US SENATE:
One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.Man-made global warming is a hoax concocted to give Leftists an excuse for raising taxes and attacking industrialism and capitalism.
Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. ... Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.
I must say, it is good to see you in such violent agreement with an active member of the French Socialist party. I guess when you have so few scientists on your side, you must hold your nose and quote someone as distasteful to you as Allegre.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, you're once again a little late to this party. It didn't take long for six French Scientists to point out the critical flaws in Allegre's article. To hit the highlights, the models don't actually predict the Antarctic changes Allegre claims (since they're still well below freezing)and Kilimanjaro study he cites describes processes that take millions of years, not things that cause change in 100. You'd understand making that mistake, though.
since his eyes are opening i have faith he will soon abandon his socialism.
ReplyDeleteNot a surprising position, since faith, not fact, is the basis for most of your belief system. Let me know how your faith in Allegre's political awakening works out. I have already shown that your faith in the scientific accuracy of his article was ill-founded.
ReplyDeletei have faith in God and faith i reason.
ReplyDeleteand i have faith that reasonable peole will see the logith regarding thre "man-made" globa warming HOAX.
the earth has warmed many times before. there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING novel about the current phase.
and the FACT is that that there exists DISPOSITIVE PROOF that man-made "greenhouse gases" are causing it:
man made gases have STEADILY increased but warming has not.
and the entire earth is NOT WARMING even now (even though the ENTIRE atmospehere has mkore man-made gases in it).
if these facts are true - as EVERY reasonable person must admit, then it is IMPOSSIBLE that the current phase is man-made.
buh-byee, joe.
The September 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 0.7 degrees F (0.4 degrees C) below the 20th century average of 65.4 degrees F (18.6 degrees C).
ReplyDeleteEr, um... not just cooler than last year, BUT COOLER THAN THE AVERAGE TEMPEATURE FOR THE LAST CENTURY! Well, er, um... if man-made "greenhouse" gases caused global-warming, then this would be IMPOSSIBLE - because man-made gases are steadily increasing but OBVIOUSLY global temeraptures ARE NOT. Case closed.
Thanks for sharing and disproving your straw theory of global warming where it is the only climate factor in existence and there is no other possible variability. The fact that no one else actually holds this particular theory makes it kind of silly to present and disprove (again), but I guess you never tire of beating that straw. By the way, here is the global map for September temperature. It ranked as the 4th warmest on record. Oh, and the period for January-September (including the below average September) was the warmest on record for the continental U.S.
ReplyDeletewhen lefties like you pass laws which tax the sun for its solar variations, and tax the earth for its wobbling on its axis - and moving its axis; and tax volcanoes for putting ash in the atmosphere, and tax trees and algae for poutting methane in the atmosphere, (ETC!), then i will agree that FOR ALL USEFUL PURPOSES leftie environuts like you and AL GORE are not targetting mankind.
ReplyDeleteBUT... the FACT is that ALL proposed legislation/taxes to remedy what is a very complex and AT THE VERY VERY VERY LEAST "PERHAPS" MOSTLY NATURAL event - periodic global warming/cooling - are targetted at humnaity and our industry. at our FREEDOM. at the FREE MARKETPLACE.
to target/inhibit the free market when there is ABUNDANT EVIDENCE that global warming is NATURAL and EXCEEDINGLY COMPLEX and when the proposed legislation/taxes do NOTHING TO STOP IT (as Kyoto - if it had been entirely enforced by EVERY NATION ON EARTH would have dopne next to nothing!) - well, joe IT"S ABSURD!
i stand by my conclusion that the deep underlying reason that lefties propose taxes like kyoto is because they fundamentally hate capiatlism, the free market, and industrialism, (despite the fact that these three things have done more to uplift humanity than all other "ism's" copmbined!).`
enacting draconian taxes on industry and getting the State deeply involved in the marketplace - to have the State INTEREFERE in the mnarketplace - in order to curtail the scant human influence on global climate change is a scheme by the left.
some years are warmer than others. some are colder. trenmds exist. they have always existed. ny was once covered by a glacier. it may well be again.
and no tax scheme by socialists wioll evber stop it.
ditto a long global hot spell.
maybe what underlies this predilection by the left for tryiong to control global climate is the left's penchant fopr playing God. The majority of ther post-modern left is intrinsically opposed to religion and God. They reserve that role for themselves: they favor killing babies in the womb; euthanasia; harvesting embyro as spare parts, etc.
the left doe4sn';t believe that there are things of a higher ordfer tyhasn man., hence thweir pdiathesis for BLAMING mankind for glabl warming: the post modern left is exceedingly hominocentrric, and over-humanistic - wiching acribe to mankind powers which we do not have. and blaming us for things not in our control.
this is why thye left - like the jihadoterorists - are fundamentally UTOPIANISTS.
whereas neo-cons/classical-liberals are the reall realists: we feel the worlds will never be perfect; all we can hope for is the best possible world which results from maximizing individual liberty and universdal human rights.
we have faith in God - AND HUMANITY, when it is freed from interference by disintersted 3rd parties - like the State.
all the best, joe!
Once again, you wish to cloud the simple scientific discussion with policy and economics. Since I don’t support the Kyoto Protocols either, I’m not sure why you keep bringing that up. I’d much prefer a discussion of your supposed "ABUNDANT EVIDENCE that global warming is NATURAL". I can’t remember a single argument that you’ve presented on that front that I haven’t totally and completely refuted. Let’s run down the simple case for anthropogenic global warming again, which you seem unable to address in any meaningful fashion.
ReplyDelete1) Man is releasing ever growing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I don’t think there is any disagreement here.
2) The measured level of atmospheric CO2 is increasing at approximately the same rate. Also, stands to reason. There are minor feedback effects that reduce this quantity, but there was a balance before with CO2 inputs and outputs, and we’ve changed the inputs.
3) The greenhouse effect, which was a well understood and well-documented scientific principle long before the current debate, states that CO2 in the atmosphere is partially responsible for the absorption of radiation from the planet back into space. The more energy that is absorbed, the greater the warming. The more CO2, the greater the absorption.
4) Over the past few decades, especially as the CO2 increase has grown to a significant portion of the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the global temperature has risen as you would expect, based on 1,2,and 3.
So, this is exactly what we would expect to happen, based on measurements and well understood scientific theory, backed up by observation and experimental reproduction. No one claims that this is the only factor that determines global temperature. There are still cycles and variations, especially in localized areas and time periods (why this is so hard for you to understand, I have no idea). However, the overall trend is for temperatures to rise because of this greenhouse forcing.
joe,
ReplyDeleteyou wrote:
" The more energy that is absorbed, the greater the warming. The more CO2, the greater the absorption."
NOT SO FAST, buddy:
increases in warmth and atmospheric CO2 increases plant growth and algae growth which bind up more CO2. so there's an automatic feedback here which acts to retard CO2 in the atmopsphere - because the new growth uptakes atmospheric CO2. this is well documented. vines expecially.
you also wrote:
"CO2 increase has grown to a significant portion of the CO2 level in the atmosphere"
this is BS. "significant" is a loaded word which begs the question.
your conclusion is faulty:
you wrote:
"the overall trend is for temperatures to rise because of this greenhouse forcing."
this is UNPROVEN.
i remind you that there is planetary warming within our solar sysyetem. other planerts are warming - simultaneous to earth's warming. this would indicate --- to unbaised observers --- that local/earthbound/human causes are inadequate explantory devices.
[mars and other planets and satellites of other planets are also warming. (you can google here ot in the www.)]
ta-ta.
" so there's an automatic feedback here which acts to retard CO2 in the atmopsphere - because the new growth uptakes atmospheric CO2."
ReplyDeleteThis objection would make sense if we didn't have a way of measuring the CO2 in the atmosphere and seeing that the retardation effects are not having much effect. We do actually measure the CO2 and we see that it is steadily increasing.
"'significant' is a loaded word which begs the question."
I agree, quantification is better. CO2 levels have increased ~20% since 1960 (same graph as above). To put this in terms you might understand, would you consider a 20% increase in taxes significant or insignificant?
i remind you that there is planetary warming within our solar sysyetem. other planerts are warming
Haven't I addressed this spurious claim before, perhaps writing an entire column on it over a month ago? It seems like I did.
As usual, you grasp at any improbable straw and ignore the obvious and simple explanation, since to believe it might lead to policies you disagree with. In a few years, when the policies are actually written to determine how this problem will be addressed, the people in your camp that have denied that the problem existed for so long will have zero credibility when it comes to shaping that debate. But, you have always been reactionary and short-sighted.
So, here's the really important question, one which you always have dodged in the past. What possible evidence would you accept that anthropogenic global warming was correct? Is there anyone who could endorse it that would change your opinion? Any measurement or scientific study that could ever be preformed that would change your mind. This is the true measure of faith vs. science, and thus it's not surprising that you have offered no answer in the past.
"it might lead to policies you disagree with" - i disagree with them because these policies have no hope of having ANY effect EXCEPT to retard industrialization and free markets - which are the true enemy of the left/greenies.
ReplyDeleteJoe joe joe joe joe: there you go again: YOU are the one arguing that global warming is anthropogenic, not i.
you must PROVE this.
YOU must prove that the warming we are experiencing now in some - REPEAT SOMNE - of the globae - NOT all - is anthropogenic and NOT caused by whatever caused it before there were humans, or before there was industry which created "greenhouse" gases.
adios muchacho!
Yes, I know why you disagree with the policies. I disagree with those policy suggestions for essentially the same reasons. It's the science that we disagree on. You just don't like the science only because of the potential policy implications as you clearly state.
ReplyDeleteYOU must prove that the warming we are experiencing now in some - REPEAT SOMNE - of the globae - NOT all - is anthropogenic and NOT caused by whatever caused it before there were humans, or before there was industry which created "greenhouse" gases.
I just refuted all of your arguments against my simple case for global warming. You have offered no counter arguments. What is there left for me to do? I knock every objection you have out of the park over and over and over again.
I have asked repeatedly for what evidence you would accept as proof. It's hard for me to provide what you will accept if you won't specify what that is. When you don't have any possible standard for what you will accept, it shows clearly that you're not basing your objections on any kind of scientific reasoning, just blind faith that you're right.
Sorry, I forgot to hit this point:YOU must prove that the warming we are experiencing now in some - REPEAT SOMNE - of the globae
ReplyDeleteWhich part isn't warming? I showed above that the Continental US (which was what you previously claimed wasn't warming) just had the warmest January-September on record in 2006. So, what were you referring to? Which part isn't warming according to your claim?
yawn.
ReplyDeletevast sections.
google it if you doubt me.
yawn.
Ah, yes, always better to simply claim that something is true without presenting any evidence. I must admit, it works better for you than actually presenting concrete arguments for me to knock down. Most times when you present a scientific idea, I've shown how ludicrous your interpretation is, so it's not surprising that you're gun shy.
ReplyDeleteSo, how about what you would accept as proof of global warming? Still "thinking"? As I've pointed out before, not having an answer here shows just how shallow your thought process is.
the earth has warmed MANY times before.
ReplyDeletebefore mankind emitted ANY CO2 or ANY apprecioable amounts of ANY greenhouse gas.
there i EVERY reason to belive the NATURAL cycles at play in the lasst 4 BILLION yearss are till in play.
natural cycles which high taxes and fewer SUV's won;t change ONE IOTA.
there is not one scintilla of proof that man-made "greenhouse" gases are causing anything; this is pure supposition, and untested - and untestable. it is simply a matter of faith.
there IS proof that it does NOT have a major effect: CO@ has increasxed every yeas sinve 184 but temperatures HAVE NOT.
this is DISPOSITIVE of a direct relationship between man-made gases and global warming.
ALSO: there are many places that are colder and have more snow in the last few yteasr than in the last few decades.
you can google it.
why not try, joe. afraid of the truth? how abou trying and then leave a comment hwere telling me there isn;t a place on earth cooler or which has more smnow the last few yeasr as opposed to the last few decades.
I EFFIN DARE YOU.
Is it so, so outrageous for me to ask you to back up your claims? I back mine up every single time with scientific studies and observations. Why are you so comparatively lazy?
ReplyDeleteCertainly, not every single place on earth has consistently had new record highs for every single day in the past 45 years. No one ever claimed that they did. You enjoy pretending that this is somehow meaningful, claiming that the theory of global warming is something other than it is, and ignoring the cases that I and others have presented. That's why you think that a below average US temperature for September is more meaningful than an absolute record high temperature in the US for January-September of the same year or the global temperature record for the month or the year or the last 10 years. More data points are bad if they don't support your preconceived notions.
Yes, for the 20th time, the earth has natural warming and cooling cycles. Yes, there are several factors that influence climate. The greenhouse effect happens to be one that is well understood and documented. CO2 in the atmosphere happens to be a significant contributor to that effect and mankind has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 20% in the last 45 years. The concentration is still increasing as is the rate at which it is increasing. None of these facts are in dispute. The conclusions are obvious, but you prefer to simply hide behind irrelevancies like some point on the globe has had more snow than last year or simple falsehoods that show your ignorance like "this is DISPOSITIVE of a direct relationship between man-made gases and global warming".
As long as we're at it, let's examine this statement:
"there is not one scintilla of proof that man-made "greenhouse" gases are causing anything; this is pure supposition, and untested - and untestable. it is simply a matter of faith."
This is essentially the cigarette manufacturers line against their product causing cancer. Just because the correlation is statistically significant in humans and the tests on rats show it is a potent carcinogen, there's really no evidence that the smoke is contributing to lung cancer a large percentage of smokers. In the same vein, just because we know about the greenhouse effect and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know that man has increased the output of it by amount X and we know the amount that it has increased in the atmosphere and we know the global average temperature is going up is no reason to put any stock in a theory of anthropogenic global warming.
So, naturally, for you there is no possible standard of evidence. Your faith is tantamount, I've presented my reasons for believing what I do. I've presented my standard for changing my mind. You have neither. You operate purely on faith. Of course, when I pointed out your math was wrong before (several times), you ignored that evidence, too, so even absolute proof is no good for you. Your bar is just a little higher than irrefutable evidence. Admitting that you’re wrong is the ultimate sin as far as you’re concerned. Incredible ignorance doesn’t even rate as a minor transgression. On the contrary, you embrace ignorance like it was a brother.