How Much Warmer Is It? Oh, About 0.4 Celsius (or about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit)

|

That's according to climatologist John Christy, who is a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Centre (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). His group has been measuring the earth's temperature using satellite data since 1979. The UAH researchers report:

Half of the globe has warmed at least one half of one degree Fahrenheit (0.3 C) in the past 30 years, while half of that—a full quarter of the globe—warmed at least one full degree Fahrenheit (0.6 C)…

Globally, Earth's atmosphere warmed an average of about 0.4 C (or about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) in 30 years, according to data collected by sensors aboard NOAA and NASA satellites. More than 80 percent of the globe warmed by some amount.

A map of Earth's climate changes since December 1, 1978, (when satellite sensors started tracking the climate) doesn't show a uniform global warming. It looks more like a thermometer: Hot at the top, cold at the bottom and varying degrees of warm in the middle.

This is a pattern of warming not forecast by any of the major global climate models.

The area of fastest warming is clustered around the Northern Atlantic and Arctic oceans, stretching from Arctic Canada across Greenland to Scandinavia. The greatest warming has been on opposite ends of Greenland, where temperatures have jumped as much as 2.5 C (about 4.6 degrees F) in 30 years.

During the same time, however, much of the Antarctic has cooled, with parts of the continent cooling as much as Greenland has warmed. But areas of cooling were isolated: Only four percent of the globe cooled by at least half of one degree Fahrenheit.

'If you look at the 30-year graph of month-to-month temperature anomalies, the most obvious feature is the series of warmer than normal months that followed the major El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event of 1997-1998,' said Christy. 'Right now we are coming out of one La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event and we might be heading into another. It should be interesting over the next several years to see whether the post La Nina climate 're-sets' to the cooler seasonal norms we saw before 1997 or the warmer levels seen since then.'

Virtually all of the warming found in the satellite temperature record has taken place since the onset of the 1997-1998 El Nino. Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until the 1997 El Nino.

Since 1979, average temperatures have been increasing at 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. To see the actual satellite data go here

In other news, the United Nations' Poznan climate change conference should be sputtering out tomorrow. 

Advertisement

NEXT: SPAMitsnot

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. double post is posted twice

  2. Thanks. Fixed it.

  3. You can say that again.

  4. I have popcorn.
    Deniers and alarmists, have at it.

  5. What I find interesting is that back when I was in grad school (’01-’03) the common belief was that the strongest warming would take place in the coldest air masses. If that were true you’d expect the greatest warming at both poles with less warming as you move to the equator. I guess it’s back to the drawing board on that theory…

  6. that seems like nothing. no real change in temperature. Not compared to the massive temperature changes that have occured throughout the earths history. 2008 is shaping up to be a very cold year. Get ready for the coming Ice Age.

  7. Why do I get this nagging doubt like a tingle in my forehead when I read articles like this?

    I know. As a nation, we seem poised to do “something” about climate change. We are so convinced that without regulatory action we are dooming our planet to a carbon dioxide oblivion. In the process we will likely do some things that harm economically and otherwise without producing a lick of the intended results.

    I feel many actions of our human made climate change debacle will be failures and history will look at us like we were idiots. Of course this is not a well-founded opinion, more of a gut reaction to many of the proposals that lead the debate.

    Polar bears are godless killing machines, so don’t give me that bull.

  8. Tell me more about global warming as I listen to ice building up on my office windows from freezing rain.

  9. Obviously the ice caps are melting due to magic.

    Magic we can be sure is not in any way related to human activities.

    Look, it’s cold outside! Shows you, science.

  10. global warming as a meme will die a silent and obscure death within a decade. You wont be able to find anyone who will admit to having been the least concerned about it. CO2, global warming fanatics will be as hard to find as, well, libertarians.

  11. global warming as a meme will die a silent and obscure death within a decade. You wont be able to find anyone who will admit to having been the least concerned about it. CO2, global warming fanatics will be as hard to find as, well, libertarians.

    So the myth of global warming will die about a decade before a trade route opens that passes over the north pole. Fascinating.

  12. *clapping flippers together barking agreement*

    What Phalkor said.Let’em drown.

  13. correction: a northern passage. Not literally the north pole, just in that direction.

  14. Polar bears are godless killing machines, so don’t give me that bull.

    (food) “Please God, let this bear be a Christian bear!”

    (bear) “Thank you, LORD, for the meal I am about to receive….”

    But seriously, as to your larger point, I agree that if there is something going on globally, it is likely too subtle to be affected in the manner we desire by blunt instruments swung blindly.

    However, there are great *secondary* reasons to do the same things policy-wise anyway. Smog is bad for your lungs no matter what it may or may not do to the climate. Trees are nice and help make beautiful scenery, as well as provide habitation for many animals which humans use for food or game or simply enjoy for their own sake. Polluting aquifers seems like a stupid plan even if it didn’t affect algal blooms and Water CO2 carrying capacity, as fresh water is pretty fucking rare on Earth all things considered.

  15. Smog is bad for your lungs no matter what it may or may not do to the climate. Trees are nice and help make beautiful scenery, as well as provide habitation for many animals which humans use for food or game or simply enjoy for their own sake.

    Typical clueless environmentalist….
    CO2 is not smog which is caused by particulate matter.Trees like CO2, didn’t you learn that in elementary school science?

  16. This just in: no one can predict the weather.

  17. However, there are great *secondary* reasons to do the same things policy-wise anyway.

    Or how about the foreign policy risks created by our dependence on oil? Hmm?

  18. Polar bears are godless killing machines

    No, I’m pretty sure they worship some sort of frost giants. Or don’t those count?

  19. Polar bears are godless killing machines, so don’t give me that bull.

    But they’re cute on screen!

  20. Marc,

    FROST GIANTS ARE NOT GODS, YOU RETARD!

    How many times do I have to tell people this in a day? I’ve actually lost count.

    (This post is intending for humorous purposes only and should not be considered a serious suggestion that you have a mental disability or that frost giants are not gods. Or that any of those things I said about Epi when he was on vacation were true. Offer void in Alaska.)

  21. No, I’m pretty sure they worship some sort of frost giants. Or don’t those count?

    FROST GIANTS ARE NOT GODS, YOU RETARD!

    Sigh. The proper term is j?tnar. I cannot believe the lack of knowledge of old Norse around here. You’re all idiots.

  22. Sigh. The proper term is j?tnar.

    I saw J?tnar open for Satyricon when they were touring the States back in ’97. Hell of a show.

  23. I bet someone around here can explain how this morning’s blizzard in Baton Rouge is the result of AGW.

  24. j?tnar, norse stuff. reminds me of Ice Age, you know it right?

    “Ach! Hans, run! It’s the lhurgoyf!” -Saffi Eriksdotter, last words

  25. Ek s? svangan mann taka ost.

  26. However, there are great *secondary* reasons to do the same things policy-wise anyway.

    Sure, so make the case for your policy based on those reasons, not some hoked-up “we’re all gonna drown” PR campaign.

    And the fact that it appears there may be a “Northern Passage” now that was not there during the Little Ice Age, not to mention before satellite imagery and GPS navigation, leaves me profoundly unmoved.

  27. Polar bears are godless killing machines, so don’t give me that bull.

    Even after they’re dead.

    DID YOU KNOW:

    that the Inuit (eskimo) people hunt the polar bear for fur and meat but cannot eat its liver, since its high content of vitamin A makes it poisonous for humans? So, be careful if you run across polar bear on a menu – 500 grams of polar bear liver will deliver about 9,000,000 IU vitamin A to your diet – a very lethal dose.

  28. Truly, there is no way to tell how old ice is without GPS and satellites. We have to be skeptical here, people.

    And remember, ice can melt by magic.

  29. “In other news, the United Nations’ Poznan climate change conference should be sputtering out tomorrow.”

    Oh yeah – well my scientists can beat up your scientists any day of the week!

    From Sen. Inhofe website: The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

  30. And remember, ice can melt by magic.

    No, no, it can only re-freeze by magic.

    Ice can only be melted by the heat of man’s dark and soulless heart.

  31. I’ll just ignore the fact that the article is about an on going scientific study and keep making sarcastic remarks about countervailing opinions being based on magic. Like all my lefty kindred, I’m about as deep as a mud puddle left behind from the entrails of a snowman killed by global warming.

  32. Nice to see the typical intelligent debate on this topic.

    The lack of context for these numbers is impressive.

    On their face they don’t seem to be evidence against AGW theories, as far as I can tell.

    the common belief was that the strongest warming would take place in the coldest air masses. If that were true you’d expect the greatest warming at both poles with less warming as you move to the equator.

    Seems like the data conforms to that generally…Greenland seeing the largest warming.

  33. “It is our belief that Tuvalu, as a nation, has a right to exist forever,” Apisai Ielemia said. . . . “We are looking to the United States to step out of the dark ages of inaction and become a leading light on climate change,” Ielemia said.”

    I wonder what he wants the US to do ?

  34. Seems like the data conforms to that generally…Greenland seeing the largest warming.

    Sort of… I don’t have the software to convert the raw data into an image, but from what Ron says you have the greatest warming around Greenland and the least by the South Pole. I would expect the greatest warming to be on the continental Northern Hemisphere (think Canada and Siberia) rather than the coasts of Greenland, which are relatively maritime (hence the name of Greenland in the first place). Additionally, if you’re going to see cooling anywhere you would expect it near the equator, not Antarctica.

  35. I’ll just ignore the fact that the article is about an on going scientific study and keep making sarcastic remarks about countervailing opinions being based on magic.

    If you think this article disproves global warming, you’re high.

  36. How does the Sun getting warmer fit into this? How about if we just pass a law that does not allow the sun to get warmer?

    This seems to be a result of a lack of regulation allowing the Sun do whatever it wants. The Sun’s days of willy nilly free market capitalism are over. Change has come to Washington.

  37. Man, look at all the skepticism about this study’s conclusions!

    It’s skeptiriffic, I tells ya!

    The people who used to tell me there was no global warming are now telling me it’s stopped.

    ‘Kay. Gonna stick with the scientists, thanks.

  38. *slaps forehead* The SUN!

    Oh, fellas, if only we’d thought to look at the SUN! Jenkins, aren’t you supposed to be in charge of making sure really, really obvious parameters get entered into the models? How could you forget to mention the sun?

    Sorry, sorry, everybody. I just, like, totally spaced on the sun.

    OK, everybody, add a new colum on your Excel spreadsheets…

  39. Joe,

    Which scientists? The skeptical ones or the others ?

  40. On the basis of rational skepticism, I choose to believe that there is a conspiracy hatched by radical environmentalists that includes 95% of climatoligists, the scientific community as a whole, the governments of Europe and a major U.S. political party, and the U.N. The aim of this conspiracy is the bankrupting of the United States. This conspiracy was hatched purely out of spite. Also, because environmentalists are “wackos.”

    SKEPTICAL.

  41. Wow, I didn’t know that scientists did real science anymore. What a revelation!

  42. “The people who used to tell me there was no global warming are now telling me it’s stopped.”

    Yes, the scientific community has been nothing but consistent regarding its position on global cooling warming climate change.

  43. Neu, I think the context of this is that the computer climate models for global warming don’t agree with the observed temperature changes, calling the validity of said climate models into question.

    the common belief was that the strongest warming would take place in the coldest air masses. If that were true you’d expect the greatest warming at both poles with less warming as you move to the equator.

    Seems like the data conforms to that generally…Greenland seeing the largest warming.

    That should be Antartica, shouldn’t it? 😉

    You know I’m no AGW denier. You should also know I don’t panic easily (recession, Obama etc). Can we agree that the AGW issue has not been placed on the same footing as relativity and evolution. Can we also agree that, assuming it’s fact as you and I do, there is so much guesswork involved that predictions should be taken with a heaping dose of NaCl?

  44. ‘Kay. Gonna stick with the scientists, thanks.

    Get off my leg! stop that humping! We have nothing in common!

  45. Anyone who has read their Norse mythology knows the difference between Gods and Giants. For one thing, the Giants are gonna win.

  46. MAX HATS | December 11, 2008, 4:03pm | #

    I’ll just ignore the fact that the article is about an on going scientific study and keep making sarcastic remarks about countervailing opinions being based on magic.

    If you think this article disproves global warming, you’re high.

    It’s Like, I don’t care about nothin man,
    roll another blunt, Yea (ohh ohh ohh),

    La da da da da da La, Da Daaa,
    La da da da, La da da da, La da da daaa

    I was gonna evaluate some data until I got high
    I was gonna get up and find the casuality but then I got high
    my theory is still messed up and I know why (why man?) yea heyy,
    – cause I got high

    (La da da da da da da da da)

  47. That should be Antartica, shouldn’t it? 😉

    Not really.
    It ain’t that simple.

  48. Matthew,

    Which biologists studying evolution? The skeptical ones or the others?

    Why, the vast majority that have concluded that the evidence points to the existence of global warming and evolution, of course.

  49. Dammit, should have read down 1 more post before posting myself.

  50. If you think this article disproves global warming, you’re high.

    I am high, and I think it shows just how little we know about how this planet works. Instead of making broad suppositions about the future based on hypothetical doomsday scenarios, perhaps we should really start figuring it out.

    Not that I’m not completely convinced we are fucking this planet to death as fast as we can.

  51. Ron,

    Has the table of satellite data been put into a graphic anywhere? It would be very useful to see it.

  52. Worth a read?
    Or just ad hom?

    I’m not a climatologist.

    Respected scientists sniping at each other over disagreements about theories would not be unprecedented, would it?

  53. Neu, don’t go all *** on me here. You responded to my joke point and disregarded the questions I asked. That’s not like you.

  54. JsubD,

    Context would look, at least, like this…

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

  55. Evolution and Global Warming:

    It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution has occured, and that modern species arose from earlier ones. However, the exact mechanism is hotly disputed. The theory that the ordinary rate of genetic drift gives rise to adaptations which bestow an advantage in given environments might have some problems. There might not be enough time, given the rate at which random genetic change occurs. One comopeting theory is punctuated equilibrium, which, honestly, I don’t understand very well, but seems to speed things up.

    The situation is slightly different for manmade global warming. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it is taking place, but exactly how much has occured, and the consequences of different levels of warming, are still debated. There is a range of consensus on both those questions that account for the vast majority of scientists’ conclusions, but it’s still relatively broad, compared to what we know we know.

    But to say that the incomplete understanding of the mechanism of evolution raises serious questions about whether evolution occured is just silly. The people claiming it does have other motives, and really don’t need to be taken seriously.

  56. I am high, and I think it shows just how little we know about how this planet works. Instead of making broad suppositions about the future based on hypothetical doomsday scenarios, perhaps we should really start figuring it out.

    Absolutely a lot is unknown. Absolutely global warming, while certainly occurring, is not fully known as far as the mechanism behind it (as this article shows), the future of it, etc. But this article does not disprove or refute global warming. You can challenge a model all day, you can be right in challenges to a model, but that does not change the data.

  57. MAX HATS,

    I dont think anyone is saying this study refutes global warming, but it does sya the following:

    1. It isnt as extreme as extremists say it is
    2. We dont really understand it, the models appear to be wrong
    3. Maybe global warming doesnt exist (will it drop to pre-97 levels or stay above them?)

    This leads to some other conclusions (by me, not necessarily the study):

    1. Maybe we should hold off on implementing drastic “corrections” until we have some models that appear to model correctly
    2. We need to study stuff a bunch more
    3. Maybe the extemists should STFU for about a decade and lets see where we are when we have 40 years of satellite data

    Im all in favor of a moratorium of PUBLIC POLICY discussions of global warming for another 10 years (scientists should continue to discuss of course). At that point, the science should be about 10 years better. We might decide at that point to have another 10 year moratorium because we need better science first.

  58. Um, for an AVERAGE yearly temp, that actually is a huge amount. Sure, it sounds tiny but you’re talking a huge amount in the annual swings in high temps.

    Do you know what the average temperature is for your area? In upstate NY it’s something like 47F. Going to 48F means a whole hell of a lot of difference.

  59. robc,

    Why do you hate us?

  60. Context would look, at least, like this…

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    Beyond my meager math skills.

  61. Beyond my meager math skills.

    Words tell you what they think the numbers mean.

  62. This is a pattern of warming not forecast by any of the major global climate models.

    It’s this statement alone that is all that is required for me. If your models aren’t predicting the correct values then how can you stand up and say you know whats going to happen?

    The situation is slightly different for manmade global warming. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it is taking place, but exactly how much has occured, and the consequences of different levels of warming, are still debated.

    Based on what? The models that are wrong?

    Evolution, as opposed to AGW, has demonstrable physical evidence that it happens. We also have a solid understanding of the mechanisms that make it so. There is nothing remotely like that in any global warming theories.

  63. robc,

    Why do you hate us?

    I already answered that above.

  64. @joe

    The main difference between global warming and evolution is that evolution can be deductively proven without empirical evidence (see here and here)

    The problem with global warming is twofold: (1) that climate change is somehow unnatural (2) trying to use computer models to prove that humans are changing climate more than what would be expected.

    Computer models are not the same as falsifiable experiments. Trying to simulate the entire global weather system many years in advance is an impossible task. Any computer model will be a clever hack, affected by human bias and guesswork. Certain predictions will be impossible to make in the model (volcanic eruptions, solar activity), increasing the error in the entire system.

    Currently our best weather models are effective at accurately predicting weather no more than 10 days in advance. And I don’t buy the bullshit that climate is somehow separate form weather. It’s the same chaotic system.

  65. Doc,

    Read the article again. It’s talking about 0.4 celsius average increase over the past THIRTY YEARS, not one.

    “Half of the globe has warmed at least one half of one degree Fahrenheit (0.3 C) in the past 30 years, while half of that – a full quarter of the globe – warmed at least one full degree Fahrenheit (0.6 C)…”

  66. joe

    Matthew,

    Which biologists studying evolution? The skeptical ones or the others?

    Given the vast amount of empirical evidence for evolution against the reliance on computer modeling for AGW, I would have to call this a false analogy. As the other guy above me said, AGW and evolution aren’t really on the same footing in terms of evidence.

  67. “Phlakor”,

    By the beard of jatnor you have taken your last breath seal!

  68. tekende,

    Doc’s point is that raising the average by that much is a large difference. The time frame has to do with the rate of change. Historically, I believe this still comes out as a quick change in the average temperature.

    Anyone with good numbers on rate?

  69. Regarding Evolution/Global Warming.

    There is probably more raw physical evidence involved with the development of Global warming than evolution. The theory is an attempt to explain the vast amounts of data…which is why you use a computer model.

    Everything from ice-cores, to carbon dating, to fossil records to sediments, provide physical evidence for global warming trends over time. These data are very clear that the current rates of c02 increase are unprecedented and that when large co2 increases occurred in the past (at much slower rates) there were big climate consequences.

  70. @Neu Mejican

    Sorry to burst your AGW bubble, but much more extreme variations in temperature than we have now happened all the time.

  71. By much more, I mean a whole order of magnitude.

  72. And our understanding of the basic mechanisms involved in global warming are better understood than the basic processes of evolution.

    The challenge is understanding complex systems which behave in ways that are not always predictable from an understanding of the basic processes involved.

    Naive reductionism doesn’t work in climate science.

    The best analogy to climate science is economics. Climate science, however, has the advantage of having well understood physical processes at its core, whereas economics has suppositions about human nature at its core…

  73. Sorry to burst your AGW bubble, but much more extreme variations in temperature than we have now happened all the time.

    I don’t have a AGW bubble to burst. I said “quick” not “unprecedented.”

    The reason for concern about AGW is that the c02 levels are increasing at unprecedented rates. In the past, smaller, slower changes in c02 had big climate impact. What is special now that would make us expect smaller impacts from the current larger and more rapid c02 changes?

  74. “Anyone who has read their Norse mythology knows the difference between Gods and Giants. For one thing, the Giants are gonna win.”

    No, the Titans are gonna win. They are 12-1 this season so far vs 11-2 for the Giants.

  75. btw, Egosumabbas

    The first thing in the list of special things of this time period is “particulate pollution.”

    Not like that hasn’t existed in the past also…we just happen to have a particularly strong correlation between the increasing co2 and smog…not unprecedented, but strong.

  76. Regarding Evolution/Global Warming.

    There is probably more raw physical evidence involved with the development of Global warming than evolution. The theory is an attempt to explain the vast amounts of data…which is why you use a computer model.

    Everything from ice-cores, to carbon dating, to fossil records to sediments, provide physical evidence for global warming trends over time. These data are very clear that the current rates of c02 increase are unprecedented and that when large co2 increases occurred in the past (at much slower rates) there were big climate consequences.

    But no one knows how it all works together. Just because you have a bunch of data doesn’t mean you automatically know how to interpret it. We know the mechanics of evolution. We know how the pieces fit together. There are some gaps here and there but most of that is on the margins. Climatology is nowhere near the level of understanding we have about evolution.

    Why? Because it is far too complex. There are potentially millions of factors that can contribute to climate change. So not only do you have to find and map all those potential factors, you have to put them all together in the proper order to get anything near a reliable prediction.

  77. @Neu Mejican:

    “The reason for concern about AGW is that the c02 levels are increasing at unprecedented rates. In the past, smaller, slower changes in c02 had big climate impact. What is special now that would make us expect smaller impacts from the current larger and more rapid c02 changes?”

    All that’s been shown is that there has been correlation between CO2 measurements and temperature. You know as well as I do that correlation is not causation. I personally believe it’s more plausible that warming causes CO2 to released from being stored in oceans/ice than that CO2 causes more thermal heating than variations in solar output.

  78. NM,

    The economics comparison isnt bad. I also oppose the existent of the Fed.

  79. Pain makes a good point here. The science related to climate change doesn’t seem to do what we need it to do, which is reliably predict the future based on models of past and limited data coming from a variety of sources.

    I think there would be a similar hoohah (even from us mostly-evolution believing libertarians) if the government was trying to use previous knowledge about evolution to make policy relative to a prediction about future evolution trends.

  80. @Neu Mejican:

    Smog is not CO2. Smog has been on the decrease for decades now (well, except in China).

  81. NM,

    The big difference between evidence of evolution and evidence of global warming (esp. of the anthropogenic variety) is that the evidence of the former is understood much, much, much better than evidence of the latter. One system is somewhat chaotic, the other is crazily chaotic.

    It’s a terrible analogy, in any case. Back when I was taking my second statistics class (and no, I’m not remotely an expert), I remember that weather data were among those that most commonly led researchers to fall victim to finding false correlations. And this was way before anyone was seriously talking about AGW. We’re talking levels of complexity that remain beyond our ken in many respects. But we’ll get better at it, I’m sure.

  82. @Reinmoose

    The government HAS tried to use evolutionary science for policy in the past. It was called Eugenics.

  83. All that’s been shown is that there has been correlation between CO2 measurements and temperature.

    Sure, but the evidence that the c02 rise leads the temperature rise is pretty strong.

    warming causes CO2 to released from being stored in oceans/ice

    There is good evidence for this.

    than that CO2 causes more thermal heating than variations in solar output.

    Both can cause significant heating. NO ONE is claiming a single climate forcer.

  84. “We know the mechanics of evolution.”

    We do? Can you tell me what it is so I can publish it and become the next Stephen J Gould?

    This is hilarious. When the hundreds of peer reviewed studies lending cofirmation to global warming come out everyone here is like “that proves nothing” or “conspiracy of socialist scientists from around the globe” or “hey my jackanape unqualified self just looked at some data and I now conclude all those studies are wrong.”

    Now this one from the venerable University of Huntsville Alabama comes out and the GW deniers here go “see, we were right, we have a study!”

  85. “Computer models are not the same as falsifiable experiments.”

    I wish someone would tell astrophysicists that…

    As for the study, and AGW, I agree that it’s a fascinating topic that deserves way more research, but that no real big policy changes would be a good idea at this point.

    Heck, they have found these areas of ionised particles that seem to “shepherd” clouds that were totally unexpected, so IMO, the climate is a lot more complicated than we think. Not that we haven’t made strides in modeling or that modeling is totally useless, but science has been relying on it (modeling) too much in certain areas lately.

  86. I’ll make my standard claim when this comes up.

    Since you guys who deny AGW know that the majority of scientists are wrong, can you please tell me some other area where a similarly large current consensus of scientists from around the globe is wrong? I mean, if you guys are that good at peering beyond those with much more education, training, equipment and opportunity for study of this subject and seeing what’s really going on in the data and such then surely you’ve cracked similar wrongheaded consensuses?

    And for that matter, why haven’t you guys published your results? Or are you just siding with the scientists that say things that make you feel more ideologically comfortable.

    If the majority of scientists said there was no AGW I would be the first to say it’s bunk.

  87. It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution has occured, and that modern species arose from earlier ones.

    Joe, I agree with everything you say. Except (and really, correct me if I’m wrong), there isn’t a group of politicians crawling in my front window, and another group of environmentalist NGO’s crawling through my back window, demanding that I change my lifestyle, and at minimum start demanding I pay my ‘fair share’ for my footprint on the basis of evolution.

    There’s no money in evolution. There is, however, lots of money to be made on Global Warming. Boatloads of it. As such, it pays for things to be blown out of proportion.

    This is not to suggest that the planet isn’t warming, or I’m a “denier”. Only the broadest predictions have been borne out: The planet is getting warmer. How much warmer, where, what the effects are and to what extent etc., have almost all been wrong.

    So forgive us for steepling our fingers and frowning everytime we hear that the end is nigh.

  88. Psychology, economics, etc.

  89. Since you guys who deny AGW know that the majority of scientists are wrong, can you please tell me some other area where a similarly large current consensus of scientists from around the globe is wrong?

    MNG, I’m not a denier, but allow me to respond.

    AGW isn’t a ‘thing’. It’s not like the rate of acceleration under earth gravity, or the temperature at which water boils at sea-level. Global warming… erh, Climate Change is an evolving theory which generally places the thrust of said change at the feet of increasing carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. After that, it’s a network of observed effects which are fantastically complicated to empirically say are the “cause” of increased C02. Unfortunately there are many non-scientists who take these effects and use them as just such evidence. This politicizes the issue, obfuscates the facts and stokes the fires of deniability.

    As an example of one these individual effects, here’s a case of ‘scientific concensus’ which turned out to be wrong:

    Scientists had expected that over the coming century global warming would increase the size of the Antarctic ice sheet, as higher temperatures brought increased snowfall, but the new data suggest that it is losing mass.

    The findings, from the satellites of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) begun in 2002, are a concern because the ice sheet would increase sea levels by as much as 45m (150ft) were it all released. The West Antarctic ice sheet, where the bulk of the melting is taking place, holds water that would raise the sea level by more than 6m (20ft). The East Antarctic sheet, which is eight times larger, appears to be more stable.

    The result is a classic case of:

    Ice sheets to expand due to global warming.
    Ice sheets found to be shrinking, global warming to blame.

    It makes one wonder, on a case-by-case basis, if there’s any observed effect that calls global warming into question. If the market goes up, it’s global warming. If it goes down, clearly, global warming. If it stays the same, an obvious effect of global warming.

  90. to empirically say are the “cause” of increased C02

    Should have read: are caused by increased C02.

  91. Paul

    The factual questions of is GW happening, what causes it, what will the consequences be, and what we can do about it are just that, factual ones.

    The normative questions about what should do about it, both in terms of what can be done to combat it most effectively with the least costs (and economic harm through regulation has to be a cost) and most benefits, as well as what we can ask of everyone morally in fighting it, are seperate questions. The wacky environmentalists make this mistake by thinking certain answers to the first type of questions mean their preferred programs in response to the second type hold. Libertarians or anyone for that matter need not make the same mistake. Most people tend to think broad scientific consensuses are correct (for good reason!) and thus libertarians who take the strategy of quibling over the first questions are going to lose in the second area where its going to matter, because they will be dismissed (quite rightly it seems) as not even knowing or worse denying for ideological reasons the factual premises which trigger the normative debate.

    Libertarians denying the GW consensus because if it is true it may lead to more government to combat it strike me as analgous to ones who would deny that people are often aggresive towards one another because to acknowledge that would mean we might have to pay a police force with tax money…

  92. Paul

    Let me ask you, why do most experts that study this area think global warming is occurring and man made? I hope you do not think it’s some international conspiracy or something. These guys are trained to carefully look over a broad variety of data and critically examine it. And something is making most of them think this way about it. What do you think that is?

  93. We do? Can you tell me what it is so I can publish it and become the next Stephen J Gould?

    What are you talking about? Evolution is well understood and we can see the results and even replicate the process to some degree. We understand how genetics work on a general level and how the environment effects change in species. It’s not magic.

    Can climatology claim anything even remotely close to that level of understanding?

  94. Let me ask you, why do most experts that study this area think global warming is occurring and man made? I hope you do not think it’s some international conspiracy or something.

    Let me first say that I do not, nor have I ever thought that the theory of global warming, or even its solutions are a ‘global conspiracy’. I tend to not believe of conspiracies of any stripe.

    However, I will say that the theory of AGW is tailor made for interventions of many a dangerous stripe. This allows AGW to become a political football. That’s why the theory of large celestial bodies hitting the earth don’t get airtime that global warming does. One is just as factual as the other.

    As for why there’s a scientific consensus on CO2 emissions causing warming?

    As a non-climatoligist, I have to believe that there is, under laboratory conditions a link between increased CO2 and a temperature trapping mechanism to come to the fore. I cannot stress the words “laboratory conditions” enough.

  95. There’s no money in evolution. There is, however, lots of money to be made on Global Warming. Boatloads of it. As such, it pays for things to be blown out of proportion.

    Not just money, but power. AGW via CO2 is the perfect rationale for every leftist control fantasy: It’s global! It requires restrictions on businesses and farms and cars! It proves vegetarians are superior to omnivores!

  96. Pain, Matthew,

    You both state that we do not have verifiable evidence that global warming is happening, but in fact, the almost century-long pattern of rising temperatures is well documented and inarguable.

    Pain,

    Why? Because it is far too complex. There are potentially millions of factors that can contribute to climate change. So not only do you have to find and map all those potential factors, you have to put them all together in the proper order to get anything near a reliable prediction. That is a valid statement about how global warming with influence the planet. However, not knowing how all the rocks will bounce down the mountain is one thing; know that setting off a blast will cause an avalanche in another.

    Paul,

    The truth and accuracy of climate science is wholly independent from whether you find certain conclusions to be politically convenient. I absolutely can understand why you would reflexively reject reports that global warming is a problem. It would behoove you to recognize that this reflex can bias your reaction to scientific information.

    Egosumabbas,

    All that’s been shown is that there has been correlation between CO2 measurements and temperature. You know as well as I do that correlation is not causation. The greenhouse effect, whereby increased levels of carbon in an atmosphere increase the amount of heat it traps, was discovered around the time of the American Revolution.

    Pro Lib,

    Weather is not climate. The increase in magnitude in the number of individual events actually makes climate predictions easier, for the same reason that I can more easily predict how many homers Manny Ramirez will hit in 2009 than in the first week of July 2009.

  97. the subtle shift.

    The people who used to tell me there was no global warming are now telling me it’s stopped.

    Very few claimed there was NO global warming. The debate is over the cause. No?

  98. The increase in magnitude in the number of individual events actually makes climate predictions easier, for the same reason that I can more easily predict how many homers Manny Ramirez will hit in 2009 than in the first week of July 2009.

    joe, can you define what you mean by “event”?

  99. Egosum wrote: “Sorry to burst your AGW bubble, but much more extreme variations in temperature than we have now happened all the time.”

    Great. Except there weren’t 7 billion people living mostly in coastal areas at the time.

    Whether or not it’s natural, it certainly behooves us to cut down on activities that could exacerbate the problem.

  100. Paul wrote: “However, I will say that the theory of AGW is tailor made for interventions of many a dangerous stripe.”

    You mean like invading a Middle Eastern country, toppling its government, incurring tens of thousands of American wounded and dead, and hundreds of thousands of civilians in the target country?

    The environmentalists even said the war would pay for itself once we started pumping CO2 into Iraq’s wells!

  101. How much warmer, where, what the effects are and to what extent etc., have almost all been wrong.

    Not really, as almost all have been about what happens over the next 100 years or so.

    I will point out (jump in here MikeP) that the climate models are far in advance of the attempts to predict what the economic consequences of climate change are…and yet, people often use the predicted cost of addressing the problem as a reason not to address the problem (“the reduced risk doesn’t justify the cost”).

    That baffles me.
    The worst case scenarios for AGW are not subtle in terms of economic impact. These worst case scenarios should be easy to avoid, but the do require actual efforts to avoid.

    For example, if run away GW results in anoxic oceans we may (again) see warming wiping out 98% of all species on the planet. At current rates of c02 increase, we have 2 centuries to avoid this scenario. Should be easy if we acknowledge the problem. MikeP will rightfully point out that talk of “at any cost” is silly, but shit canning the whole idea of reasonable interventions for small marginal costs (2-3% of world gdp even) is similarly silly. What is the dollar value for 98% of all life on earth again?

  102. The normative questions about what should do about it, both in terms of what can be done to combat it most effectively with the least costs (and economic harm through regulation has to be a cost) and most benefits, as well as what we can ask of everyone morally in fighting it, are seperate questions.

    Good point, although I am not sure all changes to the regulatory structure will have economic costs as many of the things that need to be done to reduce co2 output are more likely to be economically beneficial than harmful…and some involve reduced regulation.

    Upgrading to a more fuel efficient manufacturing process, for instance, lowers you production costs whether or not you choose the upgrade or had it forced on you.

    http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-16_EnergyEndUseEff.pdf

    Provides a nice discussion…

    Complete with empirical examples of the economic benefits of reducing energy usage.

  103. Sam Grove,

    Ron Bailey argued that there was no global warming until, IIRC, 2005. When he acknowledged it, many of the people now tell us that the data indicate that global warming has stopped assailed him for believing in “superstition” without evidence.

    The “debate” is now about its cause, but pretty much is only happening among those who, until very recently, denied it was happening at all.

    Mike Laursen,

    In that sentence you quoted, “event” could refer to temperature readings, the magnitude of storm events, average monthly temperatures, or other proxies for the amount of heat in the atmosphere.

  104. The truth and accuracy of climate science is wholly independent from whether you find certain conclusions to be politically convenient.

    Joe, isn’t that ultimately what we’re talking about? There are a series of scientific papers whose conclusions are vauge, but spun into political grist for proving that global warming is “worse than we thought”. When if you read the paper, the real conclusion might be (for example) more sea ice over here, less sea ice over there.

    There are other papers which make no conclusions about global warming, but are seeing effects which could be interpreted tangental to warming but then circulate through the lay media as various and sundry smoking guns to global warming.

  105. MikeP will rightfully point out that talk of “at any cost” is silly, but shit canning the whole idea of reasonable interventions for small marginal costs (2-3% of world gdp even) is similarly silly.

    I’ve always been a big fan of low-hanging fruit. However, there may be some differences of opinion as what constitutes low hanging fruit. As you might guess, I think the low-hanging fruit largely exists in the realm of what normal advancements in technology and conservation are already bringing.

  106. Simple question from a simple mind.

    Query: What is the correct temperature of the earth?

  107. But Paul, the majority of experts in the relative fields are from a variety of nations, organizations, ideologies. They’ve come across all these papers which you term “vague” and “could be interpreted tangental to warming” and then their professional associations meet and declare fairly unequivocally that global warming is occurring, is very probably partly man caused, and very likely could have disasterous effects. They probably know more about these papers and know about more of them than you, right? They probably know more data than you, and better how to interpret it, don’t they? And they come to this large consensus. Why in the world would that be?

    I mean, drive down to your local university, locate the relevant departments and ask the professors. Go to local climatologists in local governmental offices or private foundations and ask them.

    Why would they lie? How possible is it that they are all missing something that you have stumbled upon? How much more likely is it that, since you admit accepting these facts would likely require some “interventions” you are ideologically opposed to, you are missing the point due to ideological reasons?

    I mean really, pretend you are the third party here and I see folks like yourself on one side and then all these experts on the other. What would be reasonable for me to conclude here?

  108. I’m pretty liberal btw. But I’m not sure I would have anything invested in buying into global warming. Contrary to some people’s fevered imaginations, I don’t want to see government interventions for the freaking sake of themselves. If there is no global warming, if we are not in part the cause and/or if there is nothing we can do to ameliorate it, then I most CERTAINLY don’t want a single rusty penny of mine to be spent “combatting” it.

    I’m also a very, very pro-worker pro-labor union liberal (just browse past threads). Accepting global warming and combative measures is going to be a real, real bitch for my pet cause. Any liberal who can’t see this has some explaining to do imo.

    But what can I do? Most of the people with the relevant expertise really seem convinced and I don’t have a spare ten years to get a PhD in climate science and another 20 to devote to a career of gaining experience examining and analyzing such claims. It seems I’d be some kind of fool to not think they are right.

    Note the fact that they are right doesn’t tell us what and how much regulation is morally acceptable or warranted or how much money should be spent how and where. A climatologist knows no more about that than you or I do, maybe less…

  109. I think the real question here is….

    When the man made Global cooling warming Climate Change church of Present Day saints finally goes away for good in 10 or 20 years for a complete lack of evidence. Will MNG post under “Crow Eating Dumbass” for a whole year this time?

    Simple question from a simple mind.

    Query: What is the correct temperature of the earth?

    Excellent question, and I have an answer for you. There isn’t a “correct” temperature. The climate fluctuates all the time, it gets colder, it gets hotter, it rains, it shines etc. Many people forget that just 30 or so years ago these exact same green house gasses and human “evil doers” were being blamed for “global cooling.” We see how that panned out for these amazing scientists.

    This reminds me somewhat of the economic debacle that is going on right now. This mentality that “We can’t let them fail, it’s just not an option.” So we keep propping up these industries and delaying the inevitable, and when it all does finally come crashing down, it will be far worse than had we just let them fail to begin with. Yeah we would have had a recession, but it would have only lasted a year or 2, but now it is liable to last 10 years or more.

    The point here is people seem to think that the climate should never change, and anytime it does, clearly we have fucked up.

  110. If I were a libertarian (there but for the grace of God go I) I would be thinking of the following: given global warming can harm us all, and that governmental action is sometimes warranted to combat harms of such a directe nature, what ways can it be addressed which maximizes liberty and minimizes restrictions on said liberty and respects property rights and individual choise to the greatest extent feasible in addressing the harm?

  111. Kaiser: “Argh, science stupid! Kaiser no listen to stupid science, Kaiser SMASH puny scientists!”

    Hey Kaiser, what other current scientific consensuses are bunk? Surely someone with the scientific acument you must possess to arrogantly dismiss the findings of so many varied scientists on this issue and the ability to see through the GW ruse has a couple of more gems you’ve noticed in your studies?

    Or could it be that you don’t accept only one scientific consensus and it happens to be one that would provide support for governmental action you ideologically oppose? Wow, that looks pretty bad, doesn’t it?

  112. Libertarian GW deniers remind me of leftists who refused (and still do btw) to accept the work of many IQ experts about ties of IQ to criminality and inequality and some genetic bases for IQ because to accept such would mean some of their pet policy stances might be less workable.

  113. I do not deny man made GW (keep in mind I always qualify GW with a “man-made,” to deny that the climate changes would just be ignorant) because I am opposed to government intervention. Obviously being libertarian I am opposed to that, however if that were my only reason I would just say “Yeah sure it’s real, but I’ll be damned if the government will make me do anything about it.” Or something along those lines.

    You act as if every scientist in the world believes man made GW is real and that, since it is real, we not only can, but have a moral obligation to do something about it. This is just not the case, there is a multitude of scientists who do not believe in man made GW, and have excellent data to support their beliefs. I am not going to link, nor quote any data here for one reason: Human bias. It is far to easy to take data, and interpret it, or in other words, skew it to say what you want it to. I learned this in my younger years when first researching the effects of marijuana.

    I will say this though, the earth has been here for roughly 5 billion years. (it is more like 4.6 but I am rounding for evenness) During that time it has been through many changes. Multiple ice ages, plate shifts, violent eruptions, asteroid strikes, etc etc. All of human life, let me repeat that, All of human life has taken place after the last ice age, meaning another one is very probable. Of course the climate changes, all I am merely saying is, if it heats up, it will cool down again. The planet is kind of cool like that.

    I think it is very audacious to think that in this incredibly short amount of time, humans have effected the earth is such a drastic manner. Maybe if you guys had picked a different gas, then the one that I exhale tons of on a daily basis I might be more willing to believe. That combined with the fact that we as human are only responsible for roughly 3% of all GHGs released into the air per year. (Volcanoes are the #1 producer, followed by decaying plants and animals)

    Lastly I leave with this, IF man-made global climate change is real, and IF it is because of CO2, why don’t we just plant more plants. Trees, flowers, grass, vines, marijuana ffs. I mean it seems so simple yet everyone wants to make these drastic changes. Plants use CO2 for food, and the by product is Oxygen. So why not just plant more shit?

  114. “You act as if every scientist in the world believes man made GW is real and that, since it is real, we not only can, but have a moral obligation to do something about it.”

    Uhh, actually I explicitly de-coupled these two claims above, didn’t I?

    “Of course the climate changes, all I am merely saying is, if it heats up, it will cool down again.”

    Of course you realize that before when the earth’s climate change it was before the amazing changes and potential effects of our industrialization. So if the past changes were natural and this one is NOT your past assumptions about what will then follow would be, well, unwarranted, right?

    “there is a multitude of scientists who do not believe in man made GW, and have excellent data to support their beliefs”

    A multitude? You do realize that this multitude is a small minority of the relevant experts, right? I mean, you do know that don’t you? Like you know that every relevant professional association has come out with pretty strong statements opposed to what you are claiming? What happened to your multitude at these associations, did they forget to vote on the motions?

    “I think it is very audacious to think that in this incredibly short amount of time, humans have effected the earth is such a drastic manner.”

    This always amazes me. Can you not look around and see the amazing changes wrought by industrialization? I mean industrialization has truly been wonderous. It has literally changed so much in so little time it’s very easy to believe that it may have caused some negative effect.

  115. Why would they lie?

    MNG, I never mentioned anything about lying.

    Look, I’m no stranger to this online thing.

    I was in an online debate about skid-plates on a 4wd vehicle. I casually mentioned that while skid-plates are a really good idea, they’re not absolutely necessary depending on the off-road conditions, how you drive etc.

    By the third post down, I was accused of being “rabidly anti-skid-plate”.

    I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not a global warming ‘troofer’.

    But this consensus that everyone refers to, while fine and I agree it has a lot of clout, is all we talk about anymore. The Antarctic was supposed to see the most warming. It has seen little warming- and even cooling on much of the continent. “Consensus!!!” is always the response. It’s a bit like being told your shoe is untied everytime you point out something that calls into question the severity of AGW. Or simply call into question the reliance on models to set public policy.

  116. I refer back to religion to answer one of your questions. Something like 80% (if not more) of the world would tell me that there is a God or some form of deity that rules over the world from the heavens. Or maybe there is some life force that connects us all that we just can see, but if we try real hard we can tap into it and master it. Should I believe them just because they are the majority, and hell a lot of them are “experts.” So I guess I should pick a up a bible or start to learn tai chi. Maybe I will setup an acupuncture appointment in the morning, or find someone who can realign my chakras.

    But all of that is besides the point, I just mentioned that there are many scientists who disagree, and there is. You still failed to answer my simple question. Ok let us assume that industrialization and human nature in general has taken a giant purple dildo to the ass of the globe. CO2 being the main culprit. Why do we not just plant more trees. Trees use CO2 during photosynthesis to grow, and the by product of this process is oxygen. As a matter of fact, if I remember my last history channel documentary correctly, that is one of the factors that changed a very carbon dioxide rich atmosphere into an oxygen rich one to begin with. So why take all these drastic measures when we could just take one simple one? Pretty soon there will be mandates on how much we can breathe during the day…

  117. I’m on board with this planting trees thing. I’m going to get paid for planting trees. Universal Service, suckas!

  118. NM sez The best analogy to climate science is economics.

    Damning with faint praise? Or, if economics is the dismal science, what does that make climate science?

    Anyway, on a semi-related snark, I am shocked that no one has made note of how uneven this warming is – clearly we need to share the warmth with a little redistribution, call it climatic justice. We can’t have some hog all the growth in warmth while others are left in the cold?

  119. …what ways can it be addressed which maximizes liberty and minimizes restrictions on said liberty and respects property rights and individual choise to the greatest extent feasible in addressing the harm?

    I’ve yet to hear a proposal that has a strong chance of avoiding predicted bad effects of global climate change. Having said that, the best ideas, I’ve heard so far are:

    1. Mitigate the problems: for example, more spending on flood control projects, both domestically and through foreign aid.

    2. A cap and trade system. It would be consistent with libertarianism so far as it makes greenhouse gas producers pay costs that they currently get to externalize. Such a system is very vulnerable, however, to being politically gamed to the point where the original purpose of helping the environment is lost (same for carbon taxes). Also, to be effective such a system would have to be international, which means it’s not just something that the United States government, or group of nations, can impose unilaterally.

  120. I still don’t understand what is wrong with my plan….

    Just plant more trees. Problem solved. Nothing to look at here folks just move along….

  121. Kaiser
    When 80% of the public have a consensus about something that is different than when 80% of trained experts in the relevant fields have a consensus about something. Climate science is a bit more complicated than the Scriptures and you might be humble enough to think you’d need a great deal of training, experience and access to crucial data and measurement devices to adequately make sense of something like that.

    As to your tree idea, surely the experts have thought of that and judging from their proposals it doesn’t fully address the problem.

    Paul
    Again, yes, it’s good to notice a finding here and there which seems to not fit. But again I point out that surely the “consensus” knows about such findings and has good reasons to assume it does not shake the basic, well, consensus. Maybe you still agree with the basic consensus after reading such findings but just find them interesting, but as you can see from this post many dudes think such findings provide proof for them to resist any efforts by those who buy the consensus to address it (which is what any sensible policymaker should do, right?)

  122. Sun’s Magnetic Field May Affect Climate

    And you know what? The Sun’s Magnetic Field is Declining. And after the Decline comes the Fall. In the summer.

  123. It took a while for the phlogiston consensus to die out. Basically the guys who believed in it had to die off.

    The fact that new information discredits an old idea may not change the consensus for 40 years. Human nature.

  124. Or, if economics is the dismal science, what does that make climate science?

    The point, of course, was that climate science has a leg up on economics because the underlying processes upon which the models are based are well understood thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics, while economics relies upon vague assumptions about human nature and sociology.

    The phenomena being scrutinized are starkly different because the basic elements in the complex system that makes up the climate do not have conscious agency. Whereas the basic elements making up the complex economic system are themselves complex systems with conscious agency.

    This is the reason that climate modeling is making rapid progress while economic modeling hasn’t.

    So, you should be more skeptical of the economist telling you that the proposed plan to address global warming will ruin the economy than you should be of the climate scientist telling you that doing nothing will lead to consequence X.

  125. … climate science has a leg up on economics because the underlying processes upon which the models are based are well understood thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics…

    That just doesn’t lead to it being easy or even doable to make a correct model of the climate. Computer circuitry is well understood, but Windows is full of bugs. Building materials are well understood, but buildings fall down. Musical scales are well understood, but Sting still writes crappy music.

  126. I’m pretty sure that tthe top scientists in the world know a little more about the world’s climate than egosumbas. All of them agree that we must do something or their is a risk of huge problems.

    I can’t wait to see what happens when the bitter clingers and bible thumpers finally realize that their kind don’t run the country any more.

    Unfortunately, Obama will save all the idiots from global catastrophe with his common sense carbon agreements and once he improves our world wide weather patterns the masses of rednecks will point to the good climate as proof that they were correct all along.

    It makes you wonder why Obama would even stick his neck out and try to save the idiots. No good deed goes unpunished.

  127. I’m not a global warming denier, just a global warming agnostic.

    But I am a government-should-have-the-power-to-make-you-do-something-about-global-warming denier.

    As we keep seeing, there is ample reason to doubt that science knows what is really going on, other than (perhaps) a rough net average movement of temperature up or down. The natives that Columbus gulled could see whether the sun was going away or coming back, but they did not know why. When the eclipse happened as Columbus said it would, the natives took him to be a being of great knowledge or power, and started treating him better. Our science, while properly warning us to use caution and pay attention to the ongoing climate situation, hasn’t even enabled its priesthood to perform as well as Columbus. So using it as the basis for public policy still seems like a profoundly bad idea to me.

  128. MAX HATS | December 11, 2008, 2:54pm | #
    So the myth of global warming will die about a decade before a trade route opens that passes over the north pole. Fascinating.

    Well there have been open routes north of Canada a couple times in the last 100 years, read your history bozo, take a look at the Amundsen expedition

  129. Tombo,
    your conspiracy theories intrigue me. I suppose it was the Bilderberg group and the CFR that made these trade rotues you speak of? Or was it Bigfoot?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.