TCS Daily

Proliferation of Climate Scepticism in Europe

By Hans H.J. Labohm - November 5, 2007 12:00 AM

Climate scepticism has now gained a firm foothold in various European countries.

In Denmark Bjørn Lomborg stands out as the single most important sceptical environmental­ist, defying the political correctness which is such a characteristic feature of his home country, as well as other Nordic countries. But wait! Bjørn Lomborg is not a genuine climate sceptic. Real climate sceptics admire his courage, his scientific rigour and debating skills, but beg to disagree with him on the fundamentals of climate science. Lomborg acknowledges that there is such a thing as man-made global warming, which is quite in line with the mantra of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). He 'only' challenges the cost benefit relationships of the policy meas­ures, which have been proposed to do something about it. Massive expenditures (often euphemistically called 'investments') in exchange for undetectable returns. Real climate sceptics do not accept the man-made global warming hypothesis. They are of the opinion that the human contribution to global warming over the last century or so is at most insignificant. But, of course, they are happy with the arguments advanced by Bjørn Lomborg to bolster their case against climate hysteria.

In Germany EIKE (Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie, Jena: has been established - still in its infancy, but nevertheless. Moreover, a group of German climate sceptics has written something which could be called a consensus among many climate sceptics: Climate Manifest of Heiligenroth (See: Furthermore there are many climate sceptical websites in Germany. For those who like visual thrills and possess a basic command of the German language, Konrad Fischer's website might be fun: 'Videos and films concerning the greenhouse swindle and climate terror' (

But the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) belief is still overwhelming in Germany. In newspapers and on TV, Stefan Rahmstorf, the German climate Torquemada, -- comparable to Al Gore in the US, George Monbiot in the UK and David Suzuki in Canada -- are constantly attacking critics of the AGW hypothesis. Contrary to good scientific practice, he lavishly lards his interventions with ad hominem attacks and insinuations that his opponents lack qualifications and/or are being paid by industry. Although decades of pro AGW indoctrination has left its mark on the German psyche, even true believers are becoming fed up with him.

In Sweden, despite its high standards of political correctness, there is a very vocal group of climate sceptics, which regularly publish in 'Elbranchen'. In September 2006 they organised a seminar: 'Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability'. This meeting was hosted by the Royal Technical High School in Stockholm and chaired by its rector, Peter Stilbs (See: Even Swedish TV has aired a debate on the issue. For those who have some command of the Scandinavian languages, see: Veckans Debatt: Global uppvärming: Vad säger vetenskapen?

In Italy the Bruno Leoni Institute has espoused climate scepticism ( In Spain, the foundation Rafael del Pino has paid attention to climate scepticism in the past, but because of social and political pressure it has felt forced to keep a low profile on this issue over the last few years. ( In the French-speaking part of Europe, individual scientists such as as Marcel Leroux could be mentioned. Moreover, the Molinari Institute has joined the cause of climate scepticism ( In the Czech Republic, President Vaclav Havel is single-handedly attempting to instil some common sense into public opinion. In Austria the Hayek Institute carries the torch (, while Estonia is represented by Olavi Kärner (

In my own country, the Netherlands, the situation has markedly improved. In line with the tradition of consensus-seeking, it has been possible to establish something close to a real dialogue between AGW adherents and the climate sceptics. Personally, I have even been invited by the Nether­lands Royal Meteorological Institute (KNMI) to become expert reviewer of the IPCC. As such, I have submitted many fundamental criticisms on the draft texts of the Fourth Assessment Re­port of the Panel (AR4). What happened to my comments? To be honest, I have not the faintest idea. Most probably, nothing at all.

Nevertheless, in my capacity as expert reviewer of the IPCC, I have also received (a tiny) part of the Nobel price, which has been awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC (yes, thanks for your congratulations). Should I be grateful? I don't think so. Both 'An Inconvenient Truth' and the latest IPCC report labour under cherry-picking, spindoctoring and scare-mongering (Al Gore's movie more than the IPCC reports). Awarding the Nobel price for such flawed science is a disgrace. But it should be recalled that the Nobel Prize for Peace is being awarded by a group of (five) Norwegian politicians and not by the Swedish Academy of Science, which is always scrupulously investigating the merits of the candidates. The Norwegians are piggybacking on the reputation of the Nobel prizes for science and literature. The method of electing the winner of the Peace prize ensures a political outcome reflecting the current strength of Norwegian political parties. Four out of five members of the parliamentary committee that selected Gore are former cabinet members. The fifth, Mjoes, was president of the University of Tromso. So the Democrat Gore owes his prize to a constellation of Progressives, Social and Christian Democrats and Green socialists. Little wonder Francis Sejersted, past chairman of the committee, admits: 'Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.'

Russian scientists are criticising very openly the AGW hypothesis. They do it with a frankness which - in this particular field - is still rare in the 'free world'. Usually scientists shroud their statements in clouds of caveats. Even the IPCC follows this tradition to a certain extent. But Russian climatologists do not. They simply state that a new little ice age is imminent. Not so long ago it was astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, who declared that the Earth will experience a 'mini Ice Age' in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity. Now it is the climatologist Olech Sorochtin, member of the Russian Academy of Physical Science, who joins him. His message was prominently disseminated by the Russian press agency Novosti, which in the period of the Cold War was generally considered to be a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. ( Therefore, it is perhaps not too far-fetched to speculate that this might be a warning signal that the Russians will drop out of Kyoto when its first phase expires in 2012.

But Britannia rules the waves. Stewart Dimmock, a Kent lorry driver and school governor, took the government to court for sending copies of Gore's film to schools. He was backed by a group of campaigners, including Viscount Monckton, a former adviser to Mrs Thatcher. They won a legal victory against 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Mr Justice Burton ruled that the movie contained at least nine scientific errors and said ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened. 'That ruling was a fantastic victory,' said Monckton. 'What we want to do now is send schools material reflecting an alternative point of view so that pupils can make their own minds up.' Monckton has also won support from the maker of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Martin Durkin, managing director of WAG TV, which produced the documentary, said he would be delighted for his film to go to schools. I have become a proselytiser against the so-called consensus on climate change ... people can decide for themselves,' he said.

And what about our kids? Well, they have survived the story of Santa Claus without any visible scars. Wouldn't they survive the nonsense of man-made global warming as well?

Hans Labohm is an independent economist. Together with Dick Thoenes and Simon Rozendaal, he is co-author of 'Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma'.



Russian computers
I wonder if Russian climatologists would reach the same conclusions if they had the computing capacity of NCAR?

What must be admired about Russian science and technology is they have done a remarkable job without depending upon computer models.

NASA spends millions on a pressurized pen while the Russians use a pencil.

Clearasil Sun - 28 days and counting, and still no spots!

Solar Update / Spotless Days
11/04/2007 by VE3EN at 17:45

The solar flux remains at 68 and the sun continues on its blank streak.

During the last solar cycle minimum in 1996 there was 37 days straight (some reports show 42) where the sunspot number was 0. Will that record be broken? Time will tell.

Days without a sunspot = 28

Response to CBC's The Denial Machine
Response to CBC's The Denial Machine

EU, finally getting some balllss.
How ironic that a Danish queeerr could help those euro-eunuchs to grow a pair. The only problem though with that huge list of real scientists who say this left-wing litany by the red-turned-greens is crap, is that the irrational scare mongers in the US will say they're all in the pay of the big oil companies. Maybe there's some hope for europe yet.

Solar Cycle 24

Here's a website that maintains the latest numbers on solar activity.

The start of solar cycle 24 is late, and the numbers are at or below the lowest projections from even 6 months ago.

Add this to the fact that solar cycles 22 and 23 were at historic highs (strongest in thousands of years).

Add to this the projections for solar cycle 25 are for Maunder Minimum type lows.

And ....

It's time to break out the heavy coats.

The little boy who cried wolf?
Looks like the left might have played out this ploy alos?

Maybe people are finally waking up to realize the left has nothing to sell but crisis and government.

Russian Programmers
During the Cold War I read that Soviet software designers had to work on essentially PC-XT systems long after they were obsolete. I also read that they wrote amongst the most efficient and well written code ever devised all to make maximum use of old technology.

Today PC code writers sling bloatware oblivious to any need for efficiency with all the cheap hardware. The only exception here is embedded programmers.

I wonder what they could do today if they applied the same techniques to a Quad Core PC?

Wait, aren't all these scientists non-existent?
Just ask LeFool.

I thought I would shout it before LeMule does.

I am sure that all of these scientists are just paid flunkies of Big Oil(!). Each and every one of them has ExxonMobil tattooed on their foreheads.

The debate is over everyone! The end is nigh!

Move on ExxonMobil, here comes Petro China
"PetroChina Co. almost tripled on its first day of trading in Shanghai, becoming the world's first company to be valued at $1 trillion, more than Exxon Mobil Corp. and General Electric Co. combined.

PetroChina shares rose to 43.96 yuan from the sale price of 16.7 yuan, giving the state-owned oil producer a greater market value than the entire Russian stock market.

The rally makes PetroChina shares four times more expensive than those of Exxon, even though China's biggest oil producer has a quarter of the revenue. China's stock market was valued at less than $1.1 trillion before tripling this year and giving the communist nation four of the world's 10 biggest companies, even after today's 5 percent tumble in Hong Kong stocks. "

And of course China is very concerned about global climate change.

Al Gore apparently thinks the media is to unbiased on MMGW.
Will they burn us at the stakes as heritics?

Talk to yourselves guys.
Yap your little heads off. Tell each other how smart you are, and how dumb and evil those gaia nannystate socialsit one-world liberal socialists are.

Won't change the science. Which doesn't need me to defend it.

New mines in Siberia
Of course the chinese will sign up to a Kyoto like agrerement - after all they are pouring billions into the Siberian Coalfields & I hear on the rail enthusiasts sites, a huge network of railways will be built from these newly discovered fields to the power stations.

On the plus side if the chinese do this they will help Australia by keeping our coal in the ground & not have those emissions count against us, mind you this will mean the end of the state economies of Queensland & New South Wales (Australia) as well as they rely on Chinese purchases of coal

czech president
Contrary to what you write, Vaclav Klaus is currently Czech president. Vaclav Havel, to the deep regret of politically correct leftists, retired from politics.

What science
good thing it doesn't need you to defend it.

Given your pathetic track record at defense.

Yet another study finding that clouds are a strong negative feedback.

Yet the IPCC contines to claim that clouds are a positive feedback. Indeed, it is only by using clouds and water vapor as strong positive feedbacks, that they are able to generate the scary predictions using their flawed models.

Alaskan glaciers have been retreating since the end of the LIA.

The recent melting is the continuation of a trend that is nearly 400 years old.

Evidence that climate and CO2 are not well connected

More evidence of an increase in solar output


The melting of European glaciers is nothing new

"over the past 10,000 years these slopes of the Alps have been green more than once."

Not exactly
I guess you missed the article headline, which was "Warming MIGHT Thin Heat Trapping Clouds. Even Roy Spencer, who wrote this thing, doesn't dare try to tell us it's a proven fact.

"Yet the IPCC contines to claim that clouds are a positive feedback."

Anyone not lying about all this admits that clouds both retain and reflect heat. Their activities are complex.

And high altitude cirrus are not the only kinds of clouds that retain heat. The commonest cause of warm nights is very low cloud cover, which keeps the day's sunlit heat next to the ground like a warm, cozy blanket.

Clear nights, as you and I both know, allow the heat to escape.

It's a cheap tactic, and evidence of fraudulent thinking, to keep your hand over half the evidence and shout about the other half, all the while accusing the other side of doing exactly what you're doing. Clouds reflect heat. They also trap heat.

March of the Lemmings
I live in a city full of PhD's, in fact the greatest number of PhD's as a percentage of the population, and I have yet to meet one person who thinks MMGW is real. Climate change, possibly but not related to CO2 emissions.

Oh, but I forget, they are fake scientists.

In addition, the very fact that Gore and ilk call for dissenters to be silenced is evidence of fraud. If the truth stand light then why the fear of dissent?

I was nauseated by the gal who testified before congress yesterday crying and bawling about the doom and gloom. It was so pathetic I could have puked. Geesh, all emotion, all of it based entirely on emotion. Have they no pride?

I am always amazed how quickly the lefts minions will jump on any crisis mentality freight train to follow the supposed saviors of humanity.

In fact, the left has a terrible record on human rights, freedom, slavery, ad nasium. The record is frightening and yet in the name of all of the above the sheep gather for the slaughter.

Like rats in a cage.

Which proves the climate is far more complex than we model.
Modeling and simulation is just that, a model. Get one parameter wrong and poof.

But that won't stop the left from taking our freedoms in the name of Gaia will it?

Sermon on the Mount
And the masses gathered before him in fear, spare us Oh Great One for we have sinned.

And Gore said "go forth and render unto Gaia that which is Gaia's and unto me that which is yours.

Hmmmm, Interesting
I've always been led to believe that clouds were pretty much a neutral. The blocks sunlight from reaching the ground and reflect back solar radiation, but they also act as a blanket, trapping residual heat near the ground. However, it doesn't surprise me that clouds could act as a net negative feedback.

LOL Pretty funny
Your right, it won't change the science, which is coming out more and more against AGW.

And no one can defend the alarmist hatemongering of the reds-turned-greeen who are most responsible for this clap-trap.

An Analysis of the Review of the IPCC
An Analysis of the Review of the IPCC
4AR WG I Report
by John McLean


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gives the impression that its Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) was thoroughly and diligently reviewed and the statements contained in the report were endorsed by a very high percentage of reviewers.

This analysis of the reviewers' comments for Working Group I (WG I) shows that the reality is rather different and that there is surprisingly little explicit support for
the key notion, that humans are very likely (90% to 95%) responsible for climate change.



No surprise here. The IPCC's 4AR process was corrupt, much like its predecessors. However, there were some new bizarre twists in AR4:
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was released first. Then the politicized drones who wrote the SPM proceeded to revise the detailed reports of the scientists to conform to their SPM. There! No more embarrassing contradictions...

And we are formulating global policies that cost trillions (no exaggeration - trillions) of dollars based on this dishonest, incompetent process.


The Kyoto Protocol is supported by scoundrels and imbeciles.

Regards, Allan

IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save

IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post - Canada

Friday, October 26, 2007

Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

"The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," he explains. "The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.' "

Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years -- he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC's final draft of its most recent report alone.

But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process.

"Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning."

Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: "We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

"Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.

"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."

Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."


- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute.


Vincent Gray is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a PhD in physical chemistry. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001.'

Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.
© National Post 2007 - Canada

Why don't you try reading the article, not just the headline?
From the firts paragraph:

"Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center."

Then roy attempts to distract attention from his own reading problems by proclaiming:

"Anyone not lying about all this admits that clouds both retain and reflect heat. Their activities are complex."

A statement that is both true, and completely unrelated to the point that I made.

Speaking of cheap tactics roy, you display an excellent grasp of them.

Now, for once, why don't you deal with the points that I made, instead of the pathetic strawmen you keep throwing out.

Exactly my point
"Modeling and simulation is just that, a model. Get one parameter wrong and poof."

You've finally gotten one thing right. The models your trainers peddle to you, not to mention the ones all climate scientists are busily creating, might all go up in a puff of smoke next week. Roy Spencer, for instance, doesn't even seem to understand that we spend half of each day in the dark.

"While low clouds have a predominantly cooling effect due to their shading of sunlight, most cirrus clouds have a net warming effect on the Earth," Spencer said.
(from the article)

When the sun is up, low clouds can cool the surface. But during the other twelve hours they hold the day's heat in. Ask any TV weather person. Or check it yourself, the next cloudy night. It'll be warmer, unlike those cold, clear nights.

RS is either somehow ignorant of this or (far more likely) he's wilfully obscuring this basic fact. So already, his model is wrong.

I never take anyone's models that seriously. They're all subject to revision, in light of further observation. And they'll all get corrected as time goes on. What I look at is the fact that worldwide, ice is melting beyond anything we've experienced since before the last ice age. It is very definitely getting warmer all over.

And I would be one of those lefty, greenie devils you froth at the mouth over. I doubt you'll find anyone out there who says that there are no causes of earth's warming but man-made ones. Everyone says that man is a major contributor, and that natural factors play a role.

But your being right depends on your stick-figure "the left" always believing in some ignorant model like it's some kind of religion. So go on living in the cloud. Next week you'll be making the exact same argument.

In the clouds
You're right. Clouds have a complex effect on temperature, as they both retain heat and reflect it. Any honest climate scientist will tell you we just don't know enough yet to confidently include them in the models. Thus they are left out.

We can't say with the slightest degree of assurance, therefore, that "clouds could act as a net negative feedback".

roy actually believes that he knows what he is talking about.
roy, nobody has ever said that low clouds do not retain heat.

What they did say is that the overall affect of low level clouds is to cool.
Why don't you for once, try dealing with what people say, instead of the strawmen that you prefer dealing with.

Getting the model wrong
I don't think your point related only to this datum about fewer cirrus clouds being formed than predicted by someone's model. That's something I can't dispute-- I really don't know. Nor does anything I know about climate change depend on such a thing being true or false.

But you do produce an article by Roy Spencer as backup for your comment. And it's obvious at a glance that any model he creates using this summary of ideas has to be wrong. Look:

"While low clouds have a predominantly cooling effect due to their shading of sunlight, most cirrus clouds have a net warming effect on the Earth," Spencer said.

This would be true if the surface was bathed in daylight 34 hours a day. But it isn't. During the other twelve hours, low clouds keep the day's heat in. Ask any weather person.

If RS gets something simple like this wrong, why should we take him seriously on anything else? Low clouds have a neutral to a net warming effect.

roy admits that the models used to predict global warming are worthless.
Why do you need to lie roy?

You claim that clouds are left out of the models. That is a complete and utter lie. Clouds are included in the models. If they had been left out, they never could have gotten a prediction of more than a few tenths of a degree for warming.

I agree that there is a lot that we need to learn about clouds before we attempt to model the atmosphere. To bad the IPCC doesn't agree with you. They run their models, they even want to rework the world's economy based on the output of the models. Even though as you just admitted, the models are crap.

Speaking of Stephan Rahmstorf...
In "A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise," Rahmstorf, Science, Vol 315, 2007, Rahmstorf bends mathematics to the breaking point to promote sea-level rise hysteria. You can see his technique exposed here:

He makes three mathematical distortions:

1. Sea level rise rate vs. temperature is displayed in a way that erroneously implies that it is well fit to a line, as expressed in equation I, above.

2. The assumption that the time required to arrive at the new equilibrium is "on the order or millennia" is not borne out by the data.

3. Rahmstorf extrapolates out more than five times the measured temperature domain.

roy admits that he lied
roy writes:
"Better if we spread the costs among all taxpayers."

Didn't you just claim that the article was about a possible decrease in clouds only?

If you don't know whether the issue of climate change is dependant on whether clouds increase or decrease, then you are admitting that you don't know anything about the climate change debate. (Then you've proven that point so many times that I've lost track.)

Roy, why can't you admit it when you're wrong.
You have been proven wrong when you claimed that Dr. Spencer is unaware that low level clouds both warm and cool.

I've shown you where your error lies. But as usual, you prefer to believe that you and you alone know what reality is.

RS did not get this point wrong. You have. admit it, and stop digging your hole deeper.

a 1% increase in low level cloud coverage is sufficient to counteract a 100% increase in CO2
but roy keeps telling us that it's OK that we don't know how clouds work, but we should still believe it when the models tell us that we are going to die if we don't reduce our CO2 output.

Prove it
Your buddy Spencer said "low clouds have a predominantly cooling effect due to their shading of sunlight".

If you can find a paper that posits that low clouds reflect more heat in the day than they retain at night, lay it on me. I'll read it with interest, providing it's not subscription only.

This is proof?
You say "roy writes:
"Better if we spread the costs among all taxpayers."

That was in another thread, talking about health care. I've just checked my comment above. And it says nothing about spreading any costs.

And you have not shown that Spencer was correct-- or that he knows anything about the blanket effect of low clouds at night. He said nothing about that in the article you cited.

In other words it is impossible to verify the following statement, which is not true:

"You have been proven wrong when you claimed that Dr. Spencer is unaware that low level clouds both warm and cool."

In a word, no
I did not say the models were worthless. I just said they're subject to change depending on new data being entered. Our knowledge of climate has not attained its final form.

Meanwhile, we learn more by modelling and then comparing the models with observed reality.

This is not at all comparable to your distortion, that "the models are crap". We do need to model. And over time, our models will continue to get better.

It's interesting to reflect that the trend, as models have become more and more accurate, is for manmade GM to go from being suspected to being nearly universally accepted. It is exceedingly unlikely, at this late date, that anything is going to come along to overturn the theory. Instead, look for incremental improvements in the models.

Other than the one by Mr Spencer.

you are the one claiming that the professor is wrong, I presume you have proof.
Beyond that, you have been outside on a cloudy day, havent' you?

try any text on the subject, not that you ever do research, just spout what feels good.
what proof have you offered. You are the one who claims the professor is wrong.

no, you said that we have little idea how clouds affect the climate. Which proves they are worthles
since water vapor and clouds are by far, the dominant greenhouse gas.

Additionally, I don't see any evidence that the notion of AGM has become more dominant in recent years. In fact, I see just the opposite. The number of scientists who are willing to publicly disagree with the GW apostles grows every year.

How much natural methane?
a recent story in the LA Times claimed that methane emissions from cows in the US were a LARGER contributor of greenhouse warming than all the cars and trucks in the US. Basically, people who eat milk and beef are destroying the environment. So if this is true for cows, why not for buffalo, elk, moose, and deer? How about other natural sources of methane? How much CO2 was released by wildland fires in the last year? How do environmentalists oppose the clearing of flammable trees and allowing wildfires to proceed unchecked, when their burning goes directly into massive additions to the CO2 in the atmosphere?

About a year ago, Scientific American had a cover story featuring an article whose thesis was that man-made global warming had begun about 8,000 years ago, when mankind began agriculture, including growing rice in paddies, that generates methane. The primary argument for this thesis was that the normal ice age cycles that arise from the precession of the north pole and affect the extremes of temperature in the northern hemisphere made us due for a new ice age cycle to begin 8,000 years ago, but it has been delayed for some unknown reason, and he suggested it was from agricultural activities, even back when man's population was much lower than today.

The corollary of that theory is that, if we are too successful at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we could find ourself descending into that long-delayed new ice age. Indeed, there is still no clear explanation for why average temperatures dropped for the 40 years from 1934 to 1975. Mankind may be living much closer to the edge of a tipover point than we are aware.

True, and there is more
I've been following your other comments here (aminly vs. Mark) and I find you are running circles. On one issue in particular, Mark is correct. If we don't know enough about the effect of clouds on climate, then the models are "crap". Better go check the "best" AGW Alarmist models, they do bring cloud formation into the equation as a major driver of increased warming. Without them, the entire model crashes. The assumption seems to be that warmer temperatures will drive more cloud formation which will intern trap more heat and increase temperatures.

As for you post about looking around at the melting ice; and it being worse than before the last Ice Age; that assumption has no foundation at all. There are many conflicting pieces of evidence on this and arctic melt is just now in the ranges experienced during the medival warming; that is pretty much agreed on by all but the most neurotic AGW Alarmist. It is the "models" and their expectations of acceleration of the melt that points to a far more serious situation; one that could even create an "ice free" north pole at some point.

Roy, the fact is that you hit the nail on the head here and, it appears, didn't mean it. It is absolutely correct that clouds have a complex effect on temperature; so do ocean currents, the sun's output, climatic cycles and a pletheora of other single issues. The climate is extremely complex and we aren't sure of much as for cause and effect, feedback mechanisms, and all the other things that come into play.

You point to melting ice and say "one thing you do know is the ice is melting faster than it has since the beginning of the last ice age."

I submit that you, in fact, do not know that is the case. I submit that the only thing we know for sure is that the ice and glaciers have been generally retreating for some 20,000 years, that the retreat goes in cycles of advance, retreat, advance, retreat in overall small increments with the general trend to retreat. this is because we are in a warming period that has lasted 20,000 years and, if paleo-hitsory on this is any indicator, it will continues until it end. All of the photos of glaciers used for comparison came at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. Since that time we have seen to major warming cycles (1920ish to 1940-50ish and the present 1990ish to now) and one cooling cycle (1950ish to 1980-90ish). there is plenty of evidence that the first warming cycle was considerably worse than the present one (at least in the U.S.) as it started from a lower average temperature and we saw record high temps and record high years (yes, one's that even beat 1998).

So, you can believe the AGW alarmist if you want, but it is a belief without real evidence (a religion?). Personally, I'll continue to be a hard-nosed skeptic. When the evidence is truely in and tallied, then I will decide what the science really says. Until then, I will continue to believe in the evidence - the earth is warming a bit, it is part of a long-term, generally natural, trend, it will cool some again soon (probably between 2015 and 2025), another glacial advance (Ice Age) is coming - though probably not within the next few generations, and I would rather live in a warming cycle than a cooling cycle. Humans are probably having some very small affect, but even that is not necessarily added to the warming. (everyone keeps foregtting the precipitates we put into the air as well in these arguements; are you really sure that our contributed GHGs and deforestation are greater than our light reflecting precipitates?)

Finally, once all the questions are answered, I want to know whether or not this is a net benefit or net problem for humans. I don't really give a rats rearend about the penguin and polar bear in the overall scheme, I care about humans. Before we try and reduce our carbon footprint and stop our GHG releasing ways, I want to make sure it is really bad for US; people - humans.

Even some of the most base two questions have yet to be answered; What is causing this present warming cycle; and, are humans really a major part of the the present warming cycle?

Give me a satisfactory, truely scientific answer to those two questions and I may start asking for answers to the question of what we can do about it and what we should do about it.

Until then, you are just another religious fanatic trying to use 10-penny nails to attach your religious shoes to my feet. This is not a a done deal and there is plenty of room for debate on this issue; anyone who wants to really be heard needs to quit acting like a religious zealot on the issue and listen as much as they talk.

I wonder
How many Global warming deniers also don't believe,
CFC's cause ozone depletion,
HIV causes AIDS
Smoking causes cancer,
Heliocentric solar system,
The universes age of 14+ Billion years.

The model is right
Roy, you miss the point. All clouds reflect some sunlight back out to space for a cooling effect. All clouds reflect some upward infrared radiation back to earth for a warming effect, more pronounced at night of course.

But there is widespread agreement, among "skeptics" and "alarmists" alike, that low clouds have a net cooling effect, and high clouds (mainly cirrus) have a net warming effect. This is not a very controversial notion, and it certainly does not originate with Spencer. I have seen this asserted in numerous presentations, oral and written, on global warming, from top scientists. I know that university students are taught this in standard climate courses.

By the way, I have seen a NASA educational presentation (can't find the link now) that says that the overall effect of clouds reduces the average earth temperature by 20F (~11C).

You're starting to flounder
Based on the words Spencer wrote, in the article you recommended, he relies on cloudy days being cooler to make his point-- without mentioning that cloudy nights are warmer.

This is an apparent attempt to obfuscate. I'm giving you the chance to save his tattered reputation. Find something that will bail him out.

Do a Google search for "Greenland Viking farming"
Do a Google search for "Greenland Viking farming" and you will see we need more Global Warming!

TCS Daily Archives