"The warming, as scientists say, went on 'hiatus.'"

|

Maybe not so hot after all?

Over at Greenwire, Paul Voosen has reported a very nice article on the debates over why average global temperatures have remained essentially flat for nearly a decade now. Here's a tempting excerpt:

Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet's temperature stall for the past decade?

"If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it's not increasing," Barnes said. "There's a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn't we warm up?"

The question itself, while simple sounding, is loaded. By any measure, the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest in modern history. However, 1998 remains the single warmest year on record, though by some accounts last year tied its heat. Temperatures following 1998 stayed relatively flat for 10 years, with the heat in 2008 about equaling temperatures at the decade's start. The warming, as scientists say, went on "hiatus."

The hiatus was not unexpected. Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily, though before this decade scientists were uncertain how long such pauses could last. In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required.

For some scientists, chalking the hiatus up to the planet's natural variability was enough. Temperatures would soon rise again, driven up inexorably by the ever-thickening blanket thrown on the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. People would forget about it.

But for others, this simple answer was a failure. If scientists were going to attribute the stall to natural variability, they faced a burden to explain, in a precise way, how this variation worked. Without evidence, their statements were no better than the unsubstantiated theories circulated by climate skeptics on the Internet.

"It has always bothered me," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Natural variability is not a cause. One has to say what aspect of natural variability."

Over at her blog, Georgia Institute of Technology Judith Curry offers some tart observations about what the hiatus means for "consensus" over man-made global warming. 

To see the scientific process in action, the whole excellent Greenwire article is well worth reading. 

Advertisement

NEXT: SpaceX CEO Wants Better NASA Deal

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. And the cult continues. Evidence? Not necessary. Just faith.

    How utterly boring. The only justice would be that all the fucking cretin morons who fell for this garbage were shunned from the scientific community, but they won’t be, because too many fell for it.

    Thank you for discrediting science, morons, with your political garbage.

    1. Just because you don’t find the evidence conclusive doesn’t mean it isn’t evidence.

      1. You just said…nothing. Well done, Ken. “Inconclusive evidence is still evidence!” Congratulations on one of the most vapid defenses I’ve heard yet.

        1. Episiarch, you keep using the word evidence, I don’t think you know what it means

          1.
          that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof

          2.
          something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign

          1. And you just said nothing as well. Awesome.

            1. Episiarch = Troll

              thanks for clearing that up with Evidence 🙂

              1. More nothing. Keep it up; you could try for an epic thread of nothingness.

            2. Epi is on his period today.

              1. Don’t bring up any movies he doesn’t like.

      2. Just because you don’t find the evidence conclusive doesn’t mean it isn’t evidence.

        This reminds me of the Wisdom of Gin Rummy.

        1. Or should I say, this heated discussion reminds me of that.

    2. Why Are White Guys Climate Skeptics?
      http://motherjones.com/blue-ma…..e-skeptics

      1. Hell, yes, any time I want sound scientific or economic analysis free from emotional appeals, the first organ I think of is Mother Jones.

        Has there ever been an article there that wasn’t basically an appeal to THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!!?

        FFS.

        1. …isn’t emotion. It’s a personality trait.

          Should pick up a psychology book some day.

          1. It’s a shame so many people have that particular personality trait.

            It’s the source of considerable trouble in the world.

            Spare me the self-righteous busybodies.

        2. STEVE SMITH THINK ABOUT CHILDREN ALL THE TIME!

      2. Climate change hurts mainly women and minorities. So climate change skeptics are racist. According to the received wisdom of the liberal commentariat, you cannot be a racist and be a minority. Only the white power structure can be racist. So climate change skeptics are white people. Q.E.D. (as Pro L would say)

        1. Q.E.D.

          1. I always try to give credit.

            1. I don’t think it’s necessary to give PL credit for Q.E.D.

    3. It wasn’t just the AGW Alarmists who discredited science, but the broader scientific community who rallied behind these people. They did it to themselves.

      Big science needed a smackdown for their arrogance and lack of transparency. The fact that they did it to themselves is gratifying.

      However the downside is that we all have to suffer the anti-vaxers and creationists as a result.

      Thanks, assholes (and I’m looking specifically at you PZ Myers)

      1. In what crazy parallel universe did the idea of Global Warming predate the idea of creationism?

      2. The point I was trying to make is that with scientists having torpedoed their credibility over AGW catastrophism that the creationists and anti-vaxers are having a field day.

    4. Epi,

      Just because you can’t provde something doesn’t mean it is fake. Take my farys for example – you can see them, smell them, feel them, hear them or taste them from where you are. But if I open one of my number 2 wide mouth storage jars when you’re in the room, you get all kinds of proof. Hell, your eyes may even water. So there’s your proof.

  2. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”

    As Naomi Campbell proved, models can be wrong.

    1. That’s just crazy. Clearly it’s the climate that’s wrong.

      1. I actually heard basically this argument from a self-proclaimed socialist I met at Boston University. When I pointed out that the models have not correctly predicted the trend over the last decade, he countered that the recent measurements are probably wrong.

    2. Where is Julius Sumner Miller when you need him: “The Climate Models didn’t work because they failed to satisfy the requirements of nature!”

  3. How utterly boring.

    Boring enough to comment on it.

    1. But not as boring as you, rectal. Nothing is as boring as your passive aggressive whiny bitching. Yet you cannot stop. Why is that?

      1. Episiarch, Did you just ask the equivalent to “when did you stop beating your wife?

        1. Did you just ask a question that makes no sense?

          1. Episiarch, sorry to many syllables?

            1. Work on your grammar, genius.

              Is that joe’z law or RC’s law? Either way, it’s delicious.

            2. “sorry to many syllables?”

              Why are you apologizing to a bunch of syllables? What did you do to them?

      2. I can’t stop whining because that’s how I build up the power to fart in a jar.

  4. At a family gathering not long ago, I was amazed to hear several people nattering hysterically about the coming WARMPOCALYPSE!

    If I understand the scenario correctly, America will be, at one and the same time, flooded by rising seas and reduced to an uninhabitable desert wasteland.

    1. Climate Skeptics Take Another Hit
      By Kevin Drum | Fri Oct. 21, 2011
      http://motherjones.com/kevin-d…..nother-hit

      1. Muller was never a skeptic–he was even quoted in the past of giving a pass to AGW hype!

        You read too many cool aide sites:
        Try this site where actual climate scientists are discussing why the has been no warming for the past decade or so:
        http://judithcurry.com/2011/10…..cientists/

  5. EMPIRE NIGHTMARE ? The lost American Dream

    Now, according to Michael Mandelbaum a professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, their was a contract that was written in [1776] by the Founding Fathers of the [USA] United States of America, but was torn to shreds, with the establishment of the American-Israeli Military Industrial Complex ? the [EMPIRE] at the end of the Dwight David Eisenhower Era. And, that contract had [5] components;

    [Education]

    Wider opportunities for education in order to produce a workforce with cutting-edge skills funds for research and development to expand the frontiers of knowledge in ways that generate new products: Well that’s gone and has been for some time, but is being cut even more today, unless you’re a jock on steroids, looking for those big contracts after taking basket weaving in college paid for alumni members of the college, or were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and or government minority program based on minority status only, or even better were students in foreign countries into which [EMPIRE] armed forces have been placed for Economic Stimulus, make good little [EMPIRE] supports out of. Most schools just passed you out the door and into the arms of waiting military recruiters, at best or on to the streets are worst, just holding pens for the lower class, If you don’t care if you pass, show up for attendance, and leave for the state to provide school funding, If you just want a passing grade sit in the back, and don’t bother anyone, show up and attend class, the rest if you want top grades sit in the front and participate. But don’t feel sorry for those that only showed for headcount we learned on the streets, the code of silence, loyalty to the group organization, today the Russian Mob sets the standard of that educational structure, the tattoos, showing the grades of achievement level, when a debt is owed it will be paid.

    [Investment in infrastructure]

    Investment in infrastructure ? roads, power plants, and ports ? that supports commerce: That is if that infrastructure is say, new twin air strips on Okinawa, to undermind the defense of the [PRC] Peoples Republic of China, or power plants or chemical plants in say India, where the their are no unions and the cost of labor is cheap, or Pakistan so military equipment can flow to the battlefronts in Afghanistan. A Nuclear Power Plant and electrical national grid system, by all means but not in my backyard or community, opening up access to La Jolla for the mass other than private transportation, and let the rabble in, no public access is not really necessary.

    [Immigration]

    An immigration policy that attracts and retains talented people from beyond America’s borders: Well the best immigration policy is one based upon the ability to swim either in shark infested salt water or rapidly flowing Rio Grande fress water, without the aide of a cajote thru an under boarder tunnel also used for drug smuggling, at one time but with the closure of many State Parks well the parks are being put to profitable use, why less them go to waste, they make good campground living for fellons that can’t find shelder elsewhere for having been fellons, illegals until the can find sanctuary in a sancturary city and jobs, not to mention drug farms. Why stand in line and waste time upon government bureaucrats.

    [Business Regulations]

    Business regulations strong enough to prevent financial system meltdowns, yet not so strict or stringent as to stifle the risk-taking and innovation that produce growth: The fact is that this is a nice idea, but it is often said and is understood that business has never, does not, and will never achieve sucess without cutting corners, its not so much the idea that those who sat at the front of the class didn’t learn about how a business works but the consequences for not running a tightly run ship or organization, for those who gained a street education, such as the Japanese a mistake maybe just the loss of a finger, and in some organization you end up sleeping with the fish. The main difference between street organizations and market organizations is the cost of failure, and disloyality to the organization. The gold spoon to the golden parachute for one, sleeping in the back of the class to sleeping with the fish for the other.

    [Cutting the Nose off your face or fingers off you hand]

    Now Michael Mandelbaum, is a smart guy, and is correct that the [EMPIRE] has decided to cut the nose off its own face, or as he puts it [Reducing the deficit by cutting funds for education, infrastructure, and research and development is akin to trying to lose weight by cutting off three fingers. Most of the weight will remain, and one’s life prospects will have worsened significantly]. Welcome to back of the class, the Nighmare of those who get their education on the streets the real school of hard knocks.

    HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN

    1. Herc, old [buddy] old [pal]!

    2. HERC I thought [EMPIRE] had taken you in for rendition.

      But just to be clear, you are saying the American-Israeli Military Industrial Complex ? the [EMPIRE] needs to MAINTAIN its size and scope of power? When has the US government ever handled education, infrastructure, or technological development well or efficiently? You are back from your renditioning, a victim of MKULTRA – a brainwashed minion of [EMPIRE].

      1. Hey, you’re pretty good at that…

    3. Cool story, bro.

  6. “In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required.”

    We’re asking a lot of people if we expect them to make sacrifices today to substitute away from something that may or may not do them any tangible harm for another seventeen years.

    We elect our presidents every four years. We’re asking a lot of a president to encourage the American people to make sacrifices…to stop doing something that may not do his electorate any harm for another four election cycles?

    I don’t think we’re gonna get enough people to sign on to a public policy solution to address global warming–unless we get people to sign on to a solution that addresses global warming and also does something else they already want to do anyway.

    You’re all familiar with my solution.

    1. But as a libertarian you would ask everyone to make many sacrifices to implement your system. Why is it suddenly a bridge too far to make polluters pay for the damage they cause?

      1. That’s where you’re wrong, Tony.

        “You’re all familiar with my solution.”

        I guess I was wrong too. I’ve spelled it out for you, personally, how many times now?

        I want to REPLACE corporate taxes, the income tax, and the capital gains tax with a sales tax on carbon intensive activity.

        I’m talking making polluters pay for almost all of the taxes. How is that NOT making “polluters pay for the damage they cause”?

        P.S. If you’re not willing to save the planet so long as the solution means you can’t redistribute other people’s incomes anymore?

        Then I hope you don’t call yourself an environmentalist.

        1. I’ll try to remember that, it’s definitely miles ahead of what’s usually offered here. I believe in progressive taxation apart from any environmental concerns. I’m not sure where on the progressive/regressive scale your carbon tax lies, but hopefully it’s quite progressive since you’re eliminating all of the progressive taxes in our system.

          1. Oh no! My plan is what you call regressive.

            It’s also the only solution that would be both big enough to actually solve the global warming problem–as advertised by climatologists. And at the same time, manage not to completely destroy the economy.

            If I can achieve those two things? 1) solve the environmental problem. 2) make the economy grow while solving the problem…

            Then whether the solution is progressive or regressive according to your ideological bias is the last thing I’m worried about.

            Again, if you’re against saving the planet so long as saving the planet means you can’t redistribute rich people’s incomes and corporate profits anymore? Then you shouldn’t call yourself an environmentalist.

            If you care more about redistributing wealth than you do about the environment, then you’re a socialist.

            1. I think progressive taxation and saving the environment are hardly mutually exclusive. Redistribution is a fact of life assuming there’s any government at all.

              1. Re: Really Stoopid Fuck,

                I think progressive taxation and saving the environment are hardly mutually exclusive.

                Yes, they are you twit. One of the most taxed economies ever – Soviet Russia’s – was also one of the dirtiest.

                1. What an enlightening contribution. You totally earn the right to call other people names.

                2. I hate to help Tony out, but just one instance of them not existing together does not mean they are mutually exclusive. It only means that they are not mutually required.

                3. You think the Soviet Union was dirty because it was heavily taxed?

                  I can think of five better explanations off the top of my head.

                  And if you don’t think taxing pollution in the U.S. will mean less of it, then you’ve got some fundamental conceptual problems with how the economy thingy works.

                  P.S. Was the Soviet Union really taxing the pollution specifically? Seems to me that pollution was one of the things they weren’t taxing.

                  1. Re: Ken Shultz,

                    You think the Soviet Union was dirty because it was heavily taxed?

                    Ken, Taxation is a violation of property rights.

                    And if you don’t think taxing pollution in the U.S. will mean less of it, then you’ve got some fundamental conceptual problems with how the economy thingy works.

                    Oh, it will mean less pollution, no question about it. And less industry. And less production. And less wealth. And a lower standard of living. And…

                    1. “Ken, Taxation is a violation of property rights.”

                      Sales taxes are the most voluntary form of taxation.

                      People wouldn’t pay them if they weren’t mandatory, but we all figure them into the cost of our purchases. And if the cost is too high? We can choose not to pay them.

                      In that way, sales taxes are paid more or less voluntarily. Certainly, they’re paid much more voluntarily than income taxes.

                      The idea that you’re willingly paying a tax on top of another purchase–after you’ve calculated the total price–is much more voluntary than the idea that you owe money to the government because you earned it.

                      Hell, if all taxation was based on sales of carbon emissions, there would be lots of people who didn’t pay any taxes at all. Because of the way they choose to live.

                      If you got some way of generating revenue for the government that’s even more voluntary than that, I’d love to hear about it.

                    2. Re: Ken,

                      Sales taxes are the most voluntary form of taxation.

                      Ken, you’re not thinking. Let’s say you buy a pouun of tomatoes at $3.25 USD, and when you get out of the store, a robber tells you: “Give me 10% of what you paid for those tomatoes or I will hurt you!!”

                      WHAT FUCKING DIFFERENCE IS THERE BETWEEN THAT AND HAVING YOUR MONEY TAKEN AT THE MOMENT OF PURCHASE????

                      “Voluntary” my foot.

                      If you got some way of generating revenue for the government that’s even more voluntary than that, I’d love to hear about it.

                      User fees, a Red Cross-like collection. If the government cannot mke due without real VOLUNTARY contributions, then it should starve.

                    3. Like I said, if the taxes weren’t mandatory, no one would pay them.

                      I’m saying that sales taxes are the most voluntary form of taxation–more voluntary than income, corporate and capital gains taxes. And if the environmentalists out there will support moving to a more voluntary form of taxation in the name of saving the environment, then by all means–we should do that!

                      Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

                    4. My main problem with a sales tax is that it is highly open to social engineering.

                    5. Re: Ken Shultz,

                      Like I said, if the taxes weren’t mandatory, no one would pay them.

                      Noooo! You think?

                      I’m saying that sales taxes are the most voluntary form of taxation–more voluntary than income, corporate and capital gains taxes.

                      I already showed you that what you believe is pure bullshit. Sales taxes are NOT voluntary – if you trade without paying sales tax [i.e. a black market] you could be put in jail, the same way you would be if you did not pay your income tax. There’s nothing “voluntary” about that.

                      Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

                      Depends… the perfect what?

                    6. See. There is absolutely no solution to climate change (or pollution in general) that a minimalist Libertarian state can achieve.

                      That’s why Libertarians abhor the idea of climate change. Whatever “science” they point at is a red herring.

                    7. Re: The Derider,

                      There is absolutely [sic] no solution to climate change (or pollution in general) that a minimalist Libertarian state can achieve.

                      Do you know who else argues in absolutes, Derider?

                      That’s why Libertarians abhor the idea of climate change.

                      I thought statists did as well, otherwise they would not be coming up with all these nifty solutions to “stop it.”

                      Next time, use your head, you twit.

                    8. What’s the [sic] for?

                    9. “User fees, a Red Cross-like collection. If the government cannot mke due without real VOLUNTARY contributions, then it should starve.” As did the original United States under the Articles of Confederation. But consider what we got as a replacement. I’m not judging, just observing.

                    10. “Oh, it will mean less pollution, no question about it. And less industry. And less production. And less wealth. And a lower standard of living. And…”

                      I don’t think so.

                      Like I said, eliminating the income tax would make it less expensive for companies to hire unemployed people and pay them their take home pay.

                      If you have to spend $50,000 a year to pay someone $35,000 in take home pay, in large part due to having to pay them enough to cover their income taxes, then it only costs $35,000 to pay someone $35,000 in take home pay–what do you think that would do for economic growth? How many more working consumers with more discretionary income would we have?

                      Also, it would be absurd to think that companies wouldn’t spend at least as much on cleaning up their carbon intensive operations as they do now on paying accountants and staff to minimize their corporate taxes.

                      If gasoline prices went up as a result of a sales tax, a lot of people would move closer to work, but I’m not sure that’s a lower standard of living.

                      If we got rid of the capital gains tax, why wouldn’t that lead to more investment than there would have been otherwise? And wouldn’t that encourage economic growth.

                      The things we tax now are stupid things to tax. Taxing income makes it more expensive to hire unemployed people. Taxing corporate profits encourages companies to do thins with their revenues that are often about minimizing their tax bill rather than growing their bottom line. Taxing investment returns discourages investment to some extent!

                      I want to encourage companies to hire unemployed people–not discourage them. I want to encourage companies to grow. I want to encourage investment. If we stopped taxing those stupid, stupid things to tax?

                      Just that alone would lead to more economic growth. Replacing those stupid taxes with a sales tax on carbon emissions would not crush the economy. To the contrary!

              2. “I think progressive taxation and saving the environment are hardly mutually exclusive. Redistribution is a fact of life assuming there’s any government at all.”

                Any tax large enough to solve the problem would be so large, it would crush the economy. If it crushed the economy, people would quickly vote in new politicians to undo the tax; i.e., that solution won’t solve the problem of global warming.

                Therefore, the economy cannot bear a tax on carbon intensive activity unless that tax is offset by tax cuts elsewhere. The tax on carbon intensive activity would have to be so large to really fix the problem, that in order to make it large enough, we would have to offset it by eliminating virtually every other tax.

                The net impact as a percentage of GDP has to be about the same as it is now. Eliminating the income tax alone would have all sorts of growth effects on the economy too–it would make it less expensive for companies to hire unemployed people and pay them their take home pay, for instance.

                The American people will not support a tax program big enough to solve the global warming problem if the solution destroys the economy. The good news is that part of the solution to tepid economic growth is replacing corporate, income and capital gains taxes with a sales tax anyway.

                We should REPLACE the income tax with a sales tax on carbon emissions–regardless of whether global warming is a hoax. And there is no way the American people will keep a solution big enough to solve the problem implemented–if it crushes the economy.

                So, if you care about the environment, abandon all hope of redistributing wealth through the taxation of profits and income. The biggest obstacles we have to a green, environmentally sound future is the income tax, the corporate tax, and the people who won’t let go of them–not even to save the planet.

          2. I believe in progressive taxation apart from any environmental concerns

            Of course you do, dear.

        2. I want to REPLACE corporate taxes, the income tax, and the capital gains tax with a sales tax on carbon intensive activity.

          Suits me, as an expedient solution to environmental degradation, but it ignores the game-theory aspect of civilization: The Prisoner’s Dilemma.

          The Prisoner’s Dilemma provides the logical foundation of why civilization must always continue to grow. Each society faces a choice: do we continue to intensify production, adopt greater complexity, and increase the size or scale of our society, or do we happily accept the level we’re already at? If you choose not to intensify, you will be out-competed by those who do?and your lower level of intensity and complexity will become a resource they can absorb to fuel their further acceleration, whether by outright conquest or more subtle forms of economic or cultural exploitation. This is the underlying logic of Joseph Tainter’s argument concerning collapse in peer polities in The Collapse of Complex Societies.

          ~ http://rewild.info/anthropik/2…..ways-grow/

          1. “Each society faces a choice: do we continue to intensify production, adopt greater complexity, and increase the size or scale of our society, or do we happily accept the level we’re already at?”

            This sounds like a false choice to me.

            I don’t see economic growth as an either/or proposition–certainly not in environmental terms.

            Ever notice that the wealthier people are, the more they’re willing to sacrifice to save the environment?

            Ever notice that the wealthier a society becomes, and the more opportunities there are for women to earn a living outside the home, the fewer children they decide to have?

            I look at factors like those, and I start to think that economic growth may be the solution to–rather than the cause of–our environmental problems.

            If that’s the case, then the choice isn’t between the level of environmental degradation we have now, on one hand, and economic growth and more environmental degradation on the other.

            To the contrary…economic growth may mean less environmental degradation in the future.

          2. Re: White Imbecile,

            The Prisoner’s Dilemma provides the logical foundation of why civilization must always continue to grow.

            What? No, it doesn’t you imbecile! You have NO CLUE of what “logical foundation” means if you think a game theory scenario is a “logical fundamental,” just for starters.

            And you would cry like a little wussy girl at the sight of that fish you could NOT catch if in your “original affluent society” Like a little, little girl.

            1. I find that insulting to little girls.

          3. PD only works in non-communicative situations. When actors can signal choices among themselves, they are no longer in a PD situation. Lack of communication is the foundation of the PD.

      2. Re: Stoopid In Amerika,

        But as a libertarian you would ask everyone to make many sacrifices to implement your system.

        For the statist fuck, liberty is a “sacrifice.”

        Go fuck yourself, slaver.

        1. It’s just Tony’s standard-issue ‘forcing liberty on people’ tripe. Why does he see a sacrifice here? Easy: whatever he may claim, or believe that he believes, the fact is that he thinks people own other people. This relationship is encoded in his very logic. To wit: if, for whatever reason, the goal is to take X from person Y, in order to give it to person Z, then it is only possible to characterize forgoing the transaction as being a ‘sacrifice’ on Z’s part, and still remain coherent, if one presumes Z to own Y and the fruits of his labor, X, in the first place.

          By definition, implementation of even a completely anarchic system implies the ability, on the part of anyone who wishes to do so, to practice whatever form of societal organization may be desired. Voluntary participation being the sole sticking point, the concept implies no change from even the current status quo, save one: that the tax man put down his gun. One can certainly make any number of arguments as to what effect this would have on the ability to establish and maintain a governmental structure similar in scope to what we have today, but that would be beside the point.

          Which again was: in the implementation of a voluntary system, there is exactly zero sacrifice involved on the part of any party, unless one presupposes that one may own another, and the fruits of his or her labor.

          1. Any “voluntary” system that encompasses a number of people will eventually start to resemble a typical state. You do have to cope with the fact that new people are born, and will be born into whatever “voluntary” system you set up. There just isn’t enough of planet earth for it not to be divided along the lines we’ve already divided it. You may see the type of voluntariness in a social contract as a fiction, but I don’t see what other choice there is.

            1. I specifically made no statement above regarding the consequences of adopting of one system or another; I only deconstructed the basis of your conception of what may or may not be considered ‘sacrifice’, and why.

              As far as a system’s being voluntary, take note that I identify above exactly one key point where it makes a difference: the point of funding. I made no other contention.

              And I agree with your initial statement: that such a system would, in reality, be nearly indistinguishable from the current system, though it does seem predictable that it would tend to be more decentralized, due mainly to differing regional preferences. That is superficial, though; the core difference concerns the matter of feedback; here, the current system provides only the meaningless vote. By being denied force at the point of taxation (note: it cannot be expected to deny itself, its supposed right to force must be denied, by the people), though, the system is forced to stand on its own merits.

              It is silly, though, to conceive of such a situation in terms its being ‘implemented’ or ‘forced’ in any top-down sense. Were it to appear, its formation would be much more organic than that. Because in essence, it depends upon the greater mass of the population consciously rejecting the current paradigm in favor of one which incorporates voluntary funding as a means of quality assurance in government. Do things ever reach that point? Eventually, yes, I think they do, though not likely in our lifetime.

            2. You’re right Tony.

              Human society above Dunbar’s Number requires hierarchy; i.e., the State.

        2. If government is basically the legitimate use of force, then it seems to me that it is hard to imagine a better use of force than requiring people to be free. I would certainly like that better, for example, than being forced to purchase pre-paid health care, serve as a conscript in the military, or excise the seven dirty words from my broadcasts. I realize that discouraging dependence is not seen as being in the best interests of government (by the people who run it), and so will probably never itself be a “government program” or priority. But one can dream.

      3. AFAICT, no one here has any problem with “mak[ing] polluters [or anyone else for that matter] pay for the damage they cause”.

        Two steps you constantly leave out:

        1) proving that your targets are actually polluters

        and

        2) proving that anyone has, in fact, been or will be damaged.

        1. Unless we start from a premise that scientific fact is not optional, we won’t get anywhere.

          And the problem of defining individual victims of environmental harm is a central flaw of libertarianism. Doubly so if libertarians feel they get to dismiss inconvenient scientific facts.

          1. No one’s dismissing science. They’re dismissing wrongheaded policy prescriptios drawn from findings with a high level of uncertainty.

            1. It’s not uncertain that we need to figure out a way to stop pumping heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere and hopefully mitigate the effects of the damage we’ve already caused.

              In theory even libertarians should be able to get behind ending government support for coal and oil regardless of environmental concerns. But it seems that the only acceptable policy position is an indefinite acceptance of the status quo, which isn’t surprising considering which industries bankroll all of the confusion and policy stagnation on the issue.

              1. Tony, repeating the same unfounded assertions is not the same as actual evidence. No matter how many times you do it.

              2. Re: Stoopid In Amerika,

                In theory even libertarians should be able to get behind ending government support for coal and oil regardless of environmental concerns.

                What you call “government support” is what you then call “necessary government support” for other things you happen to like. If you’re calling for an end to all subsidies, just say so instead of playing these games.

                1. I’m fine with government paying for certain public services. It’s you who need to explain why you’re OK with the status quo–to the extent of rendering yourself an embarrassing science denier in order to prop it up.

              3. Tony, you keep going on about how fossil fuels are subsidised but every time you are asked to cite those subsidies you fall silent.

                So in addition to

                1) proving that your targets are actually polluters

                and

                2) proving that anyone has, in fact, been or will be damaged.

                let’s add,

                3) proving that your targets receive government largesse that others do not.

                1. Any definition that establishes CO2 as a pollutant must also define O2 as a pollutant. The two are in an inverse relationship. Increases in CO2 supposedly cause increases in temperature, but a decreasing planetary temperature would be even more harmful. If CO2 is defined as a pollutant just because it might cause an increase in temperature then O2 must also be a pollutant since increasing O2 levels would conversely cause a decrease in global temperature.

                  The planet is constantly changing so how exactly do you define the natural “correct” state of the planet. The fact is that before life appeared the natural state of Earth’s atmosphere was the reverse abundance ratio between CO2 and O2 as now. During the processes of planetary formation and the progression to equalibrium the abundance of O2 will decrease until almost of the of oxygen is trapped as CO2 and metal-oxides, as can be readily seen on both Mars and Venus. It’s plant life that consumed all of that naturally available CO2 and polluted the planet with O2.

                  It baffles me that people believe that the planet warming is a bad thing. The tropics have the highest abundance and diversity of life, while the poles have the least. Higher temperatures support more life. While it will suck for people who are displaced by extreme weather, global warming will help feed a growing world population.

  7. HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN

    Yay!!!!!!!

  8. On last evening’s The Daily Show, Jon Stewart reported that a study about global warming, funded in part by Tea Party backers/oilmen The Koch Brothers, found that, indeed, global warming exists.

    Stewart noted that this should have been the lead story of the day. Stewart then shows us the lead story on just about every news show – the McRib is back.

    Stewart points out that the McRib is reintroduced every year, like a groundhog (hey! maybe the McRib is groundhog)?? That’s not news, he says. Now, if the Shamrock Shake were to be sold year round, that would be news…

    1. Actually the study confirms the numbers previously given by climate scientists. AFAIK, it doesn’t address the hiatus.

      1. Or the degree to which humanity contributed to the warming.

    2. The study is notable only to the extent that it will be exploited by those who crave power, so it is not really news because that exploitation is a process over an extended period of time. The McRib is news because it has an immediate effect on millions of people who will purchase the admittedly tasty sandwiches. Stewart is just a sloppy ass sentimentalist who doesn’t do any mental heavy lifting.

  9. A couple of articles have discussed this recently. They’re suggesting that the heat is moving deep into the oceans, where surface temperature readings won’t catch it. If so, that might explain why Arctic sea ice and Antarctic land ice are melting faster than the models suggest it should. In the case of Antarctica, the original prediction of “no significant loss by 2100” has turned out to be very wrong, and not in the good direction.

    Over the past decade, we’ve noticed less infrared escaping Earth. Infrared is the radiation most readily absorbed by CO2. That tells us that the heat is not leaving Earth. Because of the conservation of energy, that energy/heat is going somewhere.

    Google “deep ocean missing heat” and “antarctica losing mass faster than thought”.

    1. Keep moving those goalposts, dude! Yeah, it’s not utterly obvious or anything!

      1. Episiarch, Sticking your fingers in your years and telling NANANANA is not the same as moving the goalposts

        1. Yes, the people whose predictions have failed aren’t the ones moving the goalposts; it’s me sticking my fingers in my ears and not listening to the…nonexistent evidence.

          Keep squirming, moron. You know your cult is falling apart, but you’ve invested too much in it to back out now. You’ll now do anything you have to to not look like the utter fool and sucker you are.

          1. But but but the heat is HIDING IN THE DEEP OCEAN! ROFLLL! Its like totally obvious evidence!

            1. I thought I heard that, as heat penetrated lower and lower into the ocean, more and more of the CO2 assimilated there would bubble out of the water, wildly accelerating global warming and associated climate change. What gives?

        2. I don’t think it’s either or; the CAGW cult is doing both.

          Personally, I’m entertained to see them go through the contortions that every doomsday cult goes through as the world stubbornly refuses to end on schedule.

          1. Well, the best part is that as they contort, they seem to believe that they’re not utterly and transparently obvious about it.

            “If I just struggle harder, they won’t see how hard I’m struggling!”

            Fucking geniuses.

      2. Keep moving those goalposts, dude! Yeah, it’s not utterly obvious or anything!

        The 00s were the hottest decade on record. 2010 was the hottest year ever: 19 countries set all-time highs, 1 country set an all-time low. Among the all-time highs was Pakistan, who set the all-Asia record at 129 degree Fahrenheit. Arctic sea ice reached its record low volume in 2010, followed by a new record low volume in 2011.

        Show us on the doll where climate change touched you, Epi. It’s okay.

      3. What goal posts? Climate changes. Whatever the cause, figuring out what drives those changes is a good and useful thing to investigate.
        I’m as disgusted as anyone by the people who say “the science says that corporations are evil” or whatever it is. But that doesn’t mean that all climate science should be dismissed. The kinds of reactions you are displaying here today seem to be just as closed minded and anti-scientific as the idiots who think that the science is settled and should be questioned by no one.

        1. Re: Zeb,

          Climate changes. Whatever the cause, figuring out what drives those changes is a good and useful thing to investigate.

          Nobody said otherwise. It’s the “humans did it, thus we need to get rid of production!” that reeks of preposterousness.

    2. Re: Jersey Patriot,

      A couple of articles have discussed this recently. They’re suggesting that the heat is moving deep into the oceans, where surface temperature readings won’t catch it.

      Wouldn’t that be an admission that te current models are too simplistic? Yet here we are still yelling at each other that the “science is settled.”

      If so, that might explain why Arctic sea ice and Antarctic land ice are melting faster than the models suggest it should.

      Not that it matters – fast Artic ice melting is a totally natural phenomenon that has happened before.

      [N]ew research by a team from Universit? Laval in Canada, led by Dermot Antoniadesa, have found, after studying sedimentary material on the bottom of the Disraeli Fiord, created by backup from an ice shelf in Northern Canada, that it experienced a major fracture that resulted in an overall reduction of the ice shelf some 1,400 years ago. Which means this isn’t the first time that the shelf ice has melted and broken apart. The team has published the results of its survey in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

      1. Wouldn’t that be an admission that te current models are too simplistic? Yet here we are still yelling at each other that the “science is settled.”

        Can you tell the difference?

        “Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth.”

        and

        “We don’t know exactly when feathers first evolved.”

        There’s a difference between not understanding a particular detail and not understanding the process.

        fast Artic ice melting is a totally natural phenomenon that has happened before.

        It is not a natural process this time, because Earth’s warming cannot be accounted for by natural processes (the sun’s output is actually down a bit, the cosmic ray cycle is stable). Climates change when something causes them to change. It is us now.

        For reference, the minimum yearly volume of Arctic sea ice has dropped from ~17,000 km cubed in 1979 to ~4300 km cubed last month (the most recent low). That’s a 75% drop in 30 years, a cataclysm in geologic time. And the sea ice is not shelf ice, it’s (primarily) free-floating.

        1. Re: Jersey Patriot,

          Can you tell the difference?

          I was hoping you would not start playing cute, but you went ahead and disappointed me. “Evolution” as a concept explains the diversity of life, but how feathers came to be is a different question altogether.

          It is not a natural process this time, because Earth’s warming cannot be accounted for by natural processes (the sun’s output is actually down a bit, the cosmic ray cycle is stable).

          You mean the warming that’s now supposedly in hiatus? THAT warming? THAT ONE?

          And where did you get this idea that the Sun is down in output? Even if it’s true, don’t just assert it: Linkey-link, please?

          Besides this, if humans were indeed causing the Earth to warm, the cause would be entirely natural JP, as humans are part of nature last I checked. The enviro-mistanthropes like to revel in this idea that humans are some sort of disease.

          Climates change when something causes them to change. It is us now.

          That is the part that has been heavily debated, JP.

          For reference, the minimum yearly volume of Arctic sea ice has dropped from ~17,000 km cubed in 1979 to ~4300 km cubed last month (the most recent low). That’s a 75% drop in 30 years, a cataclysm in geologic time.

          The Little Ice Age was also a “cataclysm” in geologic time, JP. We’re not talking about Plate Tectonics here.

        2. the minimum yearly volume of Arctic sea ice has dropped from ~17,000 km cubed in 1979 to ~4300 km cubed last month (the most recent low).

          And Antarctic sea ice extent has been higher than normal. Is the earth cooling?

    3. Why would deep ocean heat have anything to do with rapidly melting Antarctic land ice? Were the studies talking instead about ice shelves melting on Antarctica?

      You could be right that excess heat is moving into deeper ocean water, and that is why we haven’t noticed higher global atmosphere temperatures. As sound conductivity varies with the temperature of water, and we have several networks of hydrophones on the ocean floor, I would think you should be able to notice whether the deep oceans were indeed getting warmer.

      Or we could acknowledge that perhaps we don’t know as much about climate, insolation, and the greenhouse effect as we thought. I’m still stunned at Trenberth expressing the slightest bit of skepticism at the validity of climate modeling.

      1. Why would deep ocean heat have anything to do with rapidly melting Antarctic land ice?

        Warm water upwells. There’s a huge portion of the Antarctic land ice sheet that rests on bedrock 2 km below sea level. The warm water upwells, sneaks between the ice and the bedrock, and melts it from underneath.

        As sound conductivity varies with the temperature of water, and we have several networks of hydrophones on the ocean floor, I would think you should be able to notice whether the deep oceans were indeed getting warmer.

        I think you’re right. But the networks for measuring deep ocean heat were just starting to roll out around 2000, so we don’t have a lot of data just yet. The first readings are indicating most of the increased ocean heat is below the 1 km mark, but there’s only ~5 years of good data so far.

        As for Antarctica, if the ocean is warming at 1500m down, and the bedrock is 2000m down, it’s pretty easy to see how deep ocean heat can melt Antarctic glaciers.

  10. Trends on the scale of 0-100 years are weather; otherwise, you’re looking at climate.

      1. Me, that’s who.

  11. FTFA:
    “And there are suspicions that the vast uptick in Chinese coal pollution has played a role in reflecting sunlight back into space…
    … Instead, he says, air pollution from fossil fuel burning, directly and indirectly, has been masking greenhouse warming more than anyone knew.”

    So clean fuels cause global warming and dirty fuels inhibit it? I’m thinking more and more that global warming is the best possible thing for humanity on this planet.

    1. Yes. Sulfur containing particles from coal emissions are the suspected cause of global cooling during the 1970’s. As the West installed sulfur scrubbers on coal smoke stacks, we got global warming. It turns out that burning a bit more coal is the most economical way to combat global warming.

  12. The evidence that will satisfy me of Global Warming: 3 months of summer in Coeur d Alene, Idaho.

  13. Also FTFA:
    “NASA’s Hansen disputes that worry about skeptics drove climate scientists to ignore the sun’s climate influence. His team, he said, has ‘always included solar forcing based on observations and Judith’s estimates for the period prior to accurate observations.'”

    Wow, that’s bad science. Purposefully ignoring a major cause because you’re worried about what people with differing hypotheses might think? This is why climate scientists are often considered a joke.

  14. Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?

    Various possible reasons:

    a) Greenhouse gases are not the dominant variable
    b) There’s another mechanism that works alongside greenhouse gases to control the climate temperature
    c) The Earth is an AGW denier.

    By any measure [we care to use], the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest in modern history.

    Goalpost placing – how does that work?

    The hiatus was not unexpected.

    Translation: It WAS unexpected if one goes by all the alarmism of the previous IPCC reports, but you will never catch us accepting it.

    Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily,

    You. Don’t. Say.

    In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required.

    Forthcoming” paper?

    Goalpost placing – HOW does that work?

    “It has always bothered me,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “Natural variability is not a cause. One has to say what aspect of natural variability.”

    No, it’s certainly not the cause. Global control of all human lives by a bunch of illustrated elites is the cause.

  15. Potentially big snowstorm headed for parts of the northeast this weekend.

    And it’s, hold on, let me check the calendar to be sure, yep, it’s still October.

    1. The alarmists will report that as evidence of apocalyptic climate change.

    2. Colder weather in temperate zones is because of the Arctic heating up. Keep up the clown act about Al Gore when it snows, but here is the science:

      Warm Arctic – Cold Continents
      The Polar Vortex
      http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/war…..inent.html

      1. A few years ago, the doofuses were telling us that soon we’d never see snow again. Now, the same bunch of shameless cretins tells us that warming in fact causes MORE snow.

        I’m yawning. I’m yawning some more. And, zzzzzzz.

          1. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

            “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

            That’s just super.

      2. Wow, I saw that movie.

  16. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi…..ations.png

    So the obvious solution is to rely on the one set of proxy data that shows the worst case guess for right now and base all of humanity’s future on that data point.

  17. This comes just in time for the big bureaucrat party in Durban. Hopefully it will make the champagne taste a little bitter.

  18. “Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures”

    Variability in the Climate? Whatchu talkin’ ’bout Willis?

    1. “Our computer models are correct, but the earth isn’t behaving the way it’s supposed to be.”

      1. “Our fantasy economics are correct, but the market isn’t behaving the way it’s supposed to be.”

        1. Dude… that’s us.

  19. As I have believed for a long time, “global warming” exists. (Or climate change as it is now called) As our planet (like all others) are slowing moving closer to the sun it only makes sense. Man made global warming? Rediculous. This article shows that. People forget that the Earth is a living “thing”. I’d like give Al Gore a swift kick in the groin for starting all this bs.

    1. Climate Skeptic Sponsored by Fossil Fuel Interests
      http://motherjones.com/mojo/20…..-interests

      1. How about addressing the science. Too hard?

  20. In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required.

    I’m sorry, but this has got to be the most ridiculous part of that whole piece. Ten years isn’t long enough, but seventeen is? Both are infinitesimal lengths of time in a geological sense.

    1. It’s a worthwhile area of study, of course, but AGW as a hypothesis for explaining most of any warming is weak. Even if it is correct, the corruption of the process has made the science very, very weak. What you’re describing is, really, fudging.

  21. I’d like give Al Gore a swift kick in the groin for starting all this bs.

    Al Gore didn’t start this bs, Margaret Thatcher did.

    I think the truth is likely much less conspiratorial than the linked article suggests but the notion of a highly ideological politician arranging to massively increase funding to that was at that point a minor area of study in order to advance her political goals, viz, destroying the coal miner’s union and getting increased subsidies for the nuclear power industry, is totally believable IMO.

  22. The planet is currently 4-7 degrees colder than it should be. This has been the case since the bipedal apes emerged from the African savannah. Humans have a duty to rectify the unnatural cooling they have brought with them since spawning around 2.5 million years ago.

    Seriously climate doomsaying assbreaths: the planet is an ICE AGE RIGHT NOW. Look it up, you anti-scientific scum.

    1. Yep. The Earth has been in an icehouse phase for millions of years. We happen to be at or near the top of one of the periodic short warm periods within the overall ice age. Most people have this idea that the current climate is “normal,” and that occasionally an “ice age” comes along, with huge glaciers and all that – when the truth is actually the opposite. It’s simply amazing how many people don’t know these basic facts. I guess it’s not their fault, because it’s so rarely mentioned in popular media and science shows.

  23. The sky is falling! Wait, it stopped. But, it will start again. Just wait and see.

    The final solution for the statist losers is really “the final solution”. More people have to die, so the rest can live in utopia. Utopia being a combination of the Hamptons and Malibu.

    1. The many must die so the few can live? That sounds familiar, I’m sure I heard it somewhere recently.

      1. The many must die to provide adequate lebensraum for the rest.

        Recall that, back in the 1960s, Science Fiction author John Brunner calculated that, occupying an average of 2.3 square feet each, the world population of humans in 2010 — which, despite Malthusian exaggeration of the time, he projected at a remarkably accurate 7 Billion — could all stand, shoulder to shoulder, front to back, on the main island of Zanzibar. The rest of the world would then have NO humans in it.

        Go look at a map. Look at Zanzibar. (You’ll probably have to zoom in a bit to see it. That huge island to the right of Africa is Madagascar.) Then look at the rest of the world.

        Especially given that people tend to want to live near other people (and not all spread out to maximize personal space), there is MORE than enough actual room on this planet for all the people here now and many more to come. The “carrying capacity” of the Earth seems to depend more on how ingeniously we manage (or, perhaps, through the “mining” of space, someday even supplement) the resources that Earth provides, than on the truly vast amount of surface area “living space,” which is available to us. The creativity and new approaches of MORE people, rather than fewer, will be necessary to achieve the required advances in resource management/acquisition.

        It is possible that, through the agencies of our products and activities, we relative specks of dust, when compared with the whole of “Mother Earth,” could poison her just as a tiny drop of certain substances (especially microscopic viruses) could kill one of us. But that would mean that the eco-balance of the earth were very fragile indeed, in which case we should expect, relatively soon, to be swept away by the effects of much larger and more powerful natural phenomena, which would serve as triggers to bring the whole house of cards down, in the final validation of complexity theory.

        It seems to be more reasonable to assume — or to hope, at least — that Earth’s systems are more robust against whatever disturbances we as a species might create, than the Malthusians, climate alarmists, or misanthropes might imagine. Living with reasonable hope seems much preferable to me than surrendering to a despair that is clothed with the fig leaf of a very uncertain “science.”

  24. I would also like to point out that current reiging theory on the ancient history of earth has the fireball, tropical, snowball, waterworld, tropical, modern day climate, timeline. In all of those excluding fireball (for obvious reasons) the only one thought to NOT haror life was snowball. Am I worried if the globe is warming? Absolutly not. Am I worried of the globe is going to plunge into another ice age? Yes. A world of AMazons and Congos is way better than a world of Svernayas and Point Barrows.

    1. A world of AMazons and Congos is way better than a world of Svernayas and Point Barrows.

      Neither is good if you need to grow enough grain to feed 9 billion people.

      1. Libertarian Solution: Moon Corn.

    2. Snowball earth had single celled life in the Ocean, otherwise life on earth would have gone extinct. Those fuckers caused the snowball in the first place by eating most of the CO2 and farting Oxygen.

  25. Libertarians hate climate change because there’s absolutely no way to solve it without government.

    They’ll cling to any fantasy that allows them to pretend their political philosophy can work in the real world. This is just the most obvious case.

    1. Oh, the government is going to solve it?

      Just how will the government solve this, exactly?

      1. Taxing carbon emissions has already been suggested in this thread.

        1. And how will that solve the problem? I don’t just accept a priori that a carbon tax will fix anything.

          1. It will provide a disincentive to pollute.

            1. How much “disincentive” will be required to have a measurable effect?

              1. Enough so that it’s more profitable to reduce emissions.

                Are you looking for an exact number?

                How much will it cost to hire a judge in Libertopia?

                1. Three Hayeks an hour, give or take a half-Rothbard.

    2. What about those that pretend their philosophy isn’t a giant failure in the real world?

      1. When confronted by their failure, many Republicans double down on stupid and come here.

        1. The only thing the government can solve to right-wing-nuts is restricting the free movement of people on the Land with privation property.

          Want me to wrap that with some pretty freedom paper for you?

        2. So you’re sorry they’re still not as stupid as the lefties?

    3. Re: The Derider,

      Libertarians hate climate change because there’s absolutely no way to solve it without government.

      “Solve it”? When did it become a problem?

      They’ll cling to any fantasy that allows them to pretend their political philosophy can work in the real world.

      You mean liberty? Yeah, I can see how that would not work…

      You pinhead.

      1. You realize that your first response proves my point, right?

        Also, you owe Bill O’Reilly 8 cents in royalties for that post.

  26. People do not cause significant global changes in climate.

    People cannot stop global changes in climate.

    People can neither substantially speed up nor slow down global warming.

    Is there climate change? Yes. But we don’t cause it.

    Is it possible that naturally-occurring climate change could have dramatic effects on our way of life? Yes. But I don’t see any signs of it happening right now. We could also get hit by a giant object from space – so what? Might a supervolcano blow up in our lifetimes and cause a cataclysm? Maybe. Again – who cares? What are you going to do? Put a cork in it?

    This whole AGW hoax is not just some harmless silliness like people playing with Ouija boards and believing in ghosts and goblins. This is something designed to function as a vehicle for political and financial meddling. This is a tool of leftists and kleptocrats.

    Most of the “scientists” quoted in the various reports held up by hoaxers aren’t even climate scientists. The majority of them are social scientists, if scientists at all. The claim that skeptics cannot prove that AGW isn’t happening is a nonsense claim to begin with – it is not the responsibility of the skeptics to prove that AGW is not happening, it is the responsibility of the hoaxers to prove that AGW is happening. Note also that there is a substantial, fundamental difference between observing that climate change occurs (which could hardly be more obvious) and observing a relationship of causation between the activities of mankind and global changes in climate.

    Snap out of it!

  27. Good article but using the HadCRUT3v ocean + land anomaly dataset, there has been no warming for 14 years. If you look at only the HADSST2 ocean surface temps for the last 14 years there has been almost .1 degC drop in temperature. RSS satellite data shows no significant warming in the Lower Troposphere and as you may or may not know Ben Santer has indicated that 17 years of no significant warming in the Lower Troposphere would seriously damage the current attributions for warming theory. The climate models are already faltering as the NOAA 2009 State Of Climate Report states that ANY 15 year interval of no significant warming would falsify the models used by the IPCC at the 95% level.

    The scientists mentioned in this article need to account for what caused a pause in warming or modeled decadal predictions (I have double checked and the IPCC clearly states they use models for predictions) will be falsified at the 95% level. If this isn’t done prior to IPCC AR5 the IPCC will have to use much larger uncertainty ranges thus failing a key initiative of the IPCC which was to reduce uncertainty. It is important to verify accuracy of the climate models and the predictions before major policy changes are attempted and it is a welcome sign that NOAA and Dr. Santer have provided the means of testing the model predictions.

  28. While it will suck for people who are displaced by extreme weather, global warming will help feed a growing world population.

    One of the interesting things is that except in the nightmarish scenarios dreamed up by Al Gore and the like (that almost everyone is distancing themselves from as fast as they can), there is not real “extreme weather”. All changes appear to be incremental over long intervals and quite amenable to mitigation over time.

    One of the things I find telling is that the hurricane experts are constantly having to correct the erroneous statements by non-specialists associated with the GW establishment that climate change will make hurricanes worse. Just not true.

  29. The earth is our mom, we should take care of her.

  30. George Carlin’s “The Planet Is Fine”:

    We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the fucking planet?

    I’m getting tired of that shit. I’m tired of fucking Earth Day, I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. They don’t care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

    Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun?

    The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!

    We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

    You wanna know how the planet’s doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet’s doing. You wanna know if the planet’s all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

    The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic…asshole.

    So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that’s begun. Don’t you think that’s already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let’s see… Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh…viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

    Well, that’s a poetic note. And it’s a start. And I can dream, can’t I? See I don’t worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron…whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.