Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

The biggest scam ever

Professors routinely lecture on the imminent threat of global warming/climate change, and take for granted that every student sitting before them is drinking their liberal Koolade. I, for one, am sick of it. The “general consensus” among the scientific community that your all-knowing college teachers and the leftist media love to tout doesn’t exist. Global warming is the biggest farce of our time, and if President Obama and the sycophant Democrats in congress have anything to do with it, we’ll all pay dearly for it.

According to the Heritage Foundation, if a cap-and-trade measure is signed into law, like the one the House of Representatives passed in 2009, by 2035 the average family of four would pay an additional $6,800 in annual taxes. By the way, dinosaur Representative Edward Markey, who has held his congressional seat in Massachusetts’ seventh district since “Lavern and Shirley” were on the airwaves, co-sponsored the bill titled the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act.” He’s up for reelection on Nov. 2, which means those of you in the seventh district have the opportunity to vote him out, and save yourselves and your fellow Americans tens of thousands of future tax dollars. The con-artists congressmen behind this bill know nothing about science, and refuse to listen to those who do, such as Climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball.

Dr. Ball wrote in the Canada Free Press in 2007, “…I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we [humans] are, or could ever cause global climate change.” That’s not something you hear at the University of Massachusetts everyday. Furthermore, as recently as the 1970s, Time magazine reported the Earth was heading toward another ice age. Dr. Ball confirms many of his peers held this scientific view during this time. Twenty years later, however, all the liberal media outlets reported the planet was melting. How is it that in such a short span the Earth managed to change course so drastically? Answer: it hasn’t. Think about it. Fact: The Earth exhibited at least five ice ages before the Industrial Revolution. Fact: Ice, at one time, almost reached the equator. Therefore, I pose the question to you, Global Warming Zealots. How did planet Earth emerge from five ice ages without hundreds of millions of “greenhouse gas producing” cars on the road like there are today? Or hundreds of millions of methane-producing cows? Or jet engine planes (of which Madame Speaker, Nancy Pelosi is so fond), and every other thing the libs attribute to the world’s eventual demise? Answer: Mother Nature. Dr. Michael Savage’s New York Times best selling book “Trickle Up Poverty”, which debuted earlier this month, devotes an entire chapter to the subject.

Still don’t believe me? Log on to petitionproject.org. Professor of chemistry Arthur Robinson has compiled a list of signatures of more than 31,000 scientists – 9,000 of whom hold Ph.D’s – who are convinced that, “the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.”

If you can’t come to terms with the fact that human-caused global warming is an utter lie, certainly you must agree that if 31,000 scientists disbelieve it, it is worth doing some of your own research.

This is what Kevin Knobloch told me when I questioned some of his talking points yesterday at his “Climate Change: Profiles in Paralysis” lecture. Knobloch, who is the President of the Union of Concerned Scientists, spoke of nothing we haven’t heard before to a large audience in the Student Union Ballroom. No one was impressed when he warned of planet Earth literally melting before our eyes. Nor did many of them buy the “It’s up to Barack Obama and the Democrats to save us all from the evil Republicans” routine. The talk was utterly unspectacular. It certainly didn’t have the theatrics of “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Therefore, at the end of the lecture, I couldn’t help but to get my two cents in at the question and answer segment. Most of the crowd immediately cleared out before I had my turn at the microphone, but I feel confident that my remarks nudged a few brain cells. And so I asked Mr. Knobloch, “If the world is warming, how is it that snow fell in all 50 states last winter including in the mountains of Hawaii?” He answered with a rehearsed statement before informing me that, “this is the hottest year on record.” I’m sure that’s what the residents of Wylie, Texas were thinking when they awoke on the morning of Feb. 23, 2010 to find their community covered in snow.

Walking out of the room after asking my question, a voice called out to me. “Good question.” It was a student who also attended the lecture. We chatted for a few moments, and I shared where I got my information on global warming. I was glad someone in there was paying attention. Being a climate change “denier” isn’t easy. Many scientists who disbelieve the theory remain silent. They fear repercussions from their colleagues – especially in the university setting. Well I won’t be silenced. I won’t tailor papers to compliment some zealot professor’s views, and neither should you.

Shane Cronin is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].

View Comments (57)
More to Discover

Comments (57)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • G

    GiorgioFeb 12, 2011 at 3:36 am

    So, Commie-sob, which one is it ? Is it global warming, or climate change, or what ? I mean, if it’s not black it must be white and we are all supposed to swallow this global warming/climate change nonsense, hook line and sinker. Give me a break !!!!

    Reply
  • C

    Commie-sobJan 9, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    It’s kind of silly to say that global warming isn’t real. I know a ice age may be a little out there, but how can you discredit global climate change when people use this “theory” to keep their greenhouses warm in the winter. And for you to even paint governing factions as taking sides just really makes you and your republican pals sound pretty stupid. Let me put it to you this way, forget about what president you voted for and forget all these political jargon bull-honkey speakers and just pay attention to your surroundings and maybe, just maybe! You can see some more snow falling, gosh that sounds so crazy. Snow in America, I mean who knew it was this close to home.

    Reply
  • J

    JDDec 24, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    The phrase ‘self-opinionated pratt’ comes to mind after reading this tripe.

    Reply
  • G

    GiorgioDec 16, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Great column Shane. Anthropogenic global-warming is indeed the biggest scam ever. And some people would like governments to spend trillions of Dollars of taxpayer money to put remedy to what is a totally harmless natural occurrence.

    Climate has always changed, with or without man !!!!

    Reply
  • O

    observationNov 18, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    It would be one thing if you wrote an article and presented a series of facts in a very logical manner that showcased your intelligence. But the tone of this article does a disservice to you and your argument. You immediately start in with a very condescending, self righteous tone and it makes it hard to focus on your argument. It also makes you extremely unlikeable.

    In addition, the argument that “31,000 scientists, 9,000 with Ph.D’s” do not support the climate change argument is incredibly weak. Only 9,000 have Ph.D’s? That’s less than 1/3. I would trust those 9,000, perhaps, but the others? I’m not so inclined to believe.

    Reply
  • R

    richardNov 8, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    Jay says:
    “Perhaps you would like to explain why the farther north one goes the colder it gets.. You expect me to believe the lies (and thats what they are) that the north pole is melting when thousands of miles south is cold.. ”

    Well, Jay, when it’s cold thousands of miles South of the North Pole, it’s Winter. When the Polar Cap melts, it’s Summer.

    Reply
  • R

    richardNov 8, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    “…I feel confident that my remarks nudged a few brain cells. And so I asked Mr. Knobloch, “If the world is warming, how is it that snow fell in all 50 states last winter including in the mountains of Hawaii?” He answered with a rehearsed statement before informing me that, “this is the hottest year on record.” I’m sure that’s what the residents of Wylie, Texas were thinking when they awoke on the morning of Feb. 23, 2010 to find their community covered in snow.”

    Shane. Clearly you are a college student facing a non-existant job market and bucking for a slot as a paid denial blogger. But Shane, you need a little more practice. Your arguments suck.

    Starting with a reference to the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing Stink-Tank with no credibility at all outside right-wing political circles.

    Then waving your “31,000 scientists” list carries about as much credibility as McCarthy’s lists of Communists in the government. (Look it up, I know it was before your time). If there even is such a list, which I doubt, there is the statistic that 95% of Climate scientists, including all Nobel Prize winners, support the GW case.

    But to drag out the old saw about “How could the planet be warming if it snowed last winter?” shames you. “Global Warming”, the name, leaves an opening for disingenuous people like you to make ridiculous arguments. So most people now call it Climate Change, because, while the entire earth is warming, that can manifest itself in heat waves in some places, drought and fires in others, and, yes, blizzards in others. It is simply messing with the entire climate system.

    And by the way, I grew up near Wylie, Texas in the 1950s. We had a fishing camp there. Snow was not the norm, but neither was it unheard of. Maybe once a year, maybe two years. Even if Wylie were blanketed in snow from Halloween to Easter now, which I’m quite sure it isn’t, that would just be “Climate Change”. That it snowed there last winter, is “Nothing”.

    Reply
  • L

    leliaNov 4, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Aside from the bickering over global warming; I have to agree with the poster and the obvious bias most professors show at the University of Massachusetts towards liberal politics. As a student I want to learn not be taught how to think.
    I have attended two previous colleges, I grew up on a college and I spent alot of my childhood going to college classes with my parents so in that respect I have experienced many different schools and I have never seen seen one so impartial.

    I constantly hear about Karl Marx, how great Obama is, health care, more taxes, how evil republicans are, how great being “eco-friendly” is and on and on it goes and I would feel the exact same way if the discourse was conservative. Whatever happened to “critical thinking” and being able to determine your own opinions?
    For example: In the economics department it’s a de facto requirement to be a liberal and every single professor there has written several papers on Karl Marx and most of their academic repertoire revolves about leftist thinking. a policy that seems to extend to most departments. I respect all of my professors but doesn’t the word objective mean anything to umass; it seems like we’re just factories to reproduce they kind of thinking they want.

    Reply
  • A

    AndrewNov 2, 2010 at 3:51 am

    > “Perhaps you would like to explain why the farther north one goes the colder it gets.”

    I can’t believe anyone could seriously think that the fact that the North Pole is still colder than southern Canada is an argument against climate change. You do understand that global warming won’t abolish winter or eliminate temperature differences between different places on Earth, right? Even if the planet became a hundred times hotter, the North Pole would STILL be colder than southern Canada.

    Reply
  • J

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)Nov 2, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Jay
    October 31, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Jay says: “Perhaps you would like to explain why the farther north one goes the colder it gets.. You expect me to believe the lies (and thats what they are) that the north pole is melting when thousands of miles south is cold..”

    Sure. The surface ice is subjected to warmer air due to the polar amplification effect and the bottom of the sea ice is subjected to warmer sea temperatures. Since the averages temperatures are rising the ice is melting. And, even though the surface ice refreezes in the winter, the ice thickness is diminishing due to its inability to replenish multi-year ice due to the warmer temperatures.

    Not so hard to understand really.

    Study Arctic Oscillation (AO)

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-oscillation-ao

    Polar Amplification Effect

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-polar-amplification-effect

    Weather vs. Climate

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/weather-v.-climate

    It turns out that global warming does not stop weather or winter for that matter.

    But the ice is melting. Or are you saying that the US military satellites are wrong or that the US military is lying about the data they collect? OR JAXA is lying, Or the British Arctic Survey is lying? Hmmm… let me think, what are the odds they are all lying and you are correct???

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-ice-melt

    Global warming does not get rid of cold days, it just changes the multi-year average’s.

    Economics Balancing Economies
    October Leading Edge: The Cuccinelli ‘Witch Hunt”

    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: Natural CycleGreenhouse EffectClimate Science HistoryArctic Ice Melt

    Reply
  • J

    JayOct 31, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    Snow flurries today in Toronto.. Oct 31.. If you bother to look at the temp Ontario wide (Surprise) it gets colder as far North as they report it. It has a very predictable curve to it.

    Then there is the black hole where logic takes a sharp LEFT turn.. The North Pole.. Out of sight out of mind.. Crunch the numbers adjust the parameters..

    I am Canadian and the difference of a few hundred miles north into cottage country is very noticeable.. This is a fact that no amount of progressive media can dispute..

    Over paid, over prised political activist (so called) scientists freezing their gonads off at the north pole looking for political power in a snow bank..

    The end is near..

    Reply
  • J

    JayOct 31, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Perhaps Shane would like to explain why, in spite of the localized snow and cold weather, the poles and glaciers are melting..
    ——-
    Perhaps you would like to explain why the farther north one goes the colder it gets.. You expect me to believe the lies (and thats what they are) that the north pole is melting when thousands of miles south is cold..

    Common basic logic combined with a layman’s understanding of the earths climate is all it takes to expose this political claptrap as utterly bogus..

    Where are they today? Looking for that slippery warming under the ice thats no longer cooperating with their environmental agenda..
    No shame from the environmental shell game that just wont die..

    Reply
  • J

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)Oct 28, 2010 at 4:17 am

    DirkH

    warmists/coolists – tribalism talk and group think is not science not matter what you ‘believe’.

    “Certain people are just mentally incapable of grasping uncertainty”

    Yes, and you have illustrated this well in your misunderstanding. We are warming and even with the error bars included we are warming outside the natural cycle.

    As to worrying about droughts. think about net primary production and soil moisture content changes that are measured and modeled. This is already beginning to affect agricultural productivity now, not in 20 years. And yes there is always uncertainty but the uncertainty is generally around how much loss are we talking about, not whether or not there will be loss.

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/leading-edge/2010/sep-the-leading-edge

    Discussion Balancing Economies
    October Leading Edge: The Cuccinelli ‘Witch Hunt”

    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: Natural CycleGreenhouse EffectClimate Science HistoryArctic Ice Melt

    Reply
  • D

    DirkHOct 24, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    Shane, congrats, very courageous!

    Ignore the warmists that comment here. Most of them think that projections by flawed climate models amount to prophecy. For instance, look here:
    http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/coming-mega-drought

    First, the writer correctly identifies the study he talks about as a computer model study, but he ends his article with
    “This isn’t something that’s a century in the future. If we don’t do anything about it, it’s more like 20 years away.”

    Certain people are just mentally incapable of grasping uncertainty, and there is lots and lots of uncertainty in the current batch of climate models. Worse, they won’t get any better with slightly smaller raster boxes due to the large scale differences convection systems can show. You can safely ignore them for the next 20 years; they’re junk.

    Reply
  • K

    KayOct 23, 2010 at 9:26 pm

    Adaption…

    Reply
  • K

    KateOct 23, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    The writer seems fairly intelligent, I’m sorry that he does not understand the difference between weather and climate, a fairly basic concept the majority of is argument is based on.

    Reply
  • B

    BrandonOct 23, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    ” To believe that a CO2 rheostat exists to vary world-wide temperature is comical. ”

    An inconvenient truth for Rusty: ignorance of planetary systems.

    Surface temperatures absolutely depend on the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is a wonderful absorber of infrared wavelengths, which is the primary wavelength range the Earth radiates at. Atmospheric chemical composition is therefore a very important factor in determining average surface temperatures in a planetary system of our size. If there were a mechanism which increased the relative composition of CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be a difference. Venus is a perfect example of this.

    Reply
  • J

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)Oct 22, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    Rusty,

    What is a tranquil climate? And what does your sentence have to do with any known reality?

    As to adapting. Much easier when the world was less populated, but adapt? How easy or cheap do you think it will be to move hundreds of cities and towns? Or are you suggesting just abandoning the existing infrastructure and building elsewhere?

    Re, the CO2 rheostat, what are you talking about? comical? If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, you yourself would be frozen. The earth would be a frozen ball of ice. try studying the subject first and try to stick to scientific literature, not misc. stuff on the Internets.

    Re Hurricanes. You have a scientific cite for your statement? Number of named storms is clearly trending up. Where are you getting your data from?

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/hurricanes

    Reply
  • R

    RustyOct 22, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Good job Shane. To the warmists: when was our climate ever tranquil, anyway? Maybe we should just do what we’ve always done, adapt! To believe that a CO2 rheostat exists to vary world-wide temperature is comical. And how about the drop-off in hurricane and typhoon activity, despite ever-increasing CO2? Another inconvenient truth for the warmists.

    Reply
  • J

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)Oct 21, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Rich says:
    October 20, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    Hey Rich,

    If that is your name – Kinda hard to believe you made it into a scholarly institution when you can’t get facts into relevant context?

    Publishing in a blog does not traditionally hold the same editing standards as a formal article, and yes I sometimes type a bit fast and a little loose; and that upsets people that nitpick.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism#Hypercriticism

    “in Feb. and it snowed while we were there”

    Snow in Merry old England – Facts out of context:

    First, weather is not climate:

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/weather-v.-climate

    Second, we had a deep and prolonged negative phase of the AO last winter:

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-oscillation-ao

    The cold air moved to lower latitudes and warm air moved into the polar region (study first, then postulate).

    Re. MWP. Ice core records and other proxies confirm that MWP occurred. However, the evidence does not indicate that MWP was warmer than today:

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/medieval-warm-period

    I have never met a climate scientist that denies the MWP. But evidence indicates that it is likely and largely related to natural variation, most likely a DO event.

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events

    Opinions do count. But expertise and evidence counts more. It’s all relative. If you required brain surgery, would you consult a janitor or a brain surgeon for advice on how to proceed. And which one, form which category of expertise, would you trust regarding your brain surgery?

    “Lot’s of real scientists” – Like S. Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr., Roy Spencer, Henrik Svensmark; you mean those scientists. Their arguments have been weighed, measured and found lacking when examined against the body of evidence.

    “To shout down those that disagree with you only serves to cast doubt on the strength of your argument!”

    False and red herring argument, also non sequitur: The debate in science is never over, but the fact that we don’t know everything does not mean we don’t know something:

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/what-we-dont-know
    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/what-we-know

    What we do know is the major signals and general attribution. What we don’t know falls into the category of inter and intra decadal natural variation and how to parse the signals that are still currently in the noise.

    Study:

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/attribution
    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/forcing-levels


    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: Natural CycleGreenhouse EffectClimate Science HistoryArctic Ice Melt

    Reply
  • J

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)Oct 21, 2010 at 3:24 am

    chesterfield says:
    October 20, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    ^^^to all the people posting long comments:

    you are maroons

    So when you turn in your work to your professors, you never properly address the subject?

    And you’re calling others maroons?

    Reply
  • R

    RichOct 20, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    Hey John,

    If that is your name – kinda hard to believe you represent any scholarly legit organization when you can’t even spell “fourth” right. By the way I was in Merry Old England three years ago – in Feb. and it snowed while we were there – shocker! So much for that as well as the rest of your bogus claims. As far as your supposed claims – numerous climatologists have noted that the Med. Warm Period was indeed warmer than present and this is indeed confirmed by ice core samples! Must have been all the factories the Vikings were building as they sailed all around the world. Why is it that to you Global Warming alarmist no one else’s opinion counts. Lots of real scientists disagree with the idea that man is responsible for the warming trend. Yet to you and your ilk that is unforgiveable and unacceptable! Have we gone back to the Middle Ages – where no one can disagree with the White Tower, the powers to be! The fact is that the DEBATE IS NOT OVER! To shout down those that disagree with you only serves to cast doubt on the strength of your argument!

    Reply
  • C

    chesterfieldOct 20, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    ^^^to all the people posting long comments:

    you are maroons

    Reply
  • R

    Russell GoodOct 20, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    The climate change debate detracts from the issues that really matter.i.e eco-system fragmentation/degradation, pollution etc. Believing either camp wont help to solve the issues.

    Reply
  • J

    JackOct 20, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Climate scam.

    Reply
  • J

    JamesOct 19, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    @Stuart Blaber says:
    October 19, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Stuart, I would submit, that is your fear, and people like you, that is propagating the alarmism. I have complete and total faith in man’s adaptability. We’ll be fine. I know this because there’s plenty of evidence the Norse farmed Greenland. There was less ice then and the world thrived. Weird huh? As far as warmth = Teutonic plate shifts? TY for showing the world alarmism at its best! Stuart, please do yourself a favor and study the poles, both of them….and causes for earthquakes, too, while you’re at it. As far as anecdotal evidence, why would yours carry any more weight than anyone else?

    Reply
  • J

    JamesOct 19, 2010 at 7:27 pm

    @ John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) says:
    October 19, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    lol, yeh, the ice is still trending down if your arbitrary start point is chosen to show such. The point is, Antarctic ice continues to grow, re. the Arctic: while you’re correct 3 yrs doesn’t make for much, it is hard to assert they “caps are melting” when 3 years ago marked the low point for one pole, and the other is consistently growing. Looking where you chose doesn’t help your argument either.

    As to the MWP and LIA. Sure, the earth has warmed and cooled in the past because of natural variations, only now, the earth has warmed a bit, but you’re sure it isn’t natural. Apparently, feedbacks and albedo effects didn’t count back then!

    Sis, I wasn’t appealing to authority, only showing that there isn’t such a thing as a climatologist in the purest of definitions. But, if we’re to simply trust the ones that have engaged in climate science, Lindzen is a good place to start. What also is telling, would be scientists that have engaged in the past with an alarmist tilt only to come to a skeptical conclusion. Dr. Hal Lewis would be a great example. As far a coming to an understanding of our climate, I’ll submit that there isn’t a soul alive that does. Once somebody can adequately answer all the questions each discipline listed asks, I’ll rethink my position.

    Obviously, you’ve never been in the military. When they said they gathered at the north pole, that’s where they were. More, it simply illustrates the how fallacious the assertion was that the Arctic ice cap has been frozen for millions of years. It simply isn’t true.(oops another feedback/albedo affect assertion crushed.)

    Oh, as to your question about the “consensus” regarding the logarithmic function of CO2…….OH SNAP!!!(thanks, I didn’t know if I’d get someone to bite or not!) I forgot I was invoking mathematics. If you’re not familiar, that’s a hard science that isn’t ran by consensus. As far as the science goes, read Svante Arrhenius(familiar I hope?) He correctly identifies the logarithmic function he was just wrong about the ratios(and starting point), which he later writes about and attempts to correct himself. All you have to do, is plug in the numbers. Good luck with that. For some world renown statisticians’ thoughts on the function, go here, http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/ or you can read the Wegman report.(again, you familiar?)McShane and Wyner address other statistical difficulties of climate science. If you’d like some cold hard facts, and again an explanation of the function, go here…..http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

    You see, one of the biggest problems climatologists run into, is when they leave the hard sciences(math, physics, chemistry and the like) out of a problem that isn’t as intangible as economics or political science.

    Best regards,

    James

    Reply
  • S

    sacculinaOct 19, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    Also…
    Why on earth does this appear in the ‘News’ section of this site, when at best it could be called an editorial or opinion piece. In fact it should probably have its own special section called ‘random, poorly researched rants’.

    Reply
  • L

    LROct 19, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    Makes me want to boycott the Collegian when they print this kind of junk.

    Reply
  • S

    Stuart BlaberOct 19, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    The science IS settled. The details are subject to variation.
    If one doesn’t understand how earthquakes are caused by climate change then back to high school for you (www.stueysplace.ca for a quick lesson). The poles ARE melting. Look at the NASA satellite pictures to see the difference. Don’t use a minor local cooling to diagnose a long term world wide trend. Using data from millions of years ago when there were no humans to suggest that we will survive todays changes is ludicrous. Don’t let fear of death affect your interpretation of the facts.

    Reply
  • A

    AlexOct 19, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Why does no one edit these articles? There are embarrassingly simple errors throughout the piece. In addition, most of Cronin’s arguments are specious.

    Really, I am not just unimpressed, I’m disgusted with how sloppy the whole thing looks.

    Reply
  • M

    michael coteOct 19, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Reply
  • J

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)Oct 19, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    James,

    3 years is not recovery it’s natural variation. Besides, the ice mass is still trending down, your looking at ice extent. Looking in the wrong place does not help you find the right information.

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-ice

    As to MWP and LIA, yes, I’m quite familiar. MPW was a bit warmer and probably, or even most likely, related to a combination of things including a Dansgaard-Oeschger event which has to do with oceanic heat content overturn on 1470 year cycles.

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events

    As to your claim of current consensus for doubling CO2 is 1-2º C. Do you have a ‘scientific’ cite for that? Actually more than one, would help since you are claiming 1-2 is consensus. I’d be happy to read the scientific literature on it.

    As to appeal to authority. I trust those that work in the field more than those who don’t. For example, credibility comes with standing on the scientific literature (peer review and peer response).

    No, you don’t need a PhD in climatology to understand it. But if you have a PhD and you sign a petition that says something is or is not true just because you say so, ‘that’ is an appeal to authority.

    Therefore James, Pot, meet Kettle.

    I know all about the north pole gatherings. What you don’t know is the precise lat and long of the photos. But that is a red herring anyway. Ice flows shift all the time. It is neither proof of warming or cooling to be standing or not standing on ice.


    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: Natural CycleGreenhouse EffectClimate Science HistoryArctic Ice Melt

    Reply
  • S

    sacculinaOct 19, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Could you please stop the tired, bogus and long discredited arguments at challenging the science, which has been well established for almost 20 years, and supported by all but a tiny minority of scientists – who are often in the pockets of fossil fuel interests and/or driven by over-zealous free market philosophies – and who regurgitate the same tired old ‘deniers’ arguments against the science over and over again.
    It would be significantly less disingenuous to ‘man up’ and simply admit that you are simply acting out of self interest, don’t care about the affects of climate change and/or you are too comfortable with your cheap oil, and limitless consumer goods. That would be an honest and a significantly more morally and ethically superior position.

    Reply
  • D

    D. HenryOct 19, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Your political leanings aside. What I find most challenging about your message is your delivery: an angy diatribe. Though, I generally resist generalizations (some “right-wingers’ are my best friends) the nature of your writing serves to move people to the left rather than fuel your cause or foster debate. I am left to wonder what you are like when behind the wheel or in a line at Starbucks, with such a rude approach your’e making the world a worse place not a better one.

    And no matter how you feel about climate change, why would you not choose to live a cleaner life; creating less waste and pollution. Your message says it all – it’s because your opinionated and abusive. Dude, just chill.

    Reply
  • R

    Russell COct 19, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Fascinating that you mention the Petition Project. It appears that Obama’s own Science Czar John Holdren was entangled in a highly questionable effort to quash the Petition back in 1998, using words that are routinely regurgitated in talking points against the Petition to this day. See: The Curious History of ‘Global Climate Disruption’ ” http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_curious_history_of_global.html

    That brings up another question worthy of asking about those who claim skeptic scientists are corrupt. Such global warming believers cite a ‘1991-era internal coal industry memo’ as their smoking gun evidence against skeptic scientists, yet the memo in its complete context is never seen anywhere on the internet. Why is that?

    Reply
  • A

    Aaron HuertasOct 19, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Mr. Cronin,

    Your column is quite insulting. If Knobloch’s answer to your question seemed “rehearsed” perhaps it is because we have been hearing spurious arguments about snow for 20 years. Snow does not disprove climate change. No scientist ever predicted the end of snow due to global warming.

    If you plan on continuing a career as a commentator, pundit or writer, I would encourage you to become more familiar with the topics on which you write. This column, by James Manzi, in the National Review, is worth reading: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/198279/i-liberty-and-tyranny-i-and-epistemic-closure/jim-manzi

    That said, there is still a large market for uninformed demagoguery and you seem well poised to tap into it.

    Thanks,
    Aaron Huertas
    Union of Concerned Scientists

    Reply
  • D

    Dwayne McKnightOct 19, 2010 at 8:37 am

    @Stuart Blaber
    With all due respect, you can’t just recite a list of ecological problems and assume they contradict Mr. Cronin’s point. I’m not saying I’m for or against Cronin’s arguments, but you mentioned several problems, albeit quite severe ones, that have little to no link to global warming whatsoever. Please stick to the issue at hand in order to avoid spreading any ignorance of the issue on to those who read the comments.

    Reply
  • J

    JamesOct 19, 2010 at 6:26 am

    Sounds like someone had trouble with their homework.

    Reply
  • G

    Green SandOct 19, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Orkneygal says:

    “The overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today.”

    Yup, with climate models the future is certain only the past is unpredictable.

    Reply
  • J

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)Oct 19, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Re. Orkneygal

    For the readers, she states:

    the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today.

    Roman and Minoan are collocated regionally. They are not worldwide.

    To illustrate this ask yourself this: Is Rome and Minoa also located in Canada, Africa, China, Australia, Russia, The Antarctic, The Arctic, Polynesia, Norway, and Brazil?

    Or are they only located in the Mediterranean?


    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: Natural CycleGreenhouse EffectClimate Science HistoryArctic Ice Melt

    Reply
  • J

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)Oct 19, 2010 at 4:59 am

    Orkneygal,

    No climate scientist has ever denied the existence of the medieval warm period. The evidence shows that the MWP did happen. Everyone I know at the IPCC US EPA and the UK MET Office know the evidence. You are simply making a false claim.

    Of course you are anonymous, so you don’t have to take any responsibility for your words. Typical of those that don’t ascribe to the conservative principles of responsibility. You have also shown yourself to be a liberal with your statements. Real conservatives don’t liberally throw words around with out any substance behind them.

    Well, what can one say about a person that cuts and paste the same post over an over and over and over again – without evidence to support her claim? I goggled her post and found 160. Here are a few:

    http://washingtonindependent.com/100324/toomey-disputes-man-made-climate-change-sounds-reasonable

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Orkneygal/an-open-letter-to-all-peo_b_674001_56298044.html

    http://alttransport.com/2010/09/climate-change-is-a-serious-public-health-issue/

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20010652-54.html

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed-global-warming-with-existing-fossil-fuel-infrastructure

    http://magblog.audubon.org/sweltering-summer-proof-global-warming

    http://thepubliceditor.com/rtKinetic/tag/climategate/

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/why-dont-republicans-believe-in-climate-change/

    http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/what-climate-models-can-tell-us-about-the-future-and-what-they-cant/Content?oid=1739556


    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: Natural CycleGreenhouse EffectClimate Science HistoryArctic Ice Melt

    Reply
  • J

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)Oct 19, 2010 at 4:14 am

    GUrgeh

    Please explain how “increased earthquake activity” is caused by climate change?

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8889-glacial-earthquakes-rock-greenland-ice-sheet.html
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5768/1756
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090102101455.htm
    http://blogs.physicstoday.org/update/2008/08/glacial_earthquakes_in_greenla.html

    Please explain why Arctic ice is recovering much faster this year than previously.

    Ice extent is not the same as Ice mass loss. The ice ‘extent’ recovers every year. Watch the one minute video, it includes military satellite data.

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-ice

    Please explain why we should believe scientists who a few years ago said the Arctic would be ice free by now, but now say that it may take decades?

    Please provide ‘scientific’ cite. I have never heard a scientist say the ice would be gone by now?

    Please explain why the UK Met office a few years ago said that UK children would grow up without ever seeing it snow at home and this would change our culture?

    Please provide ‘scientific’ cite.

    The last 3 winters have been marked by increasingly heavy snows.

    Warmer oceans increase atmospheric moisture content and what goes up must come down in the form of precipitation, rain or snow. Add to that the negative phase AO (Arctic Oscillation) and you’ve got your answer.

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-oscillation-ao

    Please explain why the Russians have, based on their meteorological records, published a book which states that we are now in a cooling phase.

    Provide ‘scientific’ cite. Average temperatures have risen in Russia. Then of course there are blocking events:

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/leading-edge/2010/aug-the-leading-edge

    Please explain what is wrong with warming? Warmth and more CO2 mean better crop production, and hence more food.

    While even I thought that net primary production would increase for at least another decade or more, that may not be the case now:

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/leading-edge/2010/sep-the-leading-edge

    Also, FACE experiments done during the Bush administration indicate that crops that don’t fix nitrogen lose proteins. That’s not so good actually.

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/leading-edge/2009/oct-the-leading-edge

    because they don’t have the access to cheap energy which the developed world has.

    Obviously you have not read the latest reports from our national security sector.

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/leading-edge/2010/2010-feb-the-leading-edge

    they should stay poor because of a disproven scientific claim that CO2 is a “pollutant.”

    Wow! This last phrase actually qualifies you to run for office in America! Congratulations!!! Pull the CO2 is not a pollutant and anyone that wants to regulate it is evil and hates the poor. What office are you running for? BTW if you are going to run for office, you might want to use your real name. Just to at least feign transparency.

    Ever heard of the Carbon 14 isotope? And what happens when GCR’s hit a carbon molecule?

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/co2-is-not-a-pollutant


    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: Natural CycleGreenhouse EffectClimate Science HistoryArctic Ice Melt

    Reply
  • G

    GiorgioOct 19, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Richard Pauli,

    What is “reactionary carbon anarchism” ? This is obviously some crap that fanatics like you dream about at night. Give me a break !!!!!

    Anthropogenic global warming is nothing but a scam, exploited by the greens, by the UN, by Al Gore and all his good buddies, which obviously includes you and some of the other guys who post their drivel on this blog.

    Reply
  • J

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)Oct 19, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Shane,

    First, I agree with you that Cap & Trade is a bad idea.

    So, your a college student. One of the bright young stars of our future? Well, let’s hope that in your very near future you learn to study first before making unsubstantial claims. Anyone can say some web site said… Real students study the scientific literature and confirm or disprove the claims. It’s your choice as to which category you will be in in the future. Now let me guess, you have not studied the actual science, right? What’s you major?

    Your first mistake is randomly quoting what some people say. Better to quote qualified scientists.

    Your second is to say 31,000 scientists say. Heck, you could say ‘200,000 scientists say’. But how many of them are working climate scientists? Does it really matter what a sociologist, an building engineer, a botanist, or someone who studies butterflies says about climate. Your in a university, look at the peer reviewed literature and the peer response. Try http://scholar.google.com/

    By doing this you can ensure that you will not make unfounded claims such as your post above and you will improve your knowledge and understanding. I realize you’re still in school, but if you learn to check your facts and the relevant contexts of statements prior to emoting, you will be standing on firmer ground.

    Ice age in the 70’s: Dig a little deeper:

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-cooling

    Re your question

    I pose the question to you, Global Warming Zealots. How did planet Earth emerge from five ice ages without hundreds of millions of “greenhouse gas producing” cars on the road like there are today?

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles

    Let’s get to your snow question:

    If the world is warming, how is it that snow fell in all 50 states last winter including in the mountains of Hawaii?

    1. Global warming does not eliminate winter.

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/weather-v.-climate

    2. Warmer oceans evaporate more moisture which falls as precipitation, when it’s warm, that precipitation is rain, when it’s cold, it’s snow.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918090803.htm
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/GLOB_CHANGE/extremes.html

    3. Winter 2009/2010 was a strong negative phase AO (Arctic Oscillation)

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-oscillation-ao

    bringing cold Arctic air down to lower latitudes. Keep in mind that the average temperature in the Arctic has risen over the last 30 years by around around 9º C (16.2º F)

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-polar-amplification-effect

    In other words, we are changing the dynamics of climate globally. So yes, you can even get snow in Bagdhad, Iraq, but it melts faster and that usually happens when the AO is in strong negative phase. Interestingly, some scientists are beginning to wonder if a warmer world will produce more and=/or stronger negative AO events.

    Good for skiing 🙂

    Now here’s the fun part. If you can prove it, and get it published in the peer reviewed literature, and have it survive peer response, you will be a hero to many, and adored by all. Good luck!

    Start with understanding the natural cycle (watch the one minute video first):

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

    Then move on to radiative physics:

    http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html


    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: Natural CycleGreenhouse EffectClimate Science HistoryArctic Ice Melt

    Reply
  • M

    Martin COct 19, 2010 at 2:45 am

    Interesting that 3 of the first 4 comments have their onw website that support AGW.

    Stuart Blaber, the arctic ice has receded over the past 30 or so years, thought the last three years show some increase over 2007. BUT you neglect to mention that ANTARCTIC Ice is GROWING. And sea level rise has been fairly constant over the past 100 years, at around 2 to 2.5 mm per year. No ‘catastrophic melting’ going on, in spite of the media. And the honey bee dieout is due to a virus/fungus combo:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/10/virus-fungus-combo-may-contribute-to-honeybee-die-off.html

    John Englander, you ought to darn well know that temperature LEADS CO2 in the cycles of the past 800,000 years. And the north pole HAS NOT been frozen solid for the past 2 million years. Look up naval reports and other sea reports for the arctic in the 1920/1930 time frame. Arctic ice was similar to what it was in 2007.
    And citing Real Climate, the website founding by the infamous Michael Mann of the ‘hockey stick’ fame, and William Connolley, who was barred from making article changes at Wikipedia by removing references to ‘natural climate change’ rather than man and CO2.

    Richard Pauli, nothing but personal attacks. What a joke.

    For those who read this, don’t just believe what I say. Do your onw research. Look up http://www.icecap.us, or www. wattsupwiththat.com. Look up Dr. Roy Spencer, or Dr. Richard Lindzen. Learn for yourself, like I did after the 2007 IPCC report came out, and the media was reporting that ‘the science is settled’. You might be surprised at what you find.

    Reply
  • P

    Peter WilliamsOct 19, 2010 at 2:35 am

    What a load of crap.

    You ridicule a caricature of mainstream professors with nothing to back you but simplistic observations, e.g. whether it snowed in all 50 states, and then you reference the Heritage Foundation’s numbers as though they were God-given fact.

    Amazing.

    Since you’re obviously so enamored of your own brilliance, why not do us all a favor and go get a major in the subject? You know, teach those liberal scientists how objective research is really done? Come on, I think it’d be a great learjing experience for everyone.

    ‘Course it means ditching the polemics and, in your case, perhaps some remedial precalc first. Hmm. Might be kinda hard, using the frontal cortex & all.

    Reply
  • R

    Rob SOct 19, 2010 at 2:30 am

    GUrgeh “Please explain what is wrong with warming?”
    Perhaps you should ask that question to people who live in Bangladesh, The Maldives, or Vanuatu, who will very likely soon be underwater (you’ll find them in something called an ‘atlas’).
    If you’d like an example closer to home (as the USA is of course all that matters) let’s look at where most of the ‘poor’ you seem so concerned about live in New Orleans, for example.
    And your notion of ‘cheap oil’ is merely a smokescreen for those that do not have the imagination to take any action against the real threat of climate change. No action is simply the recourse of the lazy or self interested. If you are acting on self interest rather than an actual understanding of the science, please at least have the courtesy to admit it.

    Reply
  • J

    JamesOct 19, 2010 at 2:08 am

    Well done Shane. Just to clear up some misinformation put out by some alarmists here,

    Stuart, you need to check the ice growth in the Antarctic. Also, note the Arctic ice reached a low 3 years ago and has recovered a bit since then. We haven’t had an increase in flooding and I don’t think anyone credible has posited such a thought. I can’t for the life of me see the connection with plate shifts with warming or CO2.

    John, 1. MWP and LIA. Look them up, it’d be good for you.
    2. No, do your math, 50 years ago would be 1960. 15 years later they were still talking about man causing the impending doom via ice age. More importantly, yes, Fourier was off a bit, by about 150%. Current consensus is doubling would raise 1-2 deg C. Given that the action is logarithmic, a next doubling would be 1/2 that. Try taking the next available algebra class. Then consider how much CO2 we have to potentially put in the atmosphere.
    3.Your appeal to authority is laughable. What, precisely, is the requisite educational background necessary to become a climatologist? Physics? Yes. Chemistry? Yes. Ecology? Yes. Biology? Yes Statistics? Yes…. and so on. Do you propose that any one climatologist today possesses a level of expertise in all of those fields? I know of no university that offers a doctorate in climatology. Please do some research on your poll that you are citing. While you’re researching please check in on the USS Skate, then the rendezvous of HMS Superb, USS Billfish and the USS Sea Devil at the North Pole 18 May 1987. The picture is clear evidence that the north pole wasn’t froze solid. Not 23 years ago, not 48 years ago. Give your link to RC, I’m sure you’re aware they don’t allow dissenting views there. It wouldn’t be very helpful to Shane in that they won’t post his questions if he framed them as he did here. Go here, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ or to WUWT if you wish to engage. Both alarmist and skeptic views are allowed in both sights. For you alarmists, please do come to them, they would be enlightening for you, I’m sure.

    Richard, couldn’t you have more easily said you didn’t agree with him but had nothing to offer as far as discussion points?

    Reply
  • G

    GUrgehOct 19, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Stuart Blaber: Please explain how “increased earthquake activity” is caused by climate change? Please explain why Arctic ice is recovering much faster this year than previously. Please explain why we should believe scientists who a few years ago said the Arctic would be ice free by now, but now say that it may take decades? Please explain why the UK Met office a few years ago said that UK children would grow up without ever seeing it snow at home and this would change our culture? The last 3 winters have been marked by increasingly heavy snows. Please explain why the Russians have, based on their meteorological records, published a book which states that we are now in a cooling phase. Are they in the pay of “Big Oil” too? Please explain what is wrong with warming? Warmth and more CO2 mean better crop production, and hence more food.

    Get off your new cult of “saving the planet” and focus on how you can help the millions of people who still live in poverty because they don’t have the access to cheap energy which the developed world has. It’s hypocrisy to say that they should stay poor because of a disproven scientific claim that CO2 is a “pollutant.”

    Reply
  • R

    Rob SOct 19, 2010 at 1:24 am

    I was going to write a comment, but then noticed Richard Pauli had already done it for me. Thank you Richard – you helped me avoid wasting my time addressing the utter nonsense of this piece.

    Reply
  • O

    OrkneygalOct 19, 2010 at 12:44 am

    The overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today.

    However, the MWP deniers, such as the IPCC, US EPA and the UK’s MET Office, will never admit the existence of the MWP because it means that their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.

    In total, climate change is complex and not well understood.

    But this part is simple.

    Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth’s temperature regulator.

    In the past, the Earth was warmer than it is today; before the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly and life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to both boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money along the way.

    Useless, misguided attempts to control carbon are not the answer to the ever changing climate.There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.

    That is adaptation.

    One of the many links to the overwhelming Paleoclimate evidence of the global nature of the MWP is below.

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    More information

    http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

    Reply
  • J

    John DoddsOct 19, 2010 at 12:35 am

    The Climate Scientists , Arrhenius, IPCC etc deny reality. They claim that more CO2 or GHGs causes more warming, in spite of the fact that reality proves them wrong every night. In spite of Man producing more CO2 the reduction in the incoming and ground radiated energy photons (used with the GHG in the Greenhouse Effect) causes cooling every night, every winter,, every ice age… Reducing the GHE nightly adds more unused excess GHGs to the air. It is the variation of the energy photons, not the number of excess GHGs in the air that dictates the temperature, and the greenhouse effect. This contradicts the IPCC mantra that more GHGs causes more warming..
    Changes in the planetary eccentricity changes the amount of energy photons and stored gravitational potential energy that causes the Earth’s temperature naturally. The 60 year Jupiter/Saturn orbital resonance causes the 1, 12 (1998 and 2010 peaks)and 60 year Earth temperature cycles (1880, 1940, 1998…) Man has nothing to do with it. see http://www.scribd.com “Gravity causes Climate Change” for more info.
    In the air there are excess GHGs and a limited number of photons (1366W/m^2) Adding more GHGs just adds more to the excess. With Excess GHGs there are no excess photons available to produce more warming. Hence adding GHGs just adds more excess GHGs, not more warming. If there were more excess photons available to cause more warming they would just get used and the excess GHGs in the ocean would boil away. News Flash: The oceans have NOT boiled away!!
    So called feedback effects where more CO2 causes warming which causes more Water Vapor GHGs which cause more GHE warming, do not exist. There is already excess (20-40,000 ppm) water vapor in the air, when the added CO2 sopposedly adds more. Since ground radiation produces about the same number of 15um CO2 absorbable photons as it produces the 20um WV absorbable photons, then we are left with many many more excess GHGs. Man does NOT cause so called feedback effects. Why would Mother Nature wait for man to add more Water Vapor when she can readily use the excess that is already in the air if she wants to.
    The so called climate science in the models is a politico-scientific fraud. NASA/GISS is defrauding the public of research money. The NAS is producing fraudulent reports using Government contracts. It’s a good thing the Taxman-Malarkey bill was defeated.

    Reply
  • R

    Richard PauliOct 18, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    Your quintessentially delusional drivel really stood out on the Internet, I must comment:

    I now think that such politically scripted speech such as yours actually works to confirm your belief in the reality of global warming. That’s because a true denialist would just ignore the entire issue. Authentic denial is more out-of-sight, out-of-mind.

    Like a hired PR flack, you are more argumentative; like a debater who knows well just what weak points to avoid – you refuse to address any science.

    You end up being a sort of propagandist for reactionary carbon anarchism.

    Reply
  • J

    John EnglanderOct 18, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    From the tone of your self confidence that you are the smartest person in the room, with the ability to see the “scam” given your knowledge of the ice ages, I can only humbly suggest a few things for you to research:
    1.You cite, “5 ice ages before the industrial revolution” – The last one peaked about 20,000 years ago. They have occurred very regularly every 100,000 years for about 2.7 million years. General science consensus is that the trigger is the Milankovitch Cycle — the coinciding of three planetary orbital fluctuations, the eccentricity, the obliquity, and the precession. The net result is that the amount of sunlight (heat) that hits the polar region (60 degrees N) changes by about 1% – enough to trigger an ice age, which brought global average temperatures about 5 degrees C (9 degrees F) lower than present.
    2. It is true that up until about 50 years ago, there was talk of a cooling, towards the next ice age. That actually would have followed the 100 kyr cycle of ice ages I just referenced – they warm for about 20 kyrs, then cool more gradually for about 80 krys. The evidence is pretty clear that the CO2 levels that have continually accelerated for a few centuries have now overwhelmed the natural cooling forces that operated for the past several million years. This is not some new “Scam” perpetrated by Al Gore or any other “liberals.” In fact the science that CO2 acts like a greenhouse was established by the famous French math genius Fourier in 1826. In 1896, a brilliant Swedish chemist estimated that burning fossil fuels and doubling the CO2 level could increase the average global temperature by approx 4-6 degrees C, which would have a catastrophic effect. (He was off slightly, but not bad considering no satellites or computers.) The historic level of CO2 fluctuated between about 180 – 280 ppm, cycling with those natural cycle ice ages. Now CO2 is at 388 ppm and climbing. For 800,000 years CO2 and temperature have gone in lockstep. That is the cause for concern.
    3. As for the petition project with 31,000 scientists including 9,000 PhD., that has been rather well put in context. Hardly any of them are experts in climate. Many are meteorologists, i.e. weather forecasters. One predicts weather for days or weeks; the other studies patterns over years, centuries, and millennia. Kind of like an Accountant who looks at a business, and an economist who looks at the national economy. Both use numbers and spreadsheets, but completely different skill sets. Among PhD climatologists, 95% are in agreement that the greenhouse gases are now having a significant impact on our climate. Pretty well explained at http://www.skepticalscience.com — See #3 most common argument “there is no consensus.” A good site with a bit more scientific detail is http://www.realclimate.org
    While the science can be confusing, one indicator gives a rather good proof about the warming. The north pole has been frozen solid for over 2 million years. For the last few decades, satellite photos and on the ice observations document precipitous melting. Estimates for when the Arctic will be ice free vary from the latter part of this decade, or perhaps three decades from now. Regardless of the non-linear melting, the “tipping points”, that is a profound change for this planet’s weather patterns, as many other repercussions. The models indicate that the Arctic will not refreeze with year round “permanent” ice for thousands of years.
    Best wishes on your search for truth and knowledge in your collegial pursuits.

    Reply
  • S

    Stuart BlaberOct 18, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    Perhaps Shane would like to explain why, in spite of the localized snow and cold weather, the poles and glaciers are melting, we have increased flooding, increased earthquake activity, desertification, increased weather volatility, mass migrations, and species die offs.
    Perhaps you could explain why at this time of year when the Canadian Geese always fly south for the winter, they have for the past 4 winters been flying north. Perhaps you cold explain why the honey be that pollinate 1/3 of the world food supply is dying off. We no longer have any bees, wasps of bumble bees where I live. We have very few butterflies or dragon flies. Almost all frogs are gone.

    Reply
  • J

    JustinOct 18, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    Great column, Shane

    Reply