. Sure, "the market will take care of it", I believe that, but it would be good to explore some of the ways and reasons science would be funded.
  

  Published: May 28, 2007 11:19 AM

• alt1985

  "I suggest that readers note that the author's actual areas of expertise lie outside of climate science, and also take a look through the comments."

  He's a mathematician. Mathematicians know statistical methods. It is a statistical debate. It is the statistics that determine where the cause lies. Therefore, you do not have to be a climate scientist to interpret statistics.

  Published: May 28, 2007 11:48 AM

• Keith

  There's an interesting article in this month's Scientific American that shows when the Federal government lost interest in the 1960's in funding research in particle physics that the number of jobs for physicists dried up. How many climate researchers do you think might lose their jobs if it was acknowledged that global warming was not a huge risk? Can you say conflict of interest?

  Published: May 28, 2007 12:04 PM

• Dennis

  For those of you who are interested, this article related to AGW appeared on LRC today:

  http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html

  Published: May 28, 2007 12:33 PM

• Tim Kern

  Well, it can't hurt if we voluntarily cut emission wherever we can, but that's not the political question, is it?

  Suppose we do cut those emissions, though, and our measurements show a tapering off of the warming trend (for whatever reasons -- correlation is a great persuader of public opinion). Then the Religion of Global Warming would have its "evidence" -- just like praying for rain: if you pray long enough, and earnestly enough, it will rain. Prayer works, you remember, whether you believe in it or not!

  Published: May 28, 2007 2:05 PM

• Leiv Bornecrantz

  Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

  * 17:00 16 May 2007
  * NewScientist.com news service

  
  Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.

  Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

  Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.

  With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.

  So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.

  There is also a guide to assessing the evidence. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.

  • Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

  • We can't do anything about climate change

  • The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

  • Chaotic systems are not predictable

  • We can't trust computer models of climate

  • They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

  • It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

  • It's too cold where I live - warming will be great

  • Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

  • It’s all down to cosmic rays

  • CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

  • The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

  • Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

  • The oceans are cooling

  • The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

  • It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

  • We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

  • Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

  • Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

  • Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell

  • Mars and Pluto are warming too

  • Many leading scientists question climate change

  • It's all a conspiracy

  • Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

  • Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

  • Polar bear numbers are increasing

  For further reading, see the weblinks below.
  Web Links

  * Climate myths special, New Scientist
  * Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
  * FAQs, IPCC (pdf)
  * RealClimate.org
  * How to talk to a climate skeptic, Grist
  * Common arguments by climate sceptics, Logical Science

  Published: May 28, 2007 3:28 PM

• Dennis

  Well, here we have it. The 26 objections, some of which are reasonable, some of which are not too creditable, are all false. Yes, there are no creditable objections to AGW; each and every one of the 26 objections is false. And again, this certainty of knowledge comes from a profession that can not at times accurately predict the local weather next week, or even a day or two, in advance. This type of arrogant, know-it-all attitude is perhaps what most galls me about the entire AGW issue, especially when the large majority of the research funding comes from the political process, a process comprised of individuals that care next to nothing about accuracy and truth.

  Of course it is a foregone conclusion that "if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences." Yes, we must act now and act vigorously. We must avoid these “serious” consequences. Too bad those living in the medieval warm period did not realize the serious consequences of the rising temperatures in that time frame. But wait, according to Mr. Mann’s "hockey stick" depiction of recent temperatures the medieval warm period (and little ice age for that matter) did not exist.

  The "New" in the web site name "NewScientist.com” is unfortunately all too appropriate a term for the blanket assertions of these types of scientists and for what research in the natural sciences is degenerating into.

  TokyoTom: this comment was not directed to you.
  
  

  Published: May 28, 2007 6:11 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  More importantly, NewScientist won't or can't answer the political questions as to what to do about it. When will governments stop subsidizing energy research which is undoubtably contributing to the increased amounts of CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere? And if government is really serious about reducing emissions, why do they try to keep gasoline prices low and encourage more driving with such things as the ridiculous gas-gouging law, instead of allowing gas prices to rise and discourage driving?
  
  With such political nonsense going on right now, can anyone truly believe that carbon taxes or carbon markets will really do anything to effectively reduce emissions?
  

  Published: May 28, 2007 11:55 PM

• TokyoTom

  Joe, you assert and wonder: "The only thing more important to the welfare of people on earth today than combustion is respiration. And they're practically the same thing, aren't they?"

  Well, no; they're not the same thing. Our economies demonstrably do not rely on a fixed ratio of fossil fuel consumption (or other climate change forcings, like methane or other GHGs or albedo changes) to economic output. With technological progress and organizational changes, we have been continually improving our effciency of energy use; there are other sources of energy; and carbon sequestration is possible.

  Why the fatalism? Why deny the flexibility of our economies to adapt to changes in availability of inputs (particularly if the pricing system is accurately reflecting scarcity)?

  What the poor of the world need is manifestly greater protection of their property rights, so they can better manage their resources and increased their wealth. This might require an investment of time and effort by those who profess to really care about the the poor.

  I hope you are not intending to imply that love of humanity requires that we ignore how failures in the ownership and management of open-access lead to destructive exploitation of those resources, at the cost of future use. Are we manifestly better off by destroying global, regional and local fisheries? Will the conversion of the Amazon to soybeans a gain in wealth by anyone but those who supplanted Indians? And must we ignore all costs associated with climate change?

  Regards,

  TT

  
  

  Published: May 29, 2007 12:03 AM

• TokyoTom

  alt1985:

  "He's a mathematician. Mathematicians know statistical methods. It is a statistical debate."

  Sorry; this is wrong. The effect of CO2 and related feedbacks are essentially about physics, matters that David Evans himself admits he does not understand. See the discussion here: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-david-evans-is-wrong-along-with-all.html (you apparently missed our discussions above).

  His position is really an "argument from personal incredulity": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity.

  Published: May 29, 2007 12:16 AM

• TokyoTom

  Keith:

  "How many climate researchers do you think might lose their jobs if it was acknowledged that global warming was not a huge risk? Can you say conflict of interest?"

  Not so easy. Aren't statements by climate scientists that "we know enough now to justify action" statements that would tend to UNDERCUT arguments for further climate research?

  And since the Bush administration has been manifestly interested in STOPPING political movement towards action, wouldn't this period have been a funding hay day for SKEPTIC scientists looking to investigate alternative theories?

  And in any case, there is no monolithic block of climate researcher or funders, and all public and private funders have different agendas. Many corporations devote significant sums to climate research and technology. You might want to take a look at what Exxon is doing, for example: http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/campaign/climate_view.asp

  Published: May 29, 2007 12:30 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  What the poor of the world need is manifestly greater protection of their property rights, so they can better manage their resources and increase their wealth.
  
  Yes, yes, yes! And an important first step towards that is getting the wealthier nations to stop engaging in stupid things that interfere with that. Things like bad foreign policy that unncessarily intereferes with their economies and perpetuates oppressive governments and administrations, and the flawed actions of international organizations like IMF, the World Bank, the U.N., and the WTO. Politicians and bureaucrats who can't straighten things up in their own countries should surely not be mucking about in other countries...

  Published: May 29, 2007 1:15 AM

• TokyoTom

  Dennis, I know your comment was not directed towards me, but did you really think I would let it by?

  - "The 26 objections, some of which are reasonable, some of which are not too creditable, are all false. Yes, there are no creditable objections to AGW; each and every one of the 26 objections is false. ... This type of arrogant, know-it-all attitude is perhaps what most galls me about the entire AGW issue".

  This is classic, Dennis. A science magazine that is widely read by both nonscientists and scientists tries to provide a service to its readers (and to respond to market forces) by gathering and serving up information on climate FAQs (here's the link for those who don't already have it from other threads: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change ), and what do they get from you? Rather than review and criticize what you disagree with, you prefer wholesale dismissal. Nothing could show more that your version of reality is iron-clad.

  If they are so wrong, then New Scientist will lose credibility with its readers and thus subscriber and advertising revenues. They have MARKET INCENTIVES to be as correct as they can.

  - "especially when the large majority of the research funding comes from the political process, a process comprised of individuals that care next to nothing about accuracy and truth."

  Deceptive and disingenuous. The POLITICAL process may be comprised of lying individuals only out for their own interests, but the process itself, while certainly error-prone, is subject to reality checks. Or did you intend to assert that climate scientists in particular also "care next to nothing about accuracy and truth"? And that various checks on the publication process - including acceptance in the private marketplace - are utterly inefficacious?

  Tom

  PS: For those interested, I have been corresponding with Dennis on his CO2 comments on this thread: http://blog.mises.org/archives/006650.asp#comments

  Published: May 29, 2007 1:23 AM

• TokyoTom

  Michael, good questions.

  - "And if government is really serious about reducing emissions, why do they try to keep gasoline prices low and encourage more driving with such things as the ridiculous gas-gouging law, instead of allowing gas prices to rise and discourage driving?"

  Because they're cowards, because some of them do not understand economics, and the rest of them do
  not care enough to try to educate voters (which could easily be interpreted as defense of a large rent-seeker).

  - "With such political nonsense going on right now, can anyone truly believe that carbon taxes or carbon markets will really do anything to effectively reduce emissions?"

  Do markets react to pricing signals? I guess I believe that.

  Regards,

  Tom

  Published: May 29, 2007 1:28 AM

• Roland

  Hi,
  

  
  In general, there are 3 things which disturb me a lot whenever I read an article from "global warming" sceptics, and this is not different:
  

  
  1) Peak Oil and the nature of carbon-based energy
  You speak of an "enormous cost" which the world has to pay to curb carbon-emissions. But what is this "enormous cost"? Every barrel of oil we do not burn today will still be there for our children or children's children. In the long term it makes a lot more sense for me to save some oil for later generations so they will have something to eat (today's agriculture is based on oil) than to waste it now mostly on consumer-goods of questionable value.
  

  
  2) "nobody knows"
  In almost every global-warming sceptic article, there is a sentence similar to this:
  "The current situation is characterized by a lack of observational evidence, so no one knows yet."
  The problem is not the sentence itself (I actually somewhat agree to it) but the conclusion based on it: That knowing nothing is in some way a permission to do anything. I would reach a different conclusion: If "no one knows yet", that is a very, very good reason to be careful. If "no one knows yet", that's a reason to reduce carbon-emissions, not to exponentially raise them. If "no one knows yet", that's a good reason to play it save and reduce the ecologic footprint - or at least not let it grow any bigger. In my humble opinion the burden of evidence is on YOU, who wants to burn carbon-based fuel as fast as it can be extracted.
  

  
  3)Lack of references
  You claim a lot of things but you don't provide any references to any scientific paper, article or even an internet page. To be honest, I haven't heard of the cosmic-ray hypothesis before, I would really like to read more details about it.

  
  

  Published: May 29, 2007 2:23 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  As I understand it, a "carbon market" is not a real market where value is exchanged for value, but is instead more like a floating tax or license by government for emissions that can be moved about from company to company. It's just a crazy regulatory scheme, a legal loophole or "emissions shelter", not something that actually internalizes the costs of emissions.

  Published: May 29, 2007 2:27 AM

• G. Wijts

  This is an interesting article, summing up the case against man-made global warming from the viewpoint of an expert. However, I disagree with the prediction that politicians will be angry at scientists when it turns out that a lot of taxpayers' money has been wasted. It seems more likely that governments will present the decrease in global warming as a successful result of the higher taxes. These high taxes will be maintained in order to "keep up the good work". A lot of scientists with foney jobs, dependent on the global warming scam, will be eager to agree with that explanation.

  G. Wijts - physics student, The Netherlands

  Published: May 29, 2007 4:27 AM

• George Smiley

  CO2 level rises lagging global warming in the distant past isn't surprising - it only means there are other causative factors and it takes a long time to warm the oceans thereby lowering their ability to absorb gases. There are a number of positive known feedback mechanisms some natural like increased microbial reduction of peat and soil fibre into CO2 and methane, and man made exacerbation like introducing nitrogenous fertilizers, acid rain, and deforestation into the equations. If we are stupid enough to overwhelm all the negative feedback systems like tropical rainforests and coral reefs in the interest of the great global Nintendo game of human numbers we are going to lose everything one day even if we are not 100% sure how. Oil and natural gas alone have increased the human carrying capacity of the planet by half the present billions and we are already fighting wars over them as they head along the downhill run, while populations keep rising. I cannot fathom the Austrian joy in stumbling over a momentary 'Shield of Sargor' or somesuch. You might as well be another Opus Dei, out of Rome rather than Vienna. To quote the last pope; "Let the little ones come. There is room for many more at the table of the banquet of life."
  Just don't look under the table where He is trampling out the vintage.

  Published: May 29, 2007 6:21 AM

• Dennis

  TokyoTom,

  I stand behind my comment above. Yes, I find it hard to believe that all 26 objections to AGW are incorrect, and I believe that I clearly indicated why I arrived at this conclusion in my first paragraph. In addition, a straightforward reading of my first paragraph would indicate that what I am rejecting is the article’s and the AGW’s supporters “wholesale dismissal” of all objections (because they are supposedly all false) to the AGW hypothesis. It is the article, and not I, that is effectively guilty of wholesale dismissal, and this is what I have objected to most strenuously.

  And you still significantly down play the political aspect of the AGW issue. You mention “MARKET INCENTIVES” but fail to acknowledge that there are little or no market incentives, or market for that matter, in AGW scientific research. The overwhelming source of funding is from governments or supranational governmental organizations, and government activity is the very opposite of market activity. To use your terminology from other posts, government activity, including the funding of scientific research, is the worst of all “rent-seeking” since it is ultimately backed up by the point of a gun. “Reality checks” are greatly diminished when political control dominates. From Austrian and Libertarian points of view, “reality checks” have been extremely ineffectual regarding research in the social sciences and humanities over the past 60 or 70 years. I can also mention the work of Public Choice School economists in this regard.
  

  Published: May 29, 2007 9:49 AM

• TokyoTom

  David, welcome to the Mises Blog.

  Just a few questions and observations.

  1. I respect that you have actually made a bet on the climate change. That you are willing to put your money where your mouth is is to be commended. It also makes you extremely rare among skeptics - as essentially no prominent scientists or pundits have to date accepted one of the bets that Brian Schmidt and James Annan have been offering. Good for you.

  2. I do note that you have already gained a fair degree of attention from your bet, and is the reason that you have come to the attention of Mises. I iamgine that you are aware how you and your bet have been miscast, deliberately and inadvertently. I hope that you will clear up the more glaring misinterpretations, including the following:

  - that you are a "former warming alarmist", have "switched sides" and are now betting "that the world is about to enter a cooling period".
  [Steven Hayward of AEI, at the National Review's "Planet Gore" poo-fling site]
  http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjgwZTNmYjUyZTFlYzBlMzhlMGFjOTgzNjcyMjlkODQ=
  Does this fairly describe you or your bet?

  - that you are one of the "of the prominent scientists" who have spoken out recently "to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven 'consensus' on man-made global warming."
  [Marc Morano, of Sen. Inhofe's staff at The Inhofe EPW Press Blog]
  http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
  Are you a prominent scientist with expertise on climate science, and does Morano otherwise fairly describe you?

  - you have committed "environmental apostacy" by "abandon[ing] the religious cult of global warming hysteria" that has gripped many of your "fellow colleagues, who receive large incentives for peddling the global warming line and face severe penalties and risks for compiling any analysis or opinion piece that differs from the 'man made global warming' narrative."
  [http://doublethinkblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/environmental-apostasy.html]
  Is this how you view yourself and climate scientists?

  3. Your bets with Brian Schmidt essentially concede that temperatures will continue to rise for the next twenty years, as you will win only if average decadal increases are less than 0.13 degrees centigrade (0.23 F). It is hard for anyone to take this as a strong position that AGW is not occurring. You are merely betting that the present warming trend (which you concered there is) will weaken, even as warming is likely to continue.

  4. It seems that you concede that human emissions of CO2 and other human forcings ARE contributing to climate change, together with other natural factors that are incompletely understood. In fact, you have said so yourself:

  • "There is a warming effect due to the extra carbon we humans have put into the atmosphere."
  • "There are other causes for the global temperature to change, including human aerosols and maybe cosmic rays."
  • "The current warming, about 0.2C/decade, is due to the extra carbon and the other effects."
  • "I think it likely that the current global warming is mainly due some other cause, which may subside in time, but that the warming due to the extra carbon will continue (since we keep increasing the extra carbon)."
  • "The increase in extra carbon would put an upward bias on the natural temperature variability, an upward-sloping channel on a graph of global temperature. We might want to curb carbon emissions some day."
  http://evidencedriven.blogspot.com/2007/05/reply-to-james-annan.html

  • I'm not throwing out 100 years of solid science that indicates that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. I acknowledge it, and agree that the extra carbon causes some warming.
  http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-david-evans-is-wrong-along-with-all.html

  5. Others seem to think, and you seem to imply, that as you were once "On the Global Warming Gravy Train", that you have a special scientific or technical expertise that you have applied in moving to a more skeptical position about the role of CO2. Do you have special knowledge, expertise and experience used in the course of your work for the Australian government that has led you to change your views on the various factors that you list, or have you been simply thinking things through as a concerned citizen who has some ability to review discussions of the science, but limited actual knowledge of it?

  In this connection, I note that elsewhere you have specifically noted that you have not evaluated the physics and assumptions involved in climate models or estimation of climate "sensitivity" to a doubling of CO2 levels:
  http://evidencedriven.blogspot.com/2007/05/reply-to-james-annan.html

  - "Not that it makes any difference whether I was a programmer or a modeler or a bottle washer. I was in a job that only existed due to our belief that carbon emissions were causing global warming, and I saw the gradual weakening of evidence for that belief."

  - "point me to a clear and complete description of the models so I can decide for myself. I'm an engineer and a mathematician and have done a lot of modeling myself: I could examine the assumptions built into those models and we could discuss those."

  - "I am not saying the IPCC carbon sensitivities are wrong necessarily, I'm saying that I can't see or follow their calculations -- and anyway I wouldn't trust them to have not left out something significant. But if you had clear observational data, I would of course by convinced in an instant."

  - "You quote a ballpark warming figure due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon, ignoring feedback and clouds but including extra water vapor, of 2C. Can you explain this figure, at a level of physics in say Resnick and Halliday or Feynman's Lectures, so that it is convincing to an interested person with a modest scientific background?"

  6. I believe that you have overstated the factors that appears to have led you personally to change your mind. I believe that there is ample discussion of these among climate scientists, and note that the resolution of the satellite temperature proxies issue (by finding that the "cooling" data was in fact wrong and that warming consistent with the GHG-based models was indeed occurring) has actually led a number of libertarian skeptics, such as Ron Bailey of Reason, Michael Schermer of The Skeptic, and Jon Adler, to acknowledge climate change and to begin to recommend policy measures.

  More on the science later, but I noted that some of it has already been discussed above, prior to your new post.

  Sincerely,

  TT

  Published: May 29, 2007 10:02 AM

• Glen L.

  "If they are so wrong, then New Scientist will lose credibility with its readers and thus subscriber and advertising revenues. They have MARKET INCENTIVES to be as correct as they can."

  Nonsense. If the vast majority of their readership exhibits a political bias in any particular direction, the magazine has a market incentive to reflect that bias. And more important, if a substantial portion of their advertising revenue comes from special interest groups with a political bias, the market incentive will be to publish writers and articles that reflect that bias as well. They will only lose readership and revenue from individuals and groups that don't share that bias.

  Given that the very large majority of people still believe in the AGW hoax, and that the "green" special interests are funded in large part from the taxpayers' wallets and thus have an order of magnitude more money to spend on advertising (and proselytizing), which MARKET INCENTIVE do you suppose most affects NewScientist, the one to be accurate and fair or the one that reflects bias?

  Fortunately, there is so much cause for AGW skepticism that the alarmists can't steamroller their vicious programs over the rest of us. And blogs like this one are the first line of defense against the tyranny of the mainstream.
  

  Published: May 29, 2007 11:24 AM

• Rick Taylor

  David

  "civilization exists by geologic consent,subject to change without notice"
  historian Will Durrant

  
  A very good article. Are you aware of the studies of Zbigniew Jaworoski, Phd? you can find his articles at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com

  
  He explains how that until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to 700 ppmv and occasionally even up to 2450 ppmv. After 1985 the high readings disappeared from the publications. Obviously to fit the theory of anthropogenic global warming, all high CO2 values had to be thrown out. He also describes how unreliable ice core date is. He and his colleagues at the website, discuss this and many other issues.
  

  Another very interesting study is being conducted by Robert Felix, http://www.iceagenow.com

  
  The oceans are getting warmer, because of the explosion of submarine volcanic activity. he explains that throughout geologic history, every ice age is preceeded by a buildup of heat in the oceans from this activity, which expels more water vapor into the atmosphere along with more methane from hydrates (frozen methane at extreme depths). The extra water vapor when returned to the earth as prescipitation during the winter is what causes the extra build up of ice and snow which over a very short period of time triggers an iceage. Many paleo climatologist say it is cold enough now for an ice age, but there is not enough moisture.

  
  It is now gettng colder in Antartica and other areas, and despite the few glaciers that are melting as advertised in Inconvenient Truth, hundreds of more throughout the world are growing.

  
  The earth is at the end of an 11,500 year interglacial ice age. Ice ages are cyclical and are brought on by our solar system's movement through out the galaxy. Our solar system is moving closer to the glactic gravitational plane of our Milky Way galaxy. This is causing a decrease in the strength of our magnetiic field, which really has decreased substantially over the last hundred or so years. Some times our magnetic field will reverse, which has always caused a devastating effect upon the planet. I urged you to research the information at these two sites.

  
  Rick Taylor
  

  Published: May 29, 2007 11:35 AM

• Adam

  re. ice cored data,
  You may also be interested to read this by Zbigniew Jaworowski, over at -21stcenturysciencetech.

  http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

  Published: May 29, 2007 12:19 PM

• AlanR

  the article states "the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays" -- I think it is the EARTH's magnetic field that generates the Van Allen belts which protect the Earth from solar particles. As far as I know, nothing protects us against cosmic rays except for lots of lead.

  the srticle states "Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth . . . ". Which "science authorities" held that the sun orbits the Earth? Would that be Jerry Falwell?

  Published: May 29, 2007 1:21 PM

• Bert T

  Good day gentleman, as I was reading this thread I just had to toss in my 2 Cents worth.

  From what I can gather, of the roughly 2500 IPCC "Scientists" only approx 110 have degrees in anything related to "Science" the rest have Ph D's in various fields including "Literature", "Psychology" and "English". Of the 110 remaining "Scientist" only some 11 are Climate related Ph D's, and they are all from various government institutions that follow the "GW" hypotheses.

  Also, more and more climate scientists, including ones that worked for the IPCC initially, have recently denounced the IPCC as purposely distorting the scientific facts to suit the agenda(don't have the posts handy) but if your interested in what "real" climatologists have stated check out the links below, they're an interesting read!

  http://www.junkscience.com/
  http://www.climateaudit.org/
  http://www.nrsp.com/
  http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php

  Published: May 29, 2007 2:05 PM

• sprachethiklich

  Possibly the wierdest discussion in the history of weirdness or discussions. Like jousting with sausages.

  A strange addiction to responding to even the most miniscule thing said and making silly arguments is actually the least annoying thing about this thread.

  Looks like indulgence, if you ask me. None of the main contributors here come off as credible...

  Published: May 29, 2007 3:03 PM

• Sag

  What I find interesting is GW alarmists don't seem to have a place to point to that summarizes their principal claims definitively and comprehensively. Lots of papers published it seems but outside of arcance debates in the specialized climate science field, the following questions (at the very least) need to be answered clearly and comprehensively by GW theorizers:

  http://www.lewrockwell.com/chernikov/chernikov46.html

  Published: May 29, 2007 4:07 PM

• greg

  dennis> The overwhelming source of funding is from governments or supranational governmental organizations, and government activity is the very opposite of market activity.
  

  Well it shares some characteristics with the compost market.

  Published: May 29, 2007 6:50 PM

• AJ9000

  For those of you who would like to see some references proving the points that Evans makes, please feel free to review Avery and Singer's Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. The book has HUNDREDS of references to various studies that do NOT support Al Gore's position.

  In fact, right now you can get that book along with the one about the cosmic rays together at Amazon! http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172

  The fact that Evans is not a climatologist is completely immaterial. Neither is Al Gore! Yet Gore is WORSHIPPED as a "prophet" simply because he is a liberal and those who support his cause are rewarded with research dollars. Plain and simple.

  Published: May 29, 2007 8:18 PM

• MerLynn

  I think everyone is missing an interesting point here. With global warming and carbon credits as one solution, all the trees and other C4 plants, become owned by some one or entity. Much the same as all minerals, energy resources and of course water. Its only a matter of time before the atmosphere is also owned, as in the weather too. Junk science is the name and control is the game. Google HAARP

  Published: May 29, 2007 9:36 PM

• TokyoTom

  Interesting point, MerLynn, but tell me - does Austrian economics say that public goods can NOT be owned, but must forever remain open to all, and free to be exploited without charge by all? Or does it permit private or cooperative ownership of such resources, in order to avoid a destructive tragedy of the commons?

  No one is going to own the atmosphere, of course; rather, governments are talking about levying users' fees on fossil fuels.

  Not much different than paying a fee for a toll road.

  Published: May 29, 2007 10:11 PM

• TokyoTom

  "Possibly the wierdest discussion in the history of weirdness or discussions. Like jousting with sausages."

  Yes, sprachethiklich, and did you come without a sausage or is it simply to small to discern?

  Hardly a productive conversation, but it seems that the intended purpose was simply to get a little web traffic by taking advantage of a brave climate better's new-found fame among the denialist lobby as a climate change expert and apostate to the global warming religion.

  Too bad he's neither, and is betting that the climate will continue to warm for the next tweenty years.

  Published: May 29, 2007 10:23 PM

• TokyoTom

  Michael, carbon markets can be meaningless, particularly if there's no real bite in terms of a reduction in total emissions under a cap. That's the story with Kyoto, where the Europeans have shown a reluctance to incur costs while the US, China and others remain outside the regime.

  But emissions markets have shown that they work well on smaller scales, such as SO2 in California and banking provisions for CFCs under the Montreal accord. Theoretical they are similar to selling/granting transferrable fishing permits.

  They are of course subject to any number of difficulties. Bill Nordhaus has a good piece here on them: http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/kyoto_long_2005.pdf

  But yes, markets do react to pricing signals.

  Published: May 29, 2007 10:37 PM

• TokyoTom

  Dennis, I refuse to talk further with you about problems with the reliability of climate science, since you refuse to ever acknowledge when you might be wrong, and ignore my comments or morph them into another. Your long history of evasion shows that what you are engaged in is not a search for understanding, but simply a defense of an established world view.

  Good luck with it.

  Tom

  PS: Okay, if the science is all so bad, can you show me one company that buys and funds a different view? What does Exxon have to say for example? Does Exxon have climate scientists? Do they approve the IPCC summaries of science? And is Exxon investing heavily in carbon-lite energy technologies? Are all of the corporations that support efforts on climate change simply lying through their teeth, or have been hoodwinked by a global conspiracy?

  Published: May 29, 2007 10:54 PM

• TokyoTom

  Glen, thanks for supporting my point that there is market pressure on New Scientist to be accurate. They are also competing for readers and advertiser $$, and which might create other incentives as you discuss, but they are hardly an organ of evil government or a mouthpiece of the alarmists trying to "steamroller their vicious programs over the rest of us".

  A look at their website - perhaps a difficult thing for someone afraid of "the tyranny of the mainstream" - will certainly show that they post articles at odds with the prevailing wisdom (such as "Look, no carbon footprint! Can you really cleanse your carbon sins by paying for a few faraway trees or solar panels?" and "Carbon offset cash-in questioned").

  But let me not stand in the way of you completely inoculating yourself from actually reviewing New Scientist's explanations of various climate skeptic FAQs.

  Published: May 29, 2007 11:12 PM

• TokyoTom

  David Evans: I wonder if you have any thoughts on how seriously we should take self-made amateur experts like Zbigniew Jaworoski and Robert Felix, and their supporter, Lyndon LaRouche, whose website promotes them?

  There are just so many out here, looking for the REAL science to believe in. Can you give us all some guidance? In particular, it would be nice to find a few credible skeptic scientists who agree with rather than detesting each other.

  A prominent scientist like you, who once was on the payroll of the global-warming industry but has now abandoned the religious cult of global warming hysteria - and spoken out to oppose Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven "consensus" on man-made global warming - surely ought to be able to provide some guidance.

  By the way, I wonder if you can explain more about why you were once a "warming alarmist" and how you managed to escape. What were its ties to the media driven "consensus", and was it BOTH a cult AND an evil business? Did you and your colleagues "receive large incentives for peddling the global warming line" and face "severe penalties and risks for compiling any analysis or opinion piece that differs from the 'man made global warming' narrative"? Just how did you manage to get away from all of this and deprogram yourself?

  Your admiring fans here want to know all about your heroic struggles. Don't disappoint them by betting that the climate will CONTINUE to warm, and by saying things like:

  • "There is a warming effect due to the extra carbon we humans have put into the atmosphere."
  • "There are other causes for the global temperature to change, including human aerosols and maybe cosmic rays."
  • "I think it likely that ... the warming due to the extra carbon will continue (since we keep increasing the extra carbon)."
  • "The increase in extra carbon would put an upward bias on the natural temperature variability, an upward-sloping channel on a graph of global temperature. We might want to curb carbon emissions some day."

  TT

  PS: David, none of the snark is intended towards you.

  Published: May 29, 2007 11:43 PM

• TokyoTom

  David, more seriously, in understand that your chief concern is what you consider to be a lack of observational evidence to back up the science and modelling relating to AGW (which to be fair address other human-influenced forcings, such as albedo changes, particulates and other gasses).

  You have said:

  "Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. ... The laboratory experiments proved that carbon dioxide had a calculable greenhouse effect in a laboratory. There is no observational evidence for the amount of global warming due to the extra carbon dioxide that we have emitted into the atmosphere.

  "If there was such observational evidence, repeatable by independent parties, then we would all have great confidence that the effect was occurring and what its size was. And I wouldn't be a skeptic."
  http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/climate-skeptics-guest-post-why-david.html.

  1. Well, I think your history of science is wrong. Often, someone just gets a brilliant IDEA - like Gallileo, Darwin and Einstein - and many years are needed to accumulate the evidence and conduct experiments that prove them right, in the face of the opposition of more senior scientists seeking to defend their own established views and reputations. It is for this reason for the old saw that scientific progress is made one death at a time. Who are the old codgers in this fight?

  2. Yes, the proof is ultimately in the pudding - and proving conclusively for the satisfaction of all may be very difficult indeed, especially with respect to something as complex as the climate, as those changes may involve very many factors and it is difficult for us to personally sense climate change. It's actually easier to keep our minds closed - as Gallileo, Newton, Darwin, Alfred Wegener and Einstein all experienced.

  3. Clearly there is global observational evidence that the Earth is warming. But is there no observational evidence that human forcings are playing a role?

  - even without the effect of additional GHGs and anthropomorphic albedo changes, scientists can see the greenhouse effect and albedo effects in action at Venues, Mars and other places, and no one denies that GHGs are important in heloing to keep the Earth warm.

  - the latest IPCC reports are based on observational data:

  "The latest IPCC chapter is the first to use observations of the Earth's climate rather than predictions of possible future scenarios to conclude that climate change is real," says Saleem Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development and one of the chapter's lead authors.

  “Ten years ago, we said there was a detectable effect of climate change,” said Martin Parry of the UK’s MetOffice. He chaired the group of 441 scientists who synthesised five years of research into the chapter.

  “Five years ago, we said we could detect a regional impact of climate change,” he continued. “Now, we have reviewed 29,000 data sets, and 90% of them show that changes happening worldwide are due to climate change.”

  "These changes include early flowering seasons, changes in agricultural productivity and changes in insect migrations, but also the intensity of heat waves and storms. ... [T]aken together, the increase in frequency and intensity of such events during the last decade of the 20th century provides strong evidence that climate change is already occurring and is no longer a problem of the future.""
  http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19425993.000-editorial-nowhere-to-turn-for-climate-change-deniers.html

  - A comparison of the most recent observed climate trends for CO2 concentration, global mean air temperature and global sea level to previous model projections as summarized in the IPCC's 2001 assessment report shows that previous
  projections have not overestimated likely climate changes and that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly than climate models indicate.
  http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf [SCIENCE VOL 316 4 MAY 2007 709]

  - A recent comparison of climate models to the CO2 proxy record over the past 420 million years concluded that a long-term equilibrium climate "sensitivity" to CO2 increases (temperature changes accompanying a doubling of CO2) of greater than 1.5 degrees C "has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years" - with a best fit of 2.8 degrees C [5.0 degrees F]. This is "broadly consistent with estimates based on short-term climate records", and "indicate[s] that a weak radiative forcing by carbon dioxide is highly unlikely on multi-million-year timescales. We conclude that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 degree C [2.7 degreees F] has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years".
  http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf [Vol 446|29 March 2007| doi:10.1038/nature05699]

  4. You say that if there was "observational evidence, repeatable by independent parties, then we would all have great confidence that the effect was occurring and what its size was."

  Is it your position that you will not accept the above evidence, simply because you cannot repeat it yourself, or that you will simply not be convinced until we are another further twenty years down the road? The problem with that, of course, is that we only have one Earth on which to continue this little science experiment, and the experiment CANNOT be repeated.

  According to the IPCC, we have so far experienced about 1 degree F of the 5 degree F warming that we can expect if we manage to end our atmospheric ramp up of CO2 equivalent at mere doubling, a doubling that it would be difficult to prevent.

  Are you advocating a position that we should all just simply stand around for the next twenty years, or does it make sense that we do something, both to get ready for changes that scientists say are unavoidable, and maybe even to try to avoid some of the forecasted warming?

  What is your policy prescription, anyway - other than betting with Brian Schmidt that temperatures will INCREASE, but only at a rate somewhat less than what we are now experiencing (1.3 degrees C/decade vs. 1.7 degrees C per decade)?

  Seriously,

  Doubting Tom

  Published: May 30, 2007 2:49 AM

• Dennis

  TokyoTom,

  While I certainly do not agree with the reasons you stated, it is fine if you no longer choose to discuss the AGW subject with me. You are entitled to use your time and resources as you see fit.

  As an aside, given my strong embrace of Austrian economics, Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism, “revisionist” history, and natural law political theory, I do not believe that I generally support "established world view[s]." These movements all represent decidedly minority (some would say crackpot) viewpoints, as does strong skepticism regarding AGW. I embrace these movements because I believe they are correct and best incorporate truth.

  Regarding your reference to Exxon, I would argue that Exxon, like virtually all other corporations, is overwhelmingly concerned with increasing its earnings and profitability. Given the political landscape, this company (and others) may very well have come to the conclusion that it is in its financial interests not to seriously oppose AGW. Exxon may have concluded that, whatever the correct science is regarding AGW, money can be made in alternative energy and in carbon credit trading, especially given the subsidies available in alternative energy. (Please note that I am not claiming that conventional energy production is not subsidized.) Those at Exxon and other corporations have not been “hoodwinked by a global conspiracy”; they are quite adept at identifying and pursuing profit opportunities. Being actively involved in molding a solution to a problem (whether or not the problem exists in the first place) puts the company in a much better position to profit from the solution.

  I do not believe that this behavior by Exxon is in principle different from the behavior of the U.S. armaments industry over the past 100 or so years. This industry strongly supports a belligerent and interventionist U.S. foreign policy because to do so is in its financial interest.
  

  Published: May 30, 2007 8:00 AM

• TokyoTom

  Dennis, your response was as I expected.

  - I agree "Those at Exxon and other corporations have not been 'hoodwinked by a global conspiracy'; they are quite adept at identifying and pursuing profit opportunities."

  The difference between you and me is you seem to conclude that ALL of the corporate action/investment must stem from rent-seeking opportunities (that a global warming religion helps to foster), without giving any credence to the possibility that these corporations might also (or instead) be acting because they believe that the climate is changing because of huiman influence.

  - But while accepting that corporations have NOT been “hoodwinked by a global conspiracy”and are "quite adept at identifying and pursuing profit opportunities", you seem to take the opposite approach to scientists, politicians and everyone else except the virtuous free-thinkers here at Mises - that they are hoodwinked, gullible and fallen prey to an AGW religion - except of course that some (like all corporations as above) may be lying, simply for the vulgar purposes of taking money from our public treasury or otherwise looting common citizens and corporations. There are no true, virtuous scientists supporting the evidence for AGW who honestly think they are right - those consist only of the relatively small world of the skeptics.

  - I note again your refusal to acknowledge basic facts about human responsibility for increases in CO2, or to provide any scientific support for another view: "that humans are responsible, directly and indirectly, for virtually all of the rise in CO2 levels", "that man is responsible for a 33% increase in the levels of atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial levels and for a doubling of methane levels. The build up has been accelerating, and annual increases are multiples of what they were in the 50s, for example. CO2 levels appear to be higher than those for any period over the past 400,000+ years, and we are headed for a doubling in this century."

  It is extremely difficult to argue policy if we cannot make any progress on a shared understanding of facts, and you have simply failed to make any effort to meet me on them.

  - On the good side, I am happy to have your support eliminating ALL energy industry subsidies, as well as your agreement that effective and enforceable property rights are absent with respect to the atmosphere.

  With that, I leave you to your solipsistic reality.

  TT

  Published: May 30, 2007 11:16 AM

• Dennis

  TT,

  You stated: “I note again your refusal to acknowledge basic facts about human responsibility for increases in CO2, or to provide any scientific support for another view: "that humans are responsible, directly and indirectly, for virtually all of the rise in CO2 levels", "that man is responsible for a 33% increase in the levels of atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial levels… CO2 levels appear to be higher than those for any period over the past 400,000+ years, and we are headed for a doubling in this century."

  Admittedly, my previous responses did not focus on these statements per se, but instead on the just as significant consensus implication that the increased levels of CO2 are causative of global warming. As a direct response to these statements, I refer you and other readers to a May 28, 2007 LRC article:
  http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html

  Evidently, the methods of identifying the sources of atmosperic CO2 are quite suspect, if not incorrect. (As a related aside, this article also sheds some light on the political mechanizations that have occurred at the UN and the IPCC.)

  Interestingly, your quote above implies or even states that CO2 levels were higher some time shortly after 400,000+ years ago. Would not a reasonable person desire to understand what caused this higher level of CO2, as humans could not possibly have had any influence?

  You are correct in that “it is extremely difficult to argue policy if we cannot make any progress on a shared understanding of facts.” However, this lack of a shared understanding is not the result of myself having “simply failed to make any effort to meet [you] on them.” The problem may be that you define progress on the facts as me accepting your facts, or more accurately, what can be reasonably concluded from the “facts.”

  Hopefully, I will have time in the near future to respond to your first paragraph.
  

  Published: May 30, 2007 2:35 PM

• Dennis

  Since the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is an important issue in the AGW debate, and since TokyoTom has provided estimates of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the following may prove informative.

  Yes, CO2 has been shown by lab experiment to be a greenhouse gas. However, these same lab experiments also show that the relationship between changes in CO2 concentration and temperature changes is logarithmic and not linear. Specifically, increasing concentrations of CO2 produce significantly smaller increases in temperature.

  On an X/Y graph with CO2 concentration on the X axis and temperature on the Y axis, this logarithmic relationship produces a line that becomes increasingly horizontal, i.e., the line flattens out, its slope decreases.

  Published: May 30, 2007 8:00 PM

• TokyoTom

  Dennis, we've been over this before. Your citing Cockburn again for a second time, without addressing any of my criticisms, perfectly epitomizes the problem. You dismiss whatever ANY government- or industry-funded scientist has to say and then offer up, for scientific data and interpretation, political commentators.

  Your world appears to be puncture proof.

  Perhaps it may be constructive if you would be so kind as to demonstrate the basis for your statements that "CO2 has been shown by lab experiment to be a greenhouse gas" and that "the relationship between changes in CO2 concentration and temperature changes is logarithmic", and to explain why you consider that evidence and sources to be unimpeachable.

  Published: May 31, 2007 7:10 AM

• Dennis

  TokyoTom,

  Anyone who objectively reads Cockburn’s article will realize that he does address your criticisms, and I believe he offers a quite reasonable explanation as to how plant-derived CO2 increases have entered the atmosphere other than through man’s burning of fossil fuels. You dismiss Cockburn’s article because you don’t agree with it and the article obviously is damaging to the AGW hypothesis.

  As I stated many months ago, a general obstacle exists in that each of us is highly skeptical of each other’s respective sources.

  As a matter of logic, if not basic common sense, if a lab experiment can measure temperature increases that are caused by CO2 in the first place, than it also can measure the additional temperature increases that are caused by increasing concentrations of CO2. This type of science is easily performed in controlled lab experiments. My understanding is that the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperatures is just as much a lab-demonstrated fact (but nowhere near as widely disseminated) as is the greenhouse nature of CO2.
  

  Published: May 31, 2007 8:29 AM

• Mark Humphrey

  I have been reading a newly published book entitled "The Chilling Stars: A new Theory of Climate Change" by Svensmark and Calder. As mentioned in the article, Svensmark has proven that fluctuations in magnetic activity on the sun alter the influx from space to earth's lower atmosphere of "muons"--heavy highly charged cosmic particles created from the explosions of stars.

  When the sun's magnetic activity increases in long sweeping runs, the rate of influx of muons into the lower atmosphere (under 6,000 feet)is sharply reduced. The last 100 years have featured an increase of the Sun's magnetic activity by a factor of 2.3; this increase has reduced the infux of muons by an estimated 11-12%. Throughout history, as Svensmark demonstrates, periods of major warming or cooling correspond almost perfectly with wide swings in muon influx, which vary from peak to trough by about 40%--more than enough to explain the onset of ice ages or warming interludes. Swings in muon penetration are caused by--and correlate very well with--fluctuations in the Sun's magnetic shield.

  When muons increase, low-lying clouds increase, because--as Svensmark proved in his just-concluded lab experiment--charged particles (in this case, muons) form nuclei around which water vapor molecules form, that make up low-lying clouds. Low lying cloud cover has been proven in the Nineties to produce cooler temperatures, by refracting about 50% of solar radiation back out to space, in addition to absorbing some additional percentage.

  This dramatic new breakthrough in climateology and solar science creates additional problems for the mythology of AGW, an already staggering corpse shot to smithereens with fallacies. For coventional Green myth-models cannot account for fluctuations in cloud cover; the models predict changes in cloudiness that vary by several hundred percent! Moreover, only Svensmarks' theory explains an anomoly that has long puzzled climate people: the Antarctic Climate Anomoly, in which the Antarctic continent grows cooler or warmer in opposition to temperature trends across the rest of the planet.

  Thus, while temperatures have been increasing slightly (about .6 degrees C) and irregularly (again, in perfect phase with solar cycles) over the past century, the Antarctic has been comparatively cooler, featuring the most expansive sea ice in decades in 2005. The Antarctic Climate Anomoly has been in force many thousands of years, so anthropological co2 can't explain it. However, Svensmark's theory explains why cloud cover tends to warm the antartic while cooling everywhere else.

  Of course, none of Svensmark's remarkable discoveries, or other scientific findings fatal to Green Mythology, will alter the furious charge of Global Warming Crusaders. For the Green Crusade is based, not on science and reason, but on twisted and primitive misanthropic ideology.

  Published: May 31, 2007 7:39 PM

• TokyoTom

  I've had the pleasure of an interesting exchange of emails with David Evans yesterday, who indicated that he hoped to make a follow-up comment here to clarify some of the points I raised above and by email. I look forward to it.

  Published: May 31, 2007 9:29 PM

• TokyoTom

  And I can find you a very reasonable explanation for "Intelligent Falling", Dennis. I guess you are unable to find any scientific support for what a political commenter has to say?

  And as I thought, I guess you are unwilling to explore your own epistemology by making the effort to explain why the scientists who say that the CO2 greenhouse effect (the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures) is logarithmic are unimpeachably credible.

  Published: May 31, 2007 9:39 PM

• Mobetta

  Hi--

  Have you read that girl's report? Kirsten was it? Anyway, she may be an honor student, BUT how do we know her resources are true? Eh? Eh? What does SHE not want us to know? I have never seen and Inconvient Truth, and have no opinion. A am ashamed of HER! Honestly, scientists have proven it well, I'll say. Oil usage has gone up and we must clear our atmosphere. WHY, WHY and more WHY would they lie to us over something as serious as this, in Who Killed the Electric Car, I was told that lung cancer/disease in California had gone up because of carbon emmissions,and how can SHE explain this rapid growth in climate change? I personally dislike this Kirsten person, why should she be tooling in something as serious as this? THE WORLD IS AT STAKE!!!

  Angry, angry, angry,
  
  Mob
  

  Published: May 31, 2007 11:23 PM

• Mobetta

  Hi--

  Have you read that girl's report? Kirsten was it? Anyway, she may be an honor student, BUT how do we know her resources are true? Eh? Eh? What does SHE not want us to know? I have never seen and Inconvient Truth, and have no opinion. A am ashamed of HER! Honestly, scientists have proven it well, I'll say. Oil usage has gone up and we must clear our atmosphere. WHY, WHY and more WHY would they lie to us over something as serious as this, in Who Killed the Electric Car, I was told that lung cancer/disease in California had gone up because of carbon emmissions,and how can SHE explain this rapid growth in climate change? I personally dislike this Kirsten person, why should she be tooling in something as serious as this? THE WORLD IS AT STAKE!!!

  Angry, angry, angry,
  
  Mob
  

  Published: May 31, 2007 11:23 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  Tom,

  Are you saying you don't believe that the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature is logarithmic? This is well-known among climate scientists and derives from radiation theory. Even your buddies at RealClimate accept it. (See here and ">here, for example.) It's in the IPCC report too. Do you consider these sources to be unimpeachably credible?

  I would expect our resident "climate change expert" to know this. You presume to come here and educate us on climate science and yet you don't know this? Perhaps you should go ask your RealClimate buddies for some re-education.

  Or perhaps you really do know and you're just badgering Dennis unnecessarily? Shall I call that sort of behavior what it is? I think you know the word.

  Published: May 31, 2007 11:46 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  Odd...the second Real Climate link got messed up somehow. Here it is....I think.

  Published: May 31, 2007 11:49 PM

• TokyoTom

  Geoff, relax. Again you are letting all of your tribal instincts run wild. If you'd read carefully, you'd see that I am asking Dennis if he is willing to clarify his own epistemology - why he considers some "facts" sufficiently credible but others not - and whether he applies it with any consistency.

  He can refuse, but what, if anything, is unfair about me asking him about it? There is nothing more important in this debate than discussing how we discern and test reality. It is precisely the issue that concerns David Evans.

  Regards,

  The cheap skunk/badger Tom, who deserves no "regards"

  "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
  Richard Feynman

  "We see the world as 'we' are, not as 'it' is; because it is the "I" behind the 'eye' that does the seeing." - Anais Nin

  Published: June 1, 2007 12:09 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  My "tribal instincts"? :D That's rich. Pot calling the alleged kettle black is it?

  Very well. Your incessant trolling amuses me. Carry on.

  
  "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." - Richard Feynman

  Published: June 1, 2007 12:27 AM

• TokyoTom

  Thanks, Geoff. Just be careful not to let my sly efforts to amuse cause you to forget how thoroughly dangerous I am - being on a spy mission from Gaia and all!

  That "uneasy rider" (note reference to ancient Charlie Daniels song)

  Tom

  Published: June 1, 2007 1:08 AM

• David Evans

  TT emailed me and seems anxious that I make some further comments.

  First, I found the discussion about my qualifications hilarious. My resume is on my site so anyone interested can simply see for themselves. However the qualifications that are most relevant to my article are simply that I saw the interaction of science and politics first hand, and that I was on the global warming gravy train.

  Second, the article makes a point that those new to the debate rarely notice: The supporting evidence for blaming carbon emissions used to be rather strong, but has since fallen away. If you only joined the debate in the last couple of years, you would not appreciate that the old ice-core data seemed to point pretty strongly to carbon emissions as the cause of global warming. With the new ice core data available since about 2003, all that has changed -- there is now no reason to blame carbon emissions other than models (which extrapolate from lab measurements of the greenhouse effect of CO2).

  This is a little appreciated point too: at the moment there is no evidence, independent of models, that really strongly supports or denies the idea that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming. Atmospheric temperature data that tried to directly measure the greenhouse warming failed to find it, and until recently seemed to deny it is possible (and still does, in the tropics): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

  So how much do you believe in models? The models I have heard about don't deal with cloud cover, or only poorly, none of the models dealt with global dimming until a few years ago (because we didn't know about it), and I have never heard of them dealing with cosmic rays. As a fellow modeler, I'd much prefer to see independent physical evidence.

  Third, carbon emissions might be the main cause of global warming. It is possible. I used to believe they were, and it is easy enough to interpret everything as pointing in that direction if you believe that in the first place. (Been there, done that, moved on.) However in my opinion now, carbon emissions probably are not the *main* cause of global warming. So let's do more research, and take cheap measures to curb carbon emissions.

  Published: June 1, 2007 3:20 AM

• David Evans

  The point that there is almost no physical evidence for or against carbon emissions as the cause of global warming independent of models is not widely known.

  Science is a method for getting knowledge. It has evolved as our best way of acquiring reliable knowledge. In the scientific method, you start with a falsifiable proposition. If anyone makes observations that falsify it (ie observe something that contradicts the proposition) then it's not true. If over time we make lots of observations that support the proposition then we accept it as true (bearing in mind that a single falsifying observation will prove it false). The observations have to be independent and repeatable.

  Science is a better method of truth-finding than superstition, political edict, etc. Repeated observations means an observer does not have to believe or understand some theory or rather -- just observe! People lie, cheat, bow to public opinion, have vested interests, are mistaken, etc -- the scientific method developed to get around these problems.

  Here is a relevant proposition: Carbon emissions are the main cause of the current global warming.

  And here are 101 more (x is a whole number from 0 to 100): Carbon emissions cause x% of the current global warming.

  On the other hand, models are an extended calculation. They are purely theoretical. They are equations performed by a computer, a mechanism whose rules are the knowledge we program into them. They are *not* observations.

  Now I have asked lots of people, including climate scientists, for *any* physical evidence that supports or denies the propositions above. I repeat the call now -- will anyone with any evidence please let me know. Now just to be clear, such evidence must include:

  1. Who made the observations?

  2. When were they made?

  3. What did they observe? (In general terms, I don't have to see the raw data.)

  4. An explanation of how the observations prove (or even support, like the old ice core data) the above propositions.

  Evidence that will not suffice includes:

  1. Evidence that global warming is occurring. (Already assumed by the above propositions.)

  2. Observations confirming some model. So what? They don't prove the model is correct or will predict correctly in future. And if you find observations that disagree with your model, then you adjust the model anyway (hey, I'm a modeler). If enough monkeys bang away on typewriters long enough then eventually one of them will type the complete works of Shakespeare -- same with models.

  3. Something equivalent to "There are no other candidates, so it has to be the one I'm thinking of." Illogical. In an effectively infinite universe, you cannot rule out all other possibilities.

  4. Someone else said so (such as proof by authority or political edict). Independent repeatable observations only please, otherwise it's not science.

  5. Lab experiments. Too inaccurate when extrapolated to the atmosphere, and they omit too many factors (especially feedbacks). Lab experiments make good supporting evidence, showing how it could happen in principle and suggesting the extent. Lab experiments include measuring the greenhouse effect of CO2, water vapor, methane, etc, or forming clouds using cosmic rays.

  For example, I'm sometimes offered something like http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/danger_point.html From that article: "From a combination of climate models, satellite data, and paleoclimate records the scientists conclude..." or "Based on climate model studies and the history of the Earth the authors conclude that..." See those references to models? Not good enough. "A computer model developed by the Goddard Institute was used to simulate climate from 1880 through today. The model included a more comprehensive set of natural and human-made climate forcings than previous studies, including changes in solar radiation, volcanic particles, human-made greenhouse gases, fine particles such as soot, the effect of the particles on clouds and land use." Hmmm, wonder what the models left out -- cosmic rays maybe? Again, this is modeling, not evidence.

  Published: June 1, 2007 3:52 AM

• David Evans

  Another issue is the public availability of the models upon which our blame of carbon emissions is based.

  I've half-heartedly been trying to get hold of a working climate model that is used to make the "scenarios" -- to examine its assumptions, omissions, sensitivities to input data, and the lower and upper bounds on global temperatures. What factors does it take into account, and what does it omit?

  I haven't looked too hard, so maybe I missed them. If someone knows of a publicly available model, perhaps you could email me please?

  It seems to me if that if the climate modelers were acting in the true scientific spirit (and perhaps they are; I am not suggesting they are not because I don't know if the models are available), then they would make their models publicly available. Working code, with documentation on what it all means. Enough so that a potential critic like me could run it on my computer, and understand what it is doing.

  I also have a little background in the issue of public availability of controversial models.

  The model I made for the Australian Greenhouse Office, FullCAM, is pretty controversial in Australia -- because it's results are politically significant (does Australia meet its Kyoto targets?) and business sensitive (farmers get actual dollar payouts based on its results, and carbon credits are calculated using it). FullCAM is a world leader, and I've heard that it is being exported (eg China, NZ, several third world, maybe the US), so it will only get more controversial.

  FullCAM is partly publicly available. The executable is available, and you can download spreadsheets that show the workings of some component parts. I urged the managers to make the source code available too, but they always baulked at that. However I did get someone to write a spec from the code (yes, it was that way around), and that document is publicly available I think. So you can see I've at least thought about the possibility of having my model and code picked over by a bunch of lawyers!

  Published: June 1, 2007 4:06 AM

• TokyoTom

  David, thanks for coming back to us.

  I would like to comment further but fortunately for everyone am pressed for time. In short:

  - in considering climate change we have both an evidentiary issue and an issue of what action, if any, that government should take in response. I note that you have agreed that temperatures are rising, anthropogenic CO2 is rising, that CO2 is likely a forcing factor and that other human forcings appear to be underway, in addition to whatever so far unexplained natural forcings may be a play in our rising temperatures.

  - You have not discussed the rising effects of climate change, but based on this you still advocate - while we wait some unspecified period of time for evidence of a significant human influence on climate sufficient to satisfy you (even as evidence not only of changes but CO2 levels continue to rise) - that "Meanwhile let's do more research, and take cheap measures to curb
  carbon emissions!"

  - the question of policy conceptually remains a separate issue from whatever our current state of knowledge is, but you still seem to think that a blance of evidence and risk merits some action.

  - I do not believe you have made a case that the evidence for AGW has weakened. There is plenty of evidence that points in the other direction, and not merely the IPCC literature surveys, but also the conversions of prominent skeptics/libertarians like Michael Schermer and Ron Bailey who have their reputations on the line and the sea of corporations that are already changing their behavior.

  - I was hoping that you would explain a little more about some OTHER points that you clarifed with me by email, but you took this opportunity instead to repeat your remarks about what you consdier the absence of "real world" evidence. Let me note some of these other points - quoting you:

  "As you've gathered, I'm hardly a prominent scientist. (Although I suppose I am a scientist, and Morano's postings have made me more prominent -- but not for scientific achievements. My maths research may be valuable so I may be slightly prominent one day, but not yet.) No, I hadn't noticed Morano had referred to me as "a prominent scientist". It never occurred to me that he could be referring to me!

  I found the discussion on the mises site about my qualification hilarious. My resume is on my site so anyone interested can see for themselves, so there doesn't seem to be anything more to add -- except perhaps something along the lines of "keep it in proportion, don't go overboard". Look guys, my only relevant qualification in this debate is that I saw the interaction of science and politics first hand, and that I was on the global warming gravy train (thus proving it exists)."

  "I think Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven "consensus" on man-made global warming are overdoing it and may be wrong, but then again I think there is a smaller chance they are right, as I pointed out in my post on Brian's blog. The case is not closed, so both (all?) sides need to be kept in mind until some definitive physical evidence comes along."

  "So yes, Morano is exaggerating both my prominence and agenda, and assuming my motivations for his own ends. A typical political approach, if I might point out.

  I emailed Steven Hayward at Planet Gore to correct that, but he didn't and I received no reply."

  - When I suggested that the climate models are not top secret and are available, and gave you suggestions about researching them you said "Not sure I can afford the time." Doesn't sound to me as if you have really tried to find what you say you are looking for.

  You also said: "It is important not to let discussion boards become too one sided, as usually happens."

  I can concur, but isn't the fact that a discussion board is one-sided evidence that one-side is right, and the minority wrong?

  Thanks again for the dicussion, David.

  TT
  

  Published: June 1, 2007 6:58 AM

• Dennis

  TT,

  As Geoffrey has pointed out, the logarithmic relationship between increasing concentrations of CO2 and increasing temperatures is widely accepted by individuals on the various sides of the AGW issue. And if you do not believe that this can be demonstrated by controlled lab experiment then I really do not know what else I can say to you.

  And I believe my previous comment is on solid epistemological grounds and is logically correct:

  "As a matter of logic, if not basic common sense, if a lab experiment can measure temperature increases that are caused by CO2 in the first place, than it also can measure the additional temperature increases that are caused by increasing concentrations of CO2. This type of science is easily performed in controlled lab experiments. My understanding is that the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperatures is just as much a lab-demonstrated fact (but nowhere near as widely disseminated) as is the greenhouse nature of CO2."

  In effect, what you are saying is that initial temperature increases can be measured in a controlled lab experiment, i.e. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but additional temperature increases due to increasing concentrations of CO2 somehow can not be measured. Given the nature of the lab experiment, I find this logically erroneous.
  

  Published: June 1, 2007 7:05 AM

• Dennis

  Mark,

  Thank you for mentioning and summarizing the climate change theory presented in the Svensmark and Calder book. The book is important, and hopefully it receives a wide reading.

  For those who may be interested, the book was reviewed in March 2007 on LRC:

  http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html

  Published: June 1, 2007 7:43 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  Comments on TokyoTom's response to David Evans:

  "the question of policy conceptually remains a separate issue from whatever our current state of knowledge is, but you still seem to think that a blance of evidence and risk merits some action."

  Here and elsewhere you appear to be invoking the precautionary principle. I don't think anyone here accepts that principle.

  "I do not believe you have made a case that the evidence for AGW has weakened. There is plenty of evidence that points in the other direction, and not merely the IPCC literature surveys, but also the conversions of prominent skeptics/libertarians like Michael Schermer and Ron Bailey who have their reputations on the line and the sea of corporations that are already changing their behavior."

  1) Any evidence that fits his description of evidence?

  2) Conversions of a few prominent skeptics is not evidence. In any case, there have been equally significant conversions in the other direction as well.

  3) Corporations jumping on the bandwagon is not evidence. Many, if not most, of them are doing it for pragmatic reasons. They want to help shape the policies that will affect them, instead of having policies they had no say in imposed on them. Some feel they can reap profits by exploiting the green fervor. Some are no doubt rent-seeking, setting themselves up to reap profits by shaping the carbon credit market in their favor. You can't simply assume they actually believe wholeheartedly in AGW and that it will be catastrophic.

  "When I suggested that the climate models are not top secret and are available, and gave you suggestions about researching them you said "Not sure I can afford the time." Doesn't sound to me as if you have really tried to find what you say you are looking for."

  Other people have tried to get data and models from prominent climate scientists, in order to try to replicate their results, and faced obstruction. Michael Mann is one prime example of such obstructionism. See all the posts here, and here, and this post, and this,
  and this, and this, and this.

  Obstacles such as these are why he can't afford the time. If you have easy access to such data and models, perhaps in the interest of science you could get some of them for David Evans and Steve McIntyre.

  
  "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." - Richard Feynman

  "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken

  Published: June 1, 2007 10:39 AM

• Yancey Ward

  Tokyo Tom,

  Whose payroll on you on?

  Published: June 1, 2007 1:41 PM

• Mark Humphrey

  One of the most interesting ideas presented in "The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change" by Henrik Svensmark and Neil Calder has to do with the Antarctic climatic anomoly. This anomoly has been demonstrated in numerous studies going back at least 90,000 years (some studies reveal evidence of the anomoly millions of years ago). The anomoly consists of disparate climatic conditions in the Antartic continent, as contrasted with conditions on the rest of the planet. When temperatures rise around the globe, including Greenland and the Arctic, temperatures almost immediately get cooler in Antarctica. Such cooling manifests as either an absolute fall in temperatures in the Antarctic, or sometimes in a comparative drop compared with conditions elsewhere. But in either case, the disparity is real, as revealaed in ice core studies. Most recently, sea ice concentrations in Antartica exceed anything witnessed over the past 50 or 60 years. In 2002, for example, ships were unable to break through the ice to get supplies to weather observatories based on the continent.

  One reason for the anomoly is a continuous and powerful vortex of wind that climatically isolates Antarctica from the rest of the world. Svensmark explains (and provides evidence that)this wind vortex isolates and preserves cooling or warming effects of big changes in cloudiness over Anarctica. Interestingly, only Svensmark's theory of solar-centered fluctuations in cosmic rays in our lower atmosphere provides a credible and simple (in deference to the principle of Ocam's Razor) explanation of this anomoly.

  As Svensmark explains, the snowfields of the Antarctic are the whitest and brightest on earth--much larger and whiter than the Greenland and Arctic snowcaps. (I'm not sure why Anarctica's snow fields are whiter, but I do not think this claim is controversial; it may have to do with the nearness of summertime Anarctica to the sun, due to the earth's axial tilt).

  Because the Antarctic snowfields are whiter and brighter than the cloud tops that sometimes float above them, clouds tend to warm the Antarctic, in contrast to their cooling effects on the rest of the planet. For duller cloud tops absorb solar radiation from above, and refracted radiation from below; as contrasted with bright white snowfields that reflect solar radiation back to the sky. So low-lying cloudiness tends to trap and direct downward warmth from the sun, more than it cools by blocking sunlight. The same phenomena occurs over the Arctic snowcap, except the duller and much smaller snowfields of that area favor cooling over warming dynamics.

  Here is an observation that contradicts and falsifies the hypothesis of anthropological global warming. For co2 concentrations are rapidly dispersed around the globe with temperature effects that are supposed to be immediate. Moreover, according to Green models, temperature increases from higher co2 conentrations will show up most dramatically over the poles!

  Of course, Greens will assert that other of man's "unnatural" productive activites might account for this anomoly. For example, flurocarbon production is said to deplete ozone; ozone depletion could possibly account for leakage of co2 over the South Pole. But this is purely speculatiuon. Moreover, such misanthropic hypothesising can't account for the persistence of the Antarctic climatic anomoly over thousands and millions of years of history. But Svensmark's theory can explain all of this, simply and directly.

  I'm sure we can all look forward to reading about this finding, as well as other science that contradicts Green Faith, in "Science", or "National Geographic", or the "Skeptical Inquirier", or the "New York Times" soon.

  Published: June 1, 2007 2:28 PM

• Yancey Ward

  Mark Humphrey,

  Just to throw out a possible explanation for Antarctica's "whiter snow caps": may have to do with pollution from industrialization being more prominent in the Northern Hemisphere.

  Published: June 1, 2007 3:48 PM

• TokyoTom

  "Just to throw out a possible explanation for Antarctica's "whiter snow caps": may have to do with pollution from industrialization being more prominent in the Northern Hemisphere."

  Hey, wait Yancey. Are you angling for a position with the Gaia Squad or something? Knock it off with the nuance; it confuses people!

  Published: June 2, 2007 9:41 AM

• Yancey Ward

  Tom,

  You still have not answered my question.

  On whose payroll are you?

  Published: June 2, 2007 11:44 AM

• DevillishTom

  Not that I see any relevance to anything I've said, but no one's, Yancey. Certainly no one with a dog in this fight has asked for my help.

  Why? Have been so disturbingly unconvincing and persistent that someone MUST be paying me? I couldn't simply CARE about resource and development issues, have a few screws loose or a crank who has found it's darn-nigh impossible to find good company with a buch of other ranks and grumpty old dogs?

  Please allow me to introduce myself; I'm not a man of wealth and fame. Can you guess my name? Nemo calls me either Prometheus or Light-Bearer. I am a lone, way-faring stranger; a mere pilgrim on a long and winding road that leads to who knows where; an uneasy rider takin' a trip out to LA.

  When I was a young whippersnapper I was briefly in the belly of the beast - on Scaife's payroll. Now I work in Tokyo as a professional, with a fair amount of work in the oil industry. I'll take Shell and Exxon over Putin any day.

  I won't continue the implicit ad hominem by asking you (or others) to explain who's paying them for their blogging. Your question is perfectly fair and neither impolite nor impertinent - the astute do a public service when they flush out possible demons.

  
  That Walkin' Man,

  Tom
  

  Published: June 3, 2007 12:57 AM

• Cadno

  Hi David,

  Can you explain something to layman.

  You state that:
  There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere — but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring!

  I have understood that GHG model has always predicted cooling upper atmosphere. Like in article in science news says:
  Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the air, which cause temperatures at Earth's surface to warm, will turn the upper layers of the atmosphere cooler and thinner in coming decades, new research suggests. This counterintuitive phenomenon, first predicted in the late 1980s and recently inferred from satellite data, will probably lead to longer orbital lifetimes for satellites and space junk.

  http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-157195430.html

  Or are you talking about troposphere???

  curious layman from finland
  

  Published: June 4, 2007 6:22 AM

• Boxorox

  This is fascinating reading! At last, some realism in a nutty world seems determined to use science to destroy science. But there is hope after all. Thank you!

  One big aspect of the global warming propoganda that has irked me for years is the random and unsubstantiated claim that a warmer world will have higher sea levels, in part due to "thermal expansion of seawater." I knew this to be untrue or at least so miniscule as to be irrelevant, but I could not find evidence to support a refutation to it. So I finally took an class in oceanography hoping to find an answer to this, plus other facts relating to the issue.

  I am happy to report that I did find my answer as well as a confirmation to my supposition. While it is true that fresh (pure) water does expand slightly when heated above 39 degrees F, and when cooled toward freezing below that 39 degrees, seawater (saline ocean water) is even less expansive. Thermal-based density of seawater is dependent upon the degree of salinity in that, the more saline the solution the more dense it becomes; however, the behavior of such water is exactly the same when heated or cooled.

  Fresh water expands approximately 0.3 percent when heated from 3 deg C to 20 deg C (though this expansion is not a linear progression. Seawater, on the other hand, with an average salinity of 35ppk, expands in linear fashion when heated over that same range, but only by about 0.2 percent.

  I have my suspicions that climate change progagandists use this information and apply the expansion factor to the entire ocean volume which would result in a 12,000-foot deep ocean (average worldwide depth) rising 24 feet if heated almost 20 degree C, or some porportional amount for a more limited range of temperature increase. This premise is patently false, since only the Surface layer of the ocean, extending generally only down to 150 meters of depth are subject to environmentally induced temperature fluctuation.

  So, in my mind at the very least, we have another hole in the climate change campaign.

  Published: June 4, 2007 7:05 AM

• T Everth

  The Mises Institute states as a central point on its mission statement that it is "...opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive."

  Obviously then any opinions aired under the umbrella of the institute are likely going to find fault with any argument that is calling for government intervention - or by logical extension - international treaties, as who else would enforce international treaties between governments who must intervene locally in order to uphold such treaties?

  It would then seem logical that the institute must vigorously debate against any conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic, as otherwise they would need to support or condone government action to mitigate the issue. No companies and few private individuals would voluntarily cut back on emissions unless forced to do so by law.

  It then would seem that the views expressed in the name of the institute or supported by the institute will be heavily biased by the institutes mission statement and therefore are likely to be rather unscientific, often polemic and probably irrelevant to the debate.
  Davids article is a good example of these forces at work.
  With its mission statement the Institute has chucked its scientific relevance out of the window from the start.

  Published: June 11, 2007 11:10 PM

• Steve Sadlov

  As of the mid 1980s I was an utter Green radical, at a Univ of Calif campus, hanging with the Earth First crowd. Monkey Wrench Gang and Ecotopia were books I thought were really neato. Someone handed me this book - "Greenhouse: It will happen in 1997!" - by Dakota James, a Lefty NYC lawyer. I lapped it right up. I sat there imagining that, as depicted in the book, the permafrost would be melted, all the polar ice gone, and people wearing only underwear in Cali by 1997. The Great Lakes would be dried up and they would be horse racing in Antarctica. No joke, I really, truly believed it. I was on the bandwagon with Hansen et al.

  What a doofus I was.

  Published: June 12, 2007 8:11 PM

• T Everth

  ... perhaps then if the book by Dakota James would have been taken more serious by the rest of us at that time, we would not be in the position now of looking down the barrel of the gun, so to speak.
  Earth's climate is like a very heavy swing. Once pushed to one side for long enough, fast enough, it will keep on going for a long time into that direction.
  Also if the predictions of the Club of Rome would have been taken more serious too, then we would perhaps not be in a position of invading oil rich countries or lament the near end of many other precious resources (New Scientist lately had nice summary of the state of affairs).
  Being ahead of your time by a few decades would have been such a good thing - with hindsight.
  Sadly most people opted to act like the 'doofus' instead - or like the ostrich with his head buried deeply in the theory of unlimited market driven growth financed by Faustian wagers on all future generations...

  Published: June 13, 2007 5:58 AM

• Jacques Ellul

  “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.”

  First Global Revolution
  Club of Rome (1991)
  http://www.archive.org/details/TheFirstGlobalRevolution

  Published: July 31, 2008 6:15 PM

• Victor Nurcombe

  The hockey stick lives.....

  Nature
  http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0901/full/climate.2008.142.html

  Hypothesis is still patent. If you are wrong....we are MIGHTILY stuffed.

  Published: December 20, 2008 8:25 PM

• Brian Macker

  The hockey stick lives......

  Not really.

  Hypothesis is still patent. If you are wrong....we are MIGHTILY stuffed.

  Not really. Warmer temperatures are better than colder, plus CO2 is a fertilizer. Sounds like a win-win situation.
  

  Published: December 21, 2008 1:10 AM

• jack

  I CONGRATULATE YOUR HONESTY SIR ,AND WE AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY ,THE REALITY IS THAT C02 HAS BEEN UP TO TEN TIMES HIGHER BUT IT WAS IN AN ICE AGE,CONSIDERING THERE IS ALAPSE OF 800 YRS TO THE C02 CORRELATION TO WEATHER CYCLES ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT THEFUTURE WEATHR CYCLES ON A C02 BASIS ,WE HOPE YOU ALERT US TO YOUR DISCOVERIES AND WE THANK YOU FOR FINALY STANDING UP FOR REAL FACTS OF SCIENCE ,I NOTICE THAT A PROFESSOR HAS FOUND DR WANGS REPORT TO BE FALSE AND IS SUEING HIM ,IN THE END TRUTH WILL PREVAIL WE HOPE .WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT OF UCH IMPORTANCE,THANK YOU.

  Published: April 9, 2009 4:06 AM

• Mark

  It took me almost an hr to read all the posts and all that was useful was a few links...:) I think it is better that we wake up and work preventing global warming rather than pulling each others legs and pointing out words on petty issues.

  Mark
  Business Process Outsourcing

  Published: July 9, 2009 5:25 AM