Howard County Maryland Blog

Local Politics and Current Events

The Global Warming Swindle?

Posted by David Keelan on Tuesday, June 12, 2007

That is the name of the first video.  Far from being settled science I think most reasonable people wonder how much we need to regulate CO2 emissions and are not in a panic and sending school children home to have nightmares. 

My neighbor asked a good question.  “What is the basis for George Bush’s CO2 emission reduction at the G8?”  Honestly, I don’t know what the President proposed or why he proposed it.  I can’t even tell you if it is a change in policy.  I will look into it.  However, the Daily Reckoning Blog in Australia has a theory.

By attaching his credibility to the Global Warming hypothesis yesterday, he probably aims to discredit the idea completely. Sly dog!

In the mean time an alternate perspective on Global Warming.

 ________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse

Advertisements

34 Responses to “The Global Warming Swindle?”

  1. Compelling. Why don’t we hear this or see this in the main stream?

  2. "Fair and Balanced" said

    Main stream media is too hung up on “facts” and “science” to report on hogwash.

  3. I think the whole point of this discussion is that no one is certain what the “facts” are and even if they are what the “facts” mean.

    If carbons are such a small part of greenhouse gases how do they contribute so much to the “warming” effect. Why can’t anyone explain why the world warmed and cooled in the past prior to the industrial revolution?

  4. Freemarket said

    One Sided Science- CO2 and other greenhouse gases thicken the atmosphere and trap infrared rays that reflect off the Earth. That is how they contribute to the warming effect.

    Clarify your position, if you would. Do you not believe that the Earth is warming, or do you not believe that mankind is the cause of the warming?

  5. Hayduke said

    Why can’t anyone bother to read information that is presented to them over and over again?

    Calculating the Greenhouse effect

    Attribution of 20th Century Climate Change to CO2.

    With respect to past temperature variations (and, remember, the issue is not solely about temperature changes, but climate changes — which could include droughts, desertification, stronger storms), there’s a whole section on Real Climate describing them.

    Also, David, where is my response to your comment on the North America and Europe Warming post? I posted it twice yesterday, but the only comment that went through was a correction to a link that was broken. Are you censoring the discussion? Seems like an awfully poor decision to make in this particular instance, what with all the questions about the accuracy and validity of the information your sharing and the blustering about facts.

  6. I understand CO2 contribution to the issue.

    I think some people are over estimating in their models the amount of CO2 increasing in future years leading to an irrational hysteria. The earth warms and cools but by how much depends what part of the world you are measuring at a particular time. The temp. of the earth fluctuates. I believe the earth is warming and cooling. Is man contributing to it? Every living organism on earth is contributing to warming and cooling and man is one variable in a complex model.

    Did you ever read Patrick Michaels’ report on CO2 inputs into current global warming models? Be sure to read his citations. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa576.pdf

    The question comes down to do we believe the extreme predictions being made about flooding, hurricaines, drought based on questionable assumptions and inputs and their resulting models?

    We do contribute to the condition of our environment. Do we contribute at a greater rate than other factors?

    We need a realistic picture of global warming trends and not hysteria. I don’t believe the end is near. I believe in the earth’s ability to balance the enviroment and man’s capacity to adapt and change to protect the enviroment.

    I also agree with Keelan that some of the people promoting the hysteria see a way to get rich quick which unfortunately casts a pale over the whole debate. So I don’t believe in carbon credits. I think a carbon tax is more realistic and manageable.

  7. Ian, accusing me of censoring and blustering. Hmmm. Perhaps a little info about how WordPress filters spam. If it detects more than two hyperlinks in a comment it flags the comment for moderation in order to filter out spam. A hallmark of spam (according to WordPress) is multiple hyperlinks. So, in answer to your question. I am not censoring and I am not blustering (as are some others).

    Once I saw your comment noting a correction to the link you referenced, and didn’t see your original comment on the blog I went to the moderation folder and approved the comment that WordPress (not I) held for review.

    If you go back you will see the comment you posted.

  8. Hayduke said

    That seems like an overly sensitive filter.

    There was a considerable time lag between me submitting and you approving my comment (enough time for it to stay off the recent comments banner, at least). It was not on this blog as of 6 pm last night, which is well after I posted the original and the clarifying comment yesterday (around 2:30 pm).

  9. So you think I am censoring your comments? You have my email address. You could have asked. Have I ever censored your comments before?
    “support@wordpress.com” to david
    show details Jun 12 (21 hours ago)
    A new comment on the post #758 “North American and European Warming” is waiting for your approval
    https://hocomd.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/758/
    Author : Hayduke (IP: 141.157.24.147 , dvcenter.org)
    E-mail : hocohayduke@gmail.com
    URL : http://hocohayduke.blogspot.com
    Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=141.157.24.147
    Comment:
    (Not sure why this didn’t post the first time, so I’m trying again):
    David,
    Now we’re getting into the part that’s really tedious and explains why I’m usually happiest just letting this mess lie.
    Rather than letting the facts speak to you, you’re cherry picking information in a vain and somewhat said attempt to confirm your preconceptions. You’re trotting out canard after canard and hoping at least one sticks. Rather than go through your laundry list of wrongs, let me address a few key points.
    First, you seem utterly incapable of grasping the fact that we’re not talking about global warming specifically. Yes, there are parts of the earth that will warm considerably as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but as I said this warming will not be uniform, nor will it be the only (or even most significant) impact of the grand chemistry experiment we’re conducting in our atmosphere.
    Temperatures are really just the superficial, easy-to-grasp element of this whole debate. The real concern, as I tried to make clear, is that we are fundamentally and almost-permanently (in human terms, anyway) altering the composition of our atmosphere. Smart people and fast computers have helped piece together the likely implications of this – rising temperatures in some areas, droughts in others, cooling in yet more – but we don’t know for sure what will happen. Which is why, contrary to your characterization, I welcome disagreements on predictive models and policy approaches and adamantly support free and open exchange of ideas and knowledge about the complex functioning of the atmosphere.
    What I don’t welcome is misinformation and selective citations. As FreeMarket said, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it has been in a long, long time, likely since the dinosaurs, though we can’t say for sure. In the last 200 years, it has risen nearly 35 percent (from 285 ppm to 375 ppm). And this is a non-trivial change, according to you? Really? What makes you say that? If your income dropped 35 percent in a matter of days (minutes would be more accurate from a geologic perspective), would you consider that a non-trivial difference?
    Apples to oranges, you’re probably thinking. Carbon makes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere that even large changes to its concentration won’t have big effects. Water vapor is the real greenhouse gas that we need to look at. Am I characterizing this correctly?
    There are a number of reasons why water vapor is largely a red herring. See <a> for the complex refutation of tired talking point or </a><a href=”http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html” rel=”nofollow”>here </a>for the wordy, but easier to understand answer. The general point, however, is that water vapor in the atmosphere is in equilibrium and humans aren’t changing its concentration. Also, by changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere we are not only increasing the carbon’s impact on the greenhouse effect, we’re also getting an increase in water vapor (creating a new equilibrium).
    Just a few loose ends from your comment that need refutation:
    I think it has a more detrimental effect on local communities contributing to personal health factors. I think there is more of a correlation between asthma and man made CO2 emissions than to “global warming” and as such is reason enough to limit their emissions.
    You think? I think airborne particulates and other low-level pollution, of which CO2 is not really a concern (NOx and SOx are), are of bigger concern than CO2. Of course, an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can cause plants to emit more pollen, so in a roundabout way we might both be right. That said, CO2’s impact climate change is probably a bigger concern than localized public health issues. But I suppose that depends on whether you live here or in Bangladesh.
    The IPCC doesn’t even know how long it stays in the atmosphere and estimates range from 50 years to 200 years)
    Not all the CO2 leaves the atmosphere. Some of it sticks around forever in a new equilibrium, meaning we are permanently changing things.
    An in-depth discussion of models is probably best suited for technocrats, not a couple yokels spitting at each other on some blogs. That said, models are just models. They’ll evolve as our knowledge evolves. They are there to provide guidance to policymakers. They aren’t crystal balls. If anyone’s putting too much stock into them it’s their critics.
    I don’t believe we emit enough (less than 1% of all greenhouse emissions) to make a difference and to suggest we do fails to take into account the complexity of the world around us and is a rather arrogant position.
    Did you write that with a straight face? I can’t imagine you did. The beginning and the end should get together and hash out their differences. Am I being snide? Perhaps. But if anyone’s being arrogant it’s you. So, you don’t “believe” what thousands of trained professionals have spent years researching and questioning, and yet those with in-depth, highly-specialized research are the arrogant ones who fail to appreciate the complexity of the situation? And this from the guy who seems to think all these professionals have overlooked something as simple as water vapor.
    Don’t assume that I am an advocate of CO2 emissions. You would be hard pressed to find any statement from me that would advocate that position.
    I never assumed that but you might as well be if you refuse to look past your biases and misperceptions.
    Stick to what you know and don’t make assumptions.
    Practice what you preach.
    I don’t know how many times I’ll have to link to it, but if you really want to understand this issue – not that you, I or any other untrained laymen will ever fully understand it – you should read <a href=”http://www.realclimate.org” rel=”nofollow”>Real Climate</a>. It’s just scientists talking about the science — no one’s trying to make any money or score political points. <a href=”http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/” rel=”nofollow”>Here’s </a>their review of Al Gore’s movie, including corrections.
    (Cross-posted on my blog)
    Approve it: https://hocomd.wordpress.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=mac&c=16266
    Delete it: https://hocomd.wordpress.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=cdc&c=16266
    Spam it: https://hocomd.wordpress.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=cdc&dt=spam&c=16266
    Currently 1 comments are waiting for approval. Please visit the moderation panel:
    https://hocomd.wordpress.com/wp-admin/moderation.php

  10. Good grief Ian, we don’t all just sit around all day reading comments. Sometimes I don’t get around to the moderation queue until more than a full day after the original comment was made.

    I have a similar filter on my site which, in addition to multiple hyperlinks in a post, also flags people attempting to post under multiple names and using words I deem inappropiate. Most of the time, the comments flagged were spam to begin with, but occasionally a legitimate comment gets flagged simply because of poor word choice. Most of the time, the commenter figures it out reposts the same comment with the offending word either removed or altered.

  11. After reading Dave Wissing’s comment I went and looked at the spam folder. Guess what. Ian’s original comment was sitting in the spam folder since Jun 12, 1:24 PM with 78 other email messages. Technology isn’t perfect – well neither is climate change modeling.

  12. Hayduke said

    I find it funny that someone who posts this statement — “I have noted in a comment on an earlier post – although no one wants to comment on these facts:” — only a few waking hours after posting his original comment would be so unconcerned about the timeliness of others’ posting. The implication of this quote is that failing to respond reasonably quickly represents a concession of defeat, and given that expectation, I think my concern about the promptness of my post appearing is certainly reasonable.

    Also, the fact that both of you have responded so quickly to my comment undermines your arguments.

  13. WOW.

    Are you alleging a conspiracy between Wissing and Keelan to silence you or something?

    Did you not originally post a response to my questions on your blog?

    Have I ever edited, censored, or blocked your comments before? Taking a quick look there are approximately 100 comments on this blog attributed to you.

    How quickly did your latest comment just come up? Instantly? How about your comment correcting your link? Instantly? The fact that your other comments come up instantly should give you some indication of my good will. Talk about vendre un canard à moitié

  14. Hayduke said

    Are you intentionally misreading me?

    No, you haven’t censored/edited me in the past, but still, I found it odd that it took so long for my comment yesterday to appear, especially after you expressed your belief in the importance of timeliness in the post to which I was responding.

    That was my original concern. My most recent comment was a defense of my initial concerns, which both you and David seemed to brush aside. Can you really not understand why I’d wonder why it took hours for my comment to appear in those circumstances or do you honestly think of me as some twittering namby-pamby?

    That the same comment of mine appeared instantly on my blog or that these past comments have appeared instantly on this blog are irrelevant.

  15. KungPow said

    Hey, this little misunderstanding over spam filters and censorship is perhaps indicative of putting too much faith in depending upon “smart people and fast computers” to extrapolate the implications of global warming (and also in the understanding of global warming). For computers, it is always GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

  16. No I am not intentionally misreading you. Chalk it up to a failure to understand one another. I happens all the time. It is probably a difference of style.

    KungPow. Well said.

  17. Hayduke said

    KungPow,

    Right. Same thing.

    Actually, I’ve tried to say we need to focus less on the future models and more on the data, as the models can be distracting from the main issue (at least in my mind), which is that we’re changing the chemistry of our atmosphere. I’d love to hear if you have anything to add to the discussion, other than dismissiveness.

  18. kenzrw said

    IPCC clarification: There are too many who think the IPCC does a lot of the scientific work on examining global warming/climate change. They do NOT (from their website): “The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.” Check out their website:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

  19. Ian, did something bad happen to you? You seem to be in a crabby mood today.

    Truth is, I just happened to catch your comment as I clicked on the Internet at lunch time at work. You could have left your comment at 6:30 this morning and I still would not have seen it until lunch time.

    For the comments on my site, I actually read most of them through a RSS Reader, which does not designate whether a comment is being flagged or not. So if one of your comments was flagged, I would still be able to read it on my RSS reader and be completely unaware that it was not showing up live on my site. It isn’t until I get around to checking my moderation queue when I realize that a particular comment was flagged.

    I’ve never noticed one of your comments in the moderation queue on my site. Have you ever remembered one of your comments blocked on my site? To be up front, I did have a few comments from Freemarket show up in there, but that was because it appeared he was attempting to post comments under different handles (one of my big no-no’s) before I realized it was him.

  20. Hayduke said

    I can take being called stupid, an idiot or any number of names without getting angry. But when the subject turns to climate change, I have little patience.

    Once or twice a comment of mine has disappeared from your site. This could have been user error, computer error or internet error, however.

  21. I appreciate your passion regarding “climate change”. Of course you realize I never have called you stupid or anything close to that…
    As to your comments disappearing…how often can I explain what happened. How can I be misreading you when you keep on bringing up the issue. “It could have been…however”. How am I supposed to read that?
    If you want to know about Akismet Spam Filter (the software that WordPress uses) “modeling” take a look here:
    http://en.forums.wordpress.com/search.php?q=spam+filter
    Also WordPress provides this information:
    “Comment Moderation: Hold a comment in the queue if it contains X or more links. (A common characteristic of comment spam is a large number of hyperlinks.) If X is zero, then EVERY SINGLE COMMENT will need moderation.”
    It is not perfect in that it blocks some legitimate comments and often times SPAM gets through and I have to delete the SPAM from the blog.

  22. tomberkhouse said

    I think adjective fits Hayduke very well. Along with some others.:)

  23. Mr. Berkhouse,
    Was that necessary? Can we allow this to die a peaceful death?

  24. Hayduke said

    Oh, yeah, well I think gerund fits Tom.

    Nyah.

    Sorry, David. I’m letting it go.

  25. MBT said

    I post on a different blog and my own comments get caught in moderation by Word Press sometimes. It may be days before I check the folder. Until I get paid for blogging full time and my family really doesn’t want me around, that is the way it will be. Nothing sinister in a spam filter…..

    Oh btw – the gloal warming debate is what happens when politics start trying to run the scientific debate – not much good science comes out. Like anything else in science, there is always more than one parameter to consider and often the results are conflicting.

  26. tomberkhouse said

    Ok – maybe that was a low blow, but he did say he could take being called those names and not get angry. I was also not being 100% serious – even I have a sense of humor.

    In my defense, I have said before that Hayduke is in fact a very knowledgable person, which makes it all the more surprising when he takes certain positions.

  27. Freemarket said

    MBT- I think you make one good point. Global warming debate is what occurs when politicians try to do science. If anyone can find any peer reviewed scientific writings that question whether or not global warming is occurring, or that humans are the cause, I would be surprised. There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles on global warming that are cause for concern about our environment.

    Politicians are trying to spin public opinion with dubious science to make people think global warming concerns are unjustified and there is no overwhelming scientific consensus on the matter.

  28. FM,

    I agree. However, I would say the converse is also true.

  29. Hayduke said

    So, let’s see some peer reviewed studies saying we have no reason to fear and our carbon emissions are just fine.

  30. Have you never seen such peer reviewed studies? Have not looked for such peer review studies? They don’t exist?

  31. Freemarket said

    I have seen no peer reviewed studies questioning global warming. Check out the below article on the matter.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

  32. Hayduke said

    Here’s the relevant bit from the article linked to by FM:

    The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

    The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

    Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

  33. Ima Knowall said

    It’s good to see most people getting brainwashed on the subject of climate change. Self induced at that. Naturally, the fact that we have been having climate change for thousands if not millions of years means sod all obviously. As well as the greenhouse affect. Whose main constituent is water vapour. (98%).If any smart person out there can tell me why or how (CO2 per se)is a greenhouse gas I would love to hear from you. bearing in mind the following facts as published by most climatologists That in 1850 the CO2 level in our atmosphere was 250 ppm. And today it stands at 380 ppm. Which is an increase of 130ppm over 150 years. Which is less than 1ppm per year since 1850. Despite the fact that billions of tons of is being absorbed annually by the green plant life of this planet,99.99%, there is always a bit left over. 0.038% of our atmosphere to be precise . Which even if CO2 was a greenhouse gas it would be totally insignificent. Oxygen,21% nitrogen 78%, and 1% made up of neon, argon plus a few more,including CO2, which make up our atmoshere, have all one thing in common. They’re all invisible and therefore have no affect whatsoever on the greenhouse issue.
    I suppose you have all seen pictures of our cities from a distance showing the haze cover. Well what you are seeing is not CO2, or Carbon monoxide(it being invisable as well) but tons of ‘airbourne particulate matter’ unburned fuels. Same as when we burn coal , you will see lots of soot and muck. You have seen bushfires too no doubt, with its clouds of airbourne particulate matter. If you want to blame something as is your wont, then blame that but not the humble CO2. In fact hopefully in the coming years CO2 will increase by twice as much and our agriculture yields will improve as well. I suggest that some of you stop getting confused with CO2 and what accompanies it, it’s not the same thing. Personally, I believe that ways should be found to burn fossil fuels cleanly instead of wasting time on carbon emmissions.
    P.S Since nobody can visualise 1ppm. Imagine you being on a straight length of highway and you and a freind are holding a piece of string strecthed out for 1 km long . Then you snip off your end 1mm. That’s 1ppm.

  34. […] “Global Warming Swindle?” is the question asked by David Keelan from HoCoMd, the Howard County Maryland public watchdog blog. He attaches a video that demonstrates the cyclicar method of climate change over the millenia. I think I’ll stay out of this conversation. 😉 […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: