Doubters still await warming evidence

February 22, 2010


— Science, many scientists say, has been restored to her rightful throne because progressives have regained power. Progressives, say progressives, emulate the cool detachment of scientific discourse. So hear now the calm, collected voice of a scientist lavishly honored by progressives, Rajendra Pachauri.

He is chairman of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 version of the increasingly weird Nobel Peace Prize. Denouncing persons skeptical about the shrill certitudes of those who say global warming poses an imminent threat to the planet, he says:

“They are the same people who deny the link between smoking and cancer. They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder — and I hope they put it on their faces every day.”

Do not judge him as harshly as he speaks of others. Nothing prepared him for the unnerving horror of encountering disagreement. Global warming alarmists, long cosseted by echoing media, manifest an interesting incongruity — hysteria and name calling accompanying serene assertions about the “settled science” of climate change. Were it settled, we would be spared the hyperbole that amounts to Ring Lardner’s “Shut up, he explained.”

The global warming industry, like Alexander in the famous children’s story, is having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. Actually, a bad three months, which began Nov. 19 with the publication of e-mails indicating attempts by scientists to massage data and suppress dissent in order to strengthen “evidence” of global warming.

But there already supposedly was a broad, deep and unassailable consensus. Strange.

Next came the failure of The World’s Last — We Really, Really Mean It — Chance, aka the Copenhagen climate change summit. It was a nullity, and since then things have been getting worse for those trying to stampede the world into a spasm of prophylactic statism.

In 2007, before the economic downturn began enforcing seriousness and discouraging grandstanding, seven Western U.S. states (and four Canadian provinces) decided to fix the planet on their own. California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger intoned, “We cannot wait for the United States government to get its act together on the environment.” The 11 jurisdictions formed what is now called the Western Climate Initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, starting in 2012.

Or not. Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer recently suspended her state’s participation in what has not yet begun, and some Utah legislators are reportedly considering a similar action. She worries, sensibly, that it would impose costs on businesses and consumers. She also ordered reconsideration of Arizona’s strict vehicle emission rules, modeled on incorrigible California’s, lest they raise the cost of new cars.

Last week, BP America, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar, three early members the 31-member U.S. Climate Action Partnership, said: Oh, never mind. They withdrew from USCAP. It is a coalition of corporations and global warming alarm groups that was formed in 2007 when carbon rationing legislation seemed inevitable and collaboration with the rationers seemed prudent. A spokesman for Conoco said: “We need to spend time addressing the issues that impact our shareholders and consumers.” What a concept.

Global warming skeptics, too, have erred. They have said there has been no statistically significant warming for 10 years. Phil Jones, former director of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit, source of the leaked documents, admits it has been 15 years. Small wonder that support for radical remedial action, sacrificing wealth and freedom to combat warming, is melting faster than the Himalayan glaciers that an IPCC report asserted, without serious scientific support, could disappear by 2035.

Jones also says that if during what is called the Medieval Warm Period (circa 800-1300) global temperatures may have been warmer than today’s, that would change the debate. Indeed it would. It would complicate the task of indicting contemporary civilization for today’s supposedly unprecedented temperatures.

Last week, Todd Stern, America’s Special Envoy for Climate Change — yes, there is one; and people wonder where to begin cutting government — warned that those interested in “undermining action on climate change” will seize on “whatever tidbit they can find.” Tidbits like specious science, and the absence of warming?

It is tempting to say, only half in jest, that Stern’s portfolio violates the First Amendment, which forbids government from undertaking the establishment of religion. A religion is what the faith in catastrophic manmade global warming has become. It is now a tissue of assertions impervious to evidence, assertions which everything, including a historic blizzard, supposedly confirms and nothing, not even the absence of warming, can falsify.

— George Will is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group. georgewill@washpost.com


Randall Uhrich 8 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

Will should read Pitts's column today, as apparently, Will is quite good at ignoring pesky evidence he doesn't like.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

Climate Skeptics Are Recycled Critics of Controls on Tobacco and Acid Rain

by Jeffrey Sachs



"The fact is that the critics - who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks - are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.

Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehavior. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.

Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulfur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.

Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.

What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don't want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls."

Steve Clark 8 years, 3 months ago


Fact remains, Will is trying to distract us from doing the right thing. Even if global warming does not exist, all the actions we would take to address it will only provide us with cleaner air, cleaner water, and a more healthy environment for all.

Only reason not to, as Will appropriately notes, is greed.

Kontum1972 8 years, 3 months ago

it was pretty evident at the winter olympics....the warming....

Maddy Griffin 8 years, 3 months ago

Thanks for that post,Bozo!Seems to me that GREED has it's sticky little fingers in everything.

Richard Payton 8 years, 3 months ago

Al Gore's global warming GREED is his way to live a lifestyle flying corporate jets leaving his carbon footprint on everything.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 3 months ago

Let's see, George says:

Ad hominen, ad hominen, ad hominen, irrelevent, misrepresention, ad hominen;

therefore, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and can have no effect on the earth's thermal exchange characteristics. By, George sure knows how to spew a well-put-together argument.

Ken Lassman 8 years, 3 months ago

The deniers love to trot out that little chihuahua George to yip and nip around the edges, all bluster and no substance. CG2165 has it right: all making fun of the messengers and nothing of substance about the message. What's there not to understand about El Nino, a well established cycle that pushes the jet stream to the south, delivering winter with it, while the north warms and dries out in North America? And what is this cycle caused by? Warmer than usual Pacific waters.

Ho hum.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

Seems like a very pragmatic approach, given the $billions that Exxon, et al will spend swaying mindless sheep like you, Pilgrim.

Flap Doodle 8 years, 3 months ago

The shrillness of the AGW true-believers is approaching a pitch that can only be perceived by crickets.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 8 years, 3 months ago

Climate change is a fact, there is no denying that. That it is caused by human occupation is not. There is much documentation that climate cycles have occurred for millions of years and the current situation is no different. The assertion by ozone man and his investment buddies that mankind is reponsible for this cycle is unfounded and self-serving.

Cleaning the air and environment is a laudable effort, but destroying the economy is not.

Moderation in all things is most desirable, extremeism is not.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 3 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says...

"Yet that hasn't stopped AGW alarmist from spouting things about 1999 being the hottest year on record or that hurricane Katrina was caused by AGW or talking about the melting glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro as proof. "

The people who seriously study the climate say nothing to the effect that these individual events are proof. There may be those that do say that, but the real evidence is a bit more involved than that.

kansanbygrace 8 years, 3 months ago

Just an experiment. Put yourself in a large room. Burn the furniture.

Will it get warmer, cooler, or stay the same in the room.

TheYetiSpeaks 8 years, 3 months ago

DougCounty says: "What's there not to understand about El Nino, a well established cycle that pushes the jet stream to the south, delivering winter with it, while the north warms and dries out in North America? And what is this cycle caused by? Warmer than usual Pacific waters."

Nice try. El Nino is a completely normal phenomenon that has ebbs and flows from year to year based on temperatures in a certain realm of the Pacific. It has no correlation to global temps and we usually get a stronger El Nino every 15-20 years. The last strong one was 16 or 17 years ago I believe. Also, El Nino wants everyone to know that El Nino is spanish for "the nino".

Ken Lassman 8 years, 3 months ago

We agree on this, Yeti. The response of the planet to hotter Pacific ocean is a part of a well established ENSO cycle that is well documented. The more extreme the heating, the more extreme the consequences, which includes the jet stream acting like it has this winter.

What does that tell us? 1) The cooler, wetter, snowier winter this year does not disprove the fact that the global temperature is rising, a fact very well documented, contrary to the deniers. Personally, I keep track of this planetary data at the following site: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global#introduction Please note that the preliminary January 2010 global ocean and land temperature data shows that it is the 4th hottest January since 1880. Kinda interesting to take a global perspective, no?

2) With increased planetary temperatures, the warm end of the ENSO cycle is predicted to become more frequent. Makes sense, since this is an energy-driven phenomenon. Life forms have created an incredible buffer to some of the extremes, but when things like the acidity of the ocean increases, widespread drought stresses forests and make them more vulnerable to the pine bark beetle infestation that's changing the West, and permafrost up north melts and releases methane, you're talking about tipping points that could create a runaway warming that isn't science fiction, folks. Go ahead and deny if you like, but, like a smoker who finds a "spot" on their x-ray, changing habits are a lot less effective when those lines are crossed.

MyName 8 years, 3 months ago

The GOP is the party been co-opted by people who will believe any BS that comes along as long as it's cloaked in some kind of religious mystique. Obama isn't being criticized by "non-believers": he's being criticized by people who value repetitive cant and talking point dogma over rational thought. You can't argue with someone who "knows" they're right. Especially if what they believe is stupid.

Of course, you seem to have made a habit of attributing your own shortcomings to "other party", Tom. I have no idea why you get so irritated when people point out this obvious fact.

puddleglum 8 years, 3 months ago

I dunno....it just snowed yesterday, so I don't think global warming is real

diplomacy205 8 years, 3 months ago

Why is it that the rest of the world is reporting the facts about the lack of evidence for AGW while the US isn't? European and Asian headlines and news sites are full of this information, but the US is ignoring it? Well, at least the people who don't believe in science are ignoring it.

I think some people on this board should return to grade school and study the scientific method. If your study isn't repeatable by people who are out to prove you wrong, then it isn't science.

Ken Lassman 8 years, 3 months ago


Oh, excuse me for providing you with data. Thought I was talking to someone who was actuallly interested in the evidence instead of listening to the talking heads.

My bad.

diplomacy205 8 years, 3 months ago

I provided you with data. Didn't you read the links? Read the Science Daily link.

"he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."

this study has been repeated by scientist in Russia, Germany, China, Japan and India.

Are you interested in fact or propaganda based on doctored data? Forgive me for debating with science. Repeatable science.

salad 8 years, 3 months ago

"Of course, you seem to have made a habit of attributing your own shortcomings to "other party", Tom. I have no idea why you get so irritated when people point out this obvious fact."

Reality seems to have taken on a clear liberal bias. -Steven Colbert

Chris Golledge 8 years, 3 months ago


Regarding your link to the Science Daily article, you have managed to take perfectly good information, and construed it to mean something entirely different than what it is. It has been the case that about half of what humans emit into the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean (which is another concern) or other sinks. There is the concern that at some point as more CO2 is absorbed by the natural sinks, that the effectiveness of these sinks will decline, and the fraction that stays in the atmosphere will increase. The last IPCC report says there isn't much happening on this front yet; this paper says there is still not much happening there. Somehow you have construed the update of 'not much happening regarding the fraction' to 'still not much happening regarding the fraction', to mean ... what? It isn't clear why you think this article is a refutation of all the work that has come before it.

Also, you should not rely too heavily on any single article, there exist other articles which don't agree 100% with this one's findings. However, none of the articles I'm talking about in any way dispute AGW theory.

Ken Lassman 8 years, 3 months ago

Diplo, I was referring not to the articles you are misinterpreting; I'm referring to the global temperature data found on the noaa website, which I referred to above and provide a link to again for your convenience:


You know, the one that says that despite all the moans and groans about all of the snow in January in these parts, that the global temperature in January 2010 was the 4th hottest since 1880. Look at the same website for ranking of the past decade. Is there something you are disputing about this data? Is there something wrong with their conclusions? I'd be very interested in hearing a viable critique of this data.

Richard Payton 8 years, 3 months ago

Babboy (Iberals) are smarter than (then) conservatives proves what? I wanted to point out a few spelling mistakes so be careful before you claim to be all knowing.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 3 months ago

All of this reminds me of commuters at a train station waiting for the 4:05 blue line to arrive. Some people sit around and speculate that the train will be late or not arrive at all while others wait fairly patiently for it to arrive.

Does the train arrive? Yes. On time? Usually pretty close, depending on the day, etc. So, were all of those who believed it would not arrive or be late wrong? For the most part, yes.

The train is coming, folks. All the naysayers are going to look pretty dumb when it gets here. Only they will have made their way long before to that great deniers club in the sky.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 3 months ago

One of the better analogies I've heard is that weather is like a roll of the dice. Good dice will average very close to 7 over the course of a thousand rolls. If you have observations that the dice are rolling close to 8 over a thousand rolls, it is very likely (almost a certainty) that the dice are loaded somehow or another. But, one or two rolls out of the thousand tells you nothing of significance.

diplomacy205 8 years, 3 months ago

DougCounty (anonymous) says... Thank you for the interesting article. I am sure that you are aware that the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) dataset of land surface stations using a 1961-1990 base period is the set of data that the author of the UN global warming report claims was manipulated in unverifiable manner. These measurements are not considered good science.

However, reading the report provides interesting data. If I were to concede that January 2010 was the 4th warmest in the recorded time, there are important qualifiers within the report. "This can be partially attributed to the persistence of El Niño across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. " There is a very serious gap in the analysis in regards to El Niño.

The next error in your assumption, is that this is any evidence of AGW. A snapshot of one month's temperature data is akin to taking a snapshot of my car at any given time over it's lifetime. While it is parked for a vast majority of its existence, if the snapshot occurred while I was driving 80 mph on the turnpike, a errant conclusion would be reached.

I'm sorry it took so long to respond, I actually read the report. It is interesting.

diplomacy205 8 years, 3 months ago

I scanned the reports for all of 2009. They state that the months vary from as warm as the 4th to the 10th in various months. Now if we only had a valid temperature dataset to compare them against.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 3 months ago


Are you claiming that there hasn't been any warming in the last 50 years or so?

Also, care to comment on my interpretation of the Knorr article,


versus your interpretation?

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 3 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says...

"What is the average temperature supposed to be?"

The dice say....klunk, klunk...snake eyes! You win again! How do you do that?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

Let's look at the facts. It is a fact that the earth is warming. It is a fact that the polar regions are melting. It is a fact that sea levels are rising. It is a fact that plant and animal species are expanding their ranges northward.

It is a fact that the earth's climate has changed, warmed and cooled, in cycles well before humans evolved.

The greenhouse effect is also a fact. CO2 and other greenhouse gases insulate our planet, thus trapping solar radiation that would otherwise bounce back into space.

Given these facts, it is extremely likely that human activity, burning fossil fuels, is causing warming or at least contributing to a warming cycle.

We cannot re-create global warm to prove it is human-driven. However, by any standard of evidence, in science or in criminal trial, these facts lead one to conclude that humans are contributing to global warming, just as surely as fingerprints on a gun, placement at the scene, and motive lead to guilty verdicts in a criminal trial.

It is a good thing to question the science in an informed and open-minded way. However, it is pure willful ignorance to deny the facts that support a human role in global warming.

diplomacy205 8 years, 3 months ago

"cg22165 (anonymous) says...


Are you claiming that there hasn't been any warming in the last 50 years or so?

Also, care to comment on my interpretation of the Knorr article,


The last line of the abstract is quite clear. "Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found. " There is no relation between airborne CO2 and current emissions. Man created CO2 is not causing global warming.

AGW is a myth. The sun and the Earth's wobble are much greater influences than anything, short of nuclear winter, that we can do.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 3 months ago

The earth is not "supposed" to be any temperature.

Its the quick temperature changes that are the bitch. We evolved and our civilization evolved in a particular climate. Dramatic, sudden changes in this climate might result sea level rise, weather pattern changes, and large scale changes to the earth's flora and fauna.

The earth isn't "supposed" to be any way. However, these changes will have dramatic effects on food and water supply and thus human life and civilization. These effects are real and have been observed all over the planet.

We can only model what might happen in extreme circumstances, but as a conservative, it is imperative to prepare for the worst while at the same time trying to prevent it.

Jeff Kilgore 8 years, 3 months ago

While it has never been determined that climate scientists have ever tried to kill anyone with damning evidence, look at the Karen Silkwood story, the numerous death threats made against investigators, the "disappearance" of one investigator, the "suicide" of an employee just days before testifying and the death of Silkwood herself, and you can see where the energy industry will play dirty and will do whatever it takes to silence its critics. Compared to murder, confusing the public is child's play. And George Will? Give me a break. He literally crawls out of the pockets of the rich and connected. He's their boy.

diplomacy205 8 years, 3 months ago

And most AGW proponents in the US are active supporters of the more taxes and government control crowd. They are traditional FDR Democrats. And of course, everyone knows how unbiased Al Gore is on the entire issue.

kernal 8 years, 3 months ago

Whatever. Believe what is easier for you to deal with . Maybe in twenty years you won't be crying out "Why didn't they warn us!?" Then again, maybe you will. May as well be proactive and live your life as if it is a real possibility, then that lessens the chances of economic castrophy. Remember, everything to do with the economy eventually goes back to what is happening environmentally, whether it's crops, storms, drought, floods, etc.

Jeff Kilgore 8 years, 3 months ago

Now for the science itself.

Let's, for a minute think about the Grand Canyon. Let's stop and think about whether, millions of years ago, a person could, in a lifetime, actually determine whether or not the unnamed river was deeping due to water erosion. At one point in the river, the depth might've actually been raised due to sediment build up. In other areas, the river would've been much deeper.

It is completely impossible to say that because in one region in the world, whether hot or cold, that this is proof for or against global warming. It is laughable to think that the snowy, cold winter we've had in Kansas has any global bearing.

The scientific evidence by climate scientists is that global warming is occurring and that it is very likely caused by humans. Is it so hard to fathom how decades of billions of tons of CO2 might have an effect on the environment?

One side says that it's the evil scientists who are making up science to make jobs for themselves. Might this be possible? If I believe this, I am then forced to believe that scientists have renounced the results of their findings. That would be incredible.

Now on the other, the oil industry has the power, the money, the reason, and the influence to shove phony science at a populace not educated enough to discriminate science from oil science. Raise your hand here if you really understand climate science. I don't. But when I read that 95% of the world's climate scientists believe that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions, then I have to concede to them, not to oil representatives.

If 19 of 20 mechanics told you that your car had a problem and identified the same problem, it would take quite a bit of faith to believe what the lone mechanic says. Now, science has been in this loner position, but historically, they have done well against a sea of ignorant opposition. Why would a reasonable person believe otherwise?

Climate scientists are staking their very jobs on evidence. I will continue to listen to warming deniers, but only skeptically. The North Pole is half the size it was in 1979. That means more to me than whether Kansas got more snow this year.

diplomacy205 8 years, 3 months ago

"One side says that it's the evil scientists who are making up science to make jobs for themselves. Might this be possible? If I believe this, I am then forced to believe that scientists have renounced the results of their findings. That would be incredible."

The scientists have renounced their findings. The authors of the UN Global Warming report admitted to falsifying the data.

Your mechanics analogy is appropriate. Most of the scientists don't believe in AGW. THe man who discovered the fraud was a big AGW supporter and was attempting to correlate their findings.

Thirty years from now, I'll be debating with the people who are announcing the threat of manmade global cooling.

Neomarxist123 8 years, 2 months ago

I hope we can at least admit that the science is NOT settled.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 2 months ago

diplomacy205 (anonymous) says...

"There is no relation between airborne CO2 and current emissions. Man created CO2 is not causing global warming."

I don't think you understand what the article is saying. As I mentioned previously, it is not saying that man is not adding CO2 to the atmosphere; it is saying that of the CO2 that man has been adding to the atmosphere, about the same portion is staying there; the rate of natural absorption has not declined. Either you don't understand, or you are being purposefully obtuse.

Look at the rising CO2 levels and look at the changes in the C isotope levels. The additional C has not seen daylight for millions of years. That it is coming from fossil fuels is the only conclusion that fits observations.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 2 months ago

diplomacy205 After reading your 6:38 post I must apologize. Sorry, I mistook you for someone who actually was capable of discerning media from reality.

diplomacy205 8 years, 2 months ago

"Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found."

This is the abstract. I assume you read it. The supposed increase is effectively 0% per decade. I believe that you are misinterpreting the next to last sentence.

Jeff Kilgore 8 years, 2 months ago

You are right in saying that government is potentially more powerful than the powerful oil industry, but I would argue with tons of evidence, that the oil industry already has what it wants in Washington. So the government is in bed with the energy industry?

Do you really believe that we would've fought in the MIddle East if there were no oil under the sand, especially in terms of understanding peak oil?

As far as energy/political power, look no further than Kansas. Did Sunflower get its "clean" coal plant? Of course. Did anyone believe that they wouldn't? Of course not.

You are saying cynically, that 95% of climate scientists are willing to give up their careers to spout something that they know is not true. I am cynical about government and the oil industry, but much less so about the science involved. Do you understand the controversy about the evidence fixing?

diplomacy205 8 years, 2 months ago

The AGW supporters completely ignore the evidence fixing. Then they quote studies using the flawed data.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

diplomacy205 (anonymous) says...

"AGW is a myth. The sun and the Earth's wobble are much greater influences than anything, short of nuclear winter, that we can do."


"The scientists have renounced their findings."

Woefully wrong on both counts. You either haven't read or don't understand the facts. You earned a big, fat F.

Which leads us to...

"And most AGW proponents in the US are active supporters of the more taxes and government control crowd. They are traditional FDR Democrats."

...where yourutter bias shows its true colors.

You wouldn't recognize the facts if they hoisted you high by the short hairs. There's no sense debating you on this topic. Your mind is made up, despite the facts. And, despite nature and science not caring the least about poll numbers, most Americans don't agree with you.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

diplomacy205 (anonymous) says...

"The AGW supporters completely ignore the evidence fixing."

Another fallacy. The purported "evidence fixing" doesn't discount the mountain of evidence that stands and is continuing to mount each day.

Jeff Kilgore 8 years, 2 months ago


One skewed result versus thousands upon thousands of findings. You are reading the "scientists" who would've killed Copernicus.

According to the results of a one-time questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change.[1] According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points.[2][3][4][5]

From Climate Change Consensus on wikipedia.com

97% of these scientists believe in the main points. Upon what, Mr. Diplomacy, are you basing your arguments, The Shell Oil Research Institute? British Petroleum Quarterly? The Drill Baby Drill Times?

The facts appear to be in. Stop spreading ignorant prattle of the energy lobby.

diplomacy205 8 years, 2 months ago


The scientist who authored the UN report on Global Warming said it is based on falsified data.


cg22165 I too must apologize for your lack of actually reading the studies that you quote.

I don't use the media as a source. I actually read the reports. I also see where the data comes from. You apparently refuse to admit that science means something.

diplomacy205 8 years, 2 months ago

I really wish that people who are debating issues, would refrain from personal attacks.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

diplomacy205 (anonymous) says...

"The scientist who authored the UN report on Global Warming said it is based on falsified data."

And your bias shows yet again. No where did Prof. Jones say that "it is based on falsified data." To the contrary, (from the link you provided), "But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made."

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

diplomacy, I apologize if you feel I have attacked you personally. I do stand by my observation that you are purposely twisting "debate" by furnishing falsehoods and I will call you out on that. You are obviously biased, so there's no debate to be had with you as long as you engage a debate in that manner.

diplomacy205 8 years, 2 months ago

I posted the wrong link. Unfortunately I lost my original but here is a story that contains much of the same data. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/154428/Global-Warming-What-a-climate-con-

diplomacy205 8 years, 2 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks , It wasn't you who attacked. cg22165 is the attacker.

I can't believe that some people actually use wikipedia.com as a source.

Global warming conspiracy theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

jkilgore = misinformed I just use your source to "prove" the opposite.

Show me a valid temperature study and something that proves the sun and earth's orbital wobble aren't causing the warming. Then I'll believe you.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

While I typically refrain from blaming the messenger, it's worth note, especially for those that are not familiar with the players in the British press, that The Express is a conservative newspaper.

diplomacy205 8 years, 2 months ago

I admit they are a conservative newspaper, but look up the people and the studies they quote.

I also read the Guardian, The London Times, The Wall Street Journal, The San Francisco Chronicle, and the New York Times, Washington Post., and a few others. How about you?

diplomacy205 8 years, 2 months ago

That is a nice informational post.

Do you have the information on where we are in the cycle?

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

There's some calculators available through the links. As far as the precession of the equinoxes, we are around 1/2 way through a 22,000 year cycle that has our current orbital perihelion occurring in January (least summer insolation - warmest winters, coolest summers). The calculators can also predict earth eccentricity and tilt. These are only some of the forcing mechanisms and do not account for feedback mechanisms, etc.

diplomacy205 8 years, 2 months ago

The orbital wobble will very slowly start to cool our winters and gradually lead to an increase in polar ice during the winter and increased melting during the summer. Of course that's for the next 22,000 years.

Ken Lassman 8 years, 2 months ago

Diplo, Sorry for not responding to your reply earlier, but I really don't spend much time on this. I'm glad you enjoyed reading from a reputable source (NOAA) on combined land and ocean temperatures. And yes, you are correct about the month of January being a snapshot and not indicative of any particular trend concerning global climate trends. I just wanted to place the regionally cooler, snowier weather of central/eastern US into the global context, which is quite different. If you look at the previous year, from the same source, our cooler 2009 was globally speaking one of the hottest on record. OR if you look at the decade, it was the hottest ever. OR if you look at the last 50 years, OR the last century, OR, OR....

Fortunately, if you really have concerns about the GCHN data, there are ample data sources besides this network that show the same trends. If you would like to look at these in more detail, you can access them from the "raw data" post on RealClimate.org website, which makes all of these data freely available.

If you would like to return to looking at what the data is showing, I think you'll find the following link instructive, as it looks at what the data coming in looks like, compared to the models that are being used. The models and their assumptions are turning out to be quite robust: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/#more-1810

Good luck educating yourself with the real science instead of what the tabloid media is dumping into the internet! I don't think you'll regret it.

diplomacy205 8 years, 2 months ago

I wish you would have sent me a reliable source. However, I read the "hacked" emails. Quote from RealClearPolitics ( A Right Wing source but this time they are accurate) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

"This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.

I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report."

Chris Golledge 8 years, 2 months ago

Look Diplomacy, last time,

Let's say that humans emit about 7 billion metric tons (Gton) per year of CO2. The trend has been for 40% of that to stay in the atmosphere, about 2.8 Gton. All the article is saying is that the percent (fraction) that stays in the atmosphere is still around 40%.

That is not even close to your conclusion that "There is no relation between airborne CO2 and current emissions. "

Can you really not understand that?

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

I find it incredible that people feel like there is a coverup, due to the over-zealous actions of some individuals. The fact is that the datasets are accessible to anyone. I could literally download the data and fashion my own models if I wanted to. Anyone can. Of course, if you make your results public, then you would have to defend the methodologies.

tbaker 8 years, 2 months ago

How many people die each year because of climate change? Why doesn’t the world concentrate its energies toward something like the fact malaria kills millions each year? Unlike "climate change" it is proven beyond any doubt. The world has the resources to stop it right now. You don’t need new, massive, global tax schemes to pay for it. The resources required are pocket change compared to what is being proposed for “climate change.” We could make an immediate difference in a matter of months and save millions of lives by the end of the first year. Why don’t we talk about doing things like this with the same vigor and enthusiasm we seem to have for this bogus climate crap? The answer to THAT question reveals the true motives behind the warming whackos - which has nothing to do with the climate.

leedavid 8 years, 2 months ago

Let's see...the entire northern hemisphere is having the coldest winter ever recorded. Warming has not been evident for last 15 years. Datasets presented are being investigated for fraud....well you can see the problem don't you? Science personnel are jumping ship.....Supposed a kid presented this evidence of global warming to the 9th grade science fair.....what would happen?

leedavid 8 years, 2 months ago

I should have said, "recorded history" I hope this will help:


I did not know the record for snow coverage area was broken too. Whew! Sure is cold.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says...

"Actually one of the criticisms have been that the data is not accessible, and that in fact people wanting to check the data have been often been forced to use freedom of information requests."

And the only thing they base this on is that the specific dataset in the hands of the fellow who wrote the report has not been divulged. The data he worked off of is openly accessible on the Internet. The claim that they are forced to use FOI requests is bogus. They are only going that route to see what he had.

Ken Lassman 8 years, 2 months ago

Leedavid, Your problem is a common one: if you take one part of the planet, you can find that any given season can show that it's cooling or even the coldest on record. But if you take the combined sea and land temps, you willl see that the planetary temps are continuing to rise. Unfortunately the UK newspapers don't understand this either. That's why I look at the climatologcal data, not the tabloids. Check out the links above at vertigo's post if you care to.

Diplo, You seem to not believe the data analysis on the RealClimate website because you have read that they are biased. If you bothered to look at the link I sent you, it goes into great detail about the data and the models and how the temperatures are still trending up. Is there something that they are saying in this detailed analysis that you are disputing, or are you just repeating what the tabloids have told you to say? The RealClimate folks are scientists who are well respected by the climatological community, and each post is followed by discussions with other scientists and even folks who disagree with them. In other words, the posts and discussions are transparent, for all to see. If you are truly interested in getting an in-depth understanding of the issues, I recommend that you spend time at this site. It will separate you from the great majority of folks who frequent these posts and just pontificate with ad hominem attacks and grandiose paranoid visions of a grand conspiracy of folks who want to control your every move.

Ken Lassman 8 years, 2 months ago

Flock is right: you want raw data, processed data, models, etc.? No FOI needed. Here's the link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw

Tabloids are so lazy they don't want to do the work--they just parrot their favorite commentators and print their press releases without any thought. Why? Well gee, tell folks what they want to hear and they'll buy the paper! Give them real information and make them think, and, well, forget it! Tabloid sales dropped 5%! You're fired!

leedavid 8 years, 2 months ago

Doug....I wouldn't say the entire northern hemisphere is one part of the planet....it is 50%..

Here is another article from January 5th:


I am going to look at your links now. I hope they are more accurate than the fraud the global warming types have been using.

Here is a question. Are theire more experts running too or from global warming claims? Why is that?

leedavid 8 years, 2 months ago

Here is a great list of the Who's Who that oppose global warming claims....and a brief proof offering, not a tabloid or global warming haters, but scientists from MIT and the like.


a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

lawrenceguy40 (anonymous) says...

"Now what do you think of your NOAA data?"

So now it's a NOAA conspiracy. With you guys there seems to be a conspiracy under every stone. If you can't find one, just make stuff up.

"...but really WE could do without your false teachings on this subject now."

Right back at ya. The biggest problem for you is that the data is not on your side of the argument, just conspiracy theories. Night is day. Wrong is right. Question the scientific theories all you want, just bring some credible information next time.

leedavid (anonymous) says...

"Are theire more experts running too or from global warming claims? Why is that?"

Answer: more. Why? Because, while one can debate the accuracy of the various models, the data itself is fairly convincing. Along with more data collection, a particular area of focus at the moment is characterizing the earth's CO2 sink. No doubt we are releasing Pgs of CO2 each year into a part of the system where it would not naturally occur. The question on the table is, what happens to it, where does it go, and what are the feedback results.

Ken Lassman 8 years, 2 months ago

Lee, Hope you had a chance to look at the links, including this one: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global#introduction

It shows that maybe only 50% of the LAND in the Northern Hemisphere had a colder than normal January, with the other 50% of the LAND above normal. Then you add the ocean and the rest of the planet, and you end up with the 4th warmest January since 1880.

Lawrenceguy, Not a very interesting critique of NOAA's databases, which they've been keeping for over 100 years. Do you have a better reason why they would go through the mountains of data, available to anyone on the internet, and somehow skew it? Or were they whispering to the thousands of weather stations to tell them to skew the data before it came in? That would explain why there are no memos, right?

Do you have better, more objective data sources that show a different trend?

leedavid 8 years, 2 months ago

Doug, you are aware the keeper of NOAA's databases resigned in disgrace right? That was him wasn't it? I could be wrong.

Lets agree on some stuff.

The earth is warming and has been since the ice age. There is a discussion that although the temp changes are very small the change seems to be more rapid in the last 100 years.

No one knows for sure, what causes global warming. Experts on both sides have their data and both sides are believeable. Though the left tends to support global warming is man made.

If political agenda's were not involved the average person would look at the data and say the earth is rotating more and more dramatically on its axis.

Both sides have flawed claims and data. The left claimed for example the hurricanes would be more and more frequent as well as bigger. They pointed to katrina as proof. Yet the exact opposite is true. The right claimed global cooling, in some parts of the world yes but most parts, no.

The thing I like about you Doug is we are discussing. Nobody is calling anyone a liar, or idiot, we are just talking.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 2 months ago

tbaker (anonymous) says...

"How many people die each year because of climate change?"

It depends on who you ask. The rain patterns have shifted in recent decades and that has affected the available food for millions of people. One possible example, the sahel is shifting southward and that has adversely affected the Darfur region. There are those who say the conflict there is a result of ethnic tensions, and there are those say maybe they'd be fighting less if there were more food to go around. Historically, given the choice between starving and raiding, people have raided 100% of the time.

Look up Lake Chad, the incredible shrinking lake. It's been hit with a double whammy of increased usage and decreased rain. The lake losses might be affecting a few people.

These are just tastes of things to come. The bitch about climate change is that be the time the problems are obvious, you're already committed to worse problems.

The US in ideally situated to suffer the least from a changing climate, while we are the ones contributing the most to it. That's got to be making us lots of friends in the long term.

leedavid 8 years, 2 months ago

paulette2 (anonymous) says... Climate Change is real. it should not be referred to as global warming.

Look at the glaciers and ice melt, all over the world they have retreated more than in all of recent history.

Look at the ocean pollution and algae blooms all of this also caused by our carelessness.

Look at the toxins in our soils coast to coast.

Where is America the Beautiful?


A discussion about being good stewarts of the planet is one thing. Our industrial generation sure left a mess and our generations are doing better. But why would we use plastic bottles, bags and diapers if we were really worried about pollution? That said, how pollution changes the rotation of the planet and causes temperature to rise, even before humans were on the planet is another discussion.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

Good post, leedavid. At least there is a reasonable discussion of the facts that can be had.

leedavid (anonymous) says...

"Doug, you are aware the keeper of NOAA's databases resigned in disgrace right? That was him wasn't it? I could be wrong."

Not sure who you are referring to.

"Lets agree on some stuff.

...Though the left tends to support global warming is man made."

More precisely, the scientists are in wide agreement that there appears to be a man-made component.

"If political agenda's were not involved the average person would look at the data and say the earth is rotating more and more dramatically on its axis."

I posted a link above to information and tools that describe and predict those forcing factors, especially the periodic phenomena that are fairly well defined.

"The left claimed for example the hurricanes would be more and more frequent as well as bigger. They pointed to katrina as proof. Yet the exact opposite is true."

I wouldn't agree to that assertion. The phrase "famous last words" comes to mind.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 2 months ago

leedavid (anonymous) says...

"Doug, you are aware the keeper of NOAA's databases resigned in disgrace right? That was him wasn't it? I could be wrong."

I think you were thinking of Yvo de Boer.


Curious, why use the term "in disgrace", particularly if you weren't even sure who you were talking about?

georgiahawk 8 years, 2 months ago

I think you have to look at the first science book to see if the earth has been getting warmer. The answer would be that Adam and Eve ran around naked, obviously warm enough that there was no need for protection from the cold. We need to be clothed in these times, therefore the earth has been getting colder.

leedavid 8 years, 2 months ago

CG because we are people and we make mistakes....stand corrected and I apologize.....some think on message boards when we are discussing we were allowed to state our opinion....imagine that.

How about this guy. Here is some fresh news using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, much revered data. I don't see why anyone would use NOAA as a source, until the investigations are done.


leedavid 8 years, 2 months ago

A Flock of Jawhawks, I appreciate you. When you look at the maps in Doug's post, looking at the temperatures. A reasonable assertion would be the temperatures over industrialized polluting nations and areas of the world would have the highest temeperatures. Seems reasonable given the allegations they are the ones causing the damage....yet when we look at the charts. Not China, Not the industrial manufacturing portions of the US. But.....Canada????? What Canada? How did that happen? And over the lease populated portions of Canada. Yet we see the south pole regions getting colder and colder, bigger and bigger blocks of ice. Seems like the earth is changing axis. What do you think.

kneejerkreaction 8 years, 2 months ago

George Carlin always had a simple, funny & effective way of getting to the truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeSMPE...

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

The periodic cycle primarily affects latitudes 65 and higher to a greater degree regarding ice sheets and glacial formation. Earth is on a 41,000 year periodic cycle in which tilt (obliquity of the elliptic) ranges between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. At present, the approximate tilt is 23.44 degrees and decreasing. An 18.6 year periodic nutation cycle also exists in which the principal nutation term equates to a tilt range variation of about 9 inches. Other factors are present, but represent much smaller contributions than precession.

At present, excluding all other forcing and feedback factors and relying solely on Milankovitch models, the seasons in the southern hemisphere are more extreme when compared to the northern hemisphere. The amount of land surface area in each hemisphere is a factor for the fact that additional land surface creates a faster, more pronounced result in the effects of insolation.

melott 8 years, 2 months ago

I'm not sure why Will's column generated so much comment. It seems to be just a rant, without much content.

He used to be a fairly interesting writer on economic issues. I didn't always agree with him, but he seemed thoughtful. Has he been smoking too much tea?

Chris Golledge 8 years, 2 months ago


Opinions - sure, taking the same information and coming to a reasonable though differing opinion of what it means - fine, but misrepresentation of information, that I take exception to.

Regarding your link on Thomas Karl, what I got out of it was, most people think he's a good choice for the position; Roger Pielke Sr. thinks otherwise. OK, but I don't know anyone in any position who gets universal support. And, I'm semi-familiar with Pielke, and Karl's assessment of his work not being held in the highest regard fits in with what I've heard elsewhere. So, my overall assessment is that Fox thought it'd sell more news if they could come up with some controversy about Thomas Karl, and the best they could come up with was Roger Pielke.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

lawrenceguy40, wow! Proof of evolution and that at least one specimen did not evolve. By your notion, you should swear off all of that agnostic, heathen technological advancement.

Hoax Tom may have missed:

Iraqi WMDs (and that one was pretty costly)

leedavid 8 years, 2 months ago

A Flock of Jayhawks, how then do you account for warming temperatures over non polluting nations and cooler tempertures over the countries that are the root cause of man made global warming? Seems odd.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 2 months ago

Having said that, I'm sure that Pielke Sr. knows more about climate science than you and I, and since the primary of focus of this article is whether humans are changing the climate, I'll add that he agrees that humans are having an impact. His disagreements with others in the field come in the area of risk assessments and how much the major factors other than CO2 should be factored in. He has been criticized for disagreeing with the long term trend reports by using lacks of significance in short term trends. Statistically, it's not surprising that signal doesn't stand out from noise if you look at short term, or limited size samples.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 2 months ago

leedavid (anonymous) says...

"A Flock of Jayhawks, how then do you account for warming temperatures over non polluting nations and cooler tempertures over the countries that are the root cause of man made global warming? Seems odd."

When you consider that CO2 has a long half-life in the atmosphere and that it gets distributed fairly uniformly over that time, no, it's not odd. Besides, I suspect you are using sample sizes that are too small when you mention warming here and cooling there.

leedavid 8 years, 2 months ago

Yet it seems some responsible for the data see the need to go back to the drawing board,


"At a meeting Monday of 150 climate scientists, representatives of Britain's weather office proposed that the world's climatologists start all over again and produce a new trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and "rigorous" peer review."

kneejerkreaction 8 years, 2 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says... Hoax Tom may have missed: Iraqi WMDs (and that one was pretty costly)

Flock, ask the thousands of Kurds who were gassed (a WMD, right?) by Saddam if the Iraqi's had WMDs. Just because we didn't FIND any doesn't mean they didn't have them, were capable of making them again and more than willing to use them on innocent people.

It's like 100 people see Flock shoot someone, but they can't find they gun. Does that make you innocent of the crime?

The logic of the people who say the Iraq war was wrong and use the WMD example never ceases to amaze me. The war may be wrong, but use a better example.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

leedavid, One key item, although not the only one by a long-shot, that feeds into the answer to your question regarding local weather versus global climate is the presence of feedback mechanisms and the interactions of systems that operate over expansive regions or globally. For example, ocean currents form a global conveyor belt. It might not seem obvious that ocean currents that transport relatively warm water from the tropics end up affecting the western European climate resulting in relatively little ocean ice, etc. It has been suggested, as glaciers in Greenland recede and add less-saline water to the nearby ocean, that the salinity in that particular location may affect the downward portion of the "conveyor" in that location by reducing the volume of flow. If this were to occur, it would likely interfere with the global conveyor and what might seem as a purely local event could result in global consequences. That's a theory, but it relies on the fact that there are feedback mechanisms and systems that are inter-related and that a local change that affects a system can result in changes to locations where it would not be obvious to expect them.

This is one reason why a particular area of focus in on the earth's CO2 sink. There is a strong indication that it plays an important part and it really needs to be better understood. Coastlines and seafaring vessels around the globe have been outfitted with sensors to collect data on CO2 concentrations in order to, hopefully, achieve a better understanding of this component, especially in light of the introduction of additional CO2 concentrations to the earth's atmosphere at a rate that is estimated to be higher than the CO2 sinks can balance.

kneejerkreaction 8 years, 2 months ago

Naw porch. Man Made GW is clearly a hoax. There, now we're back on track.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 2 months ago

lawrenceguy40 (anonymous) says...

"I have yet to find a proponent of climate change that has not benefited financially from their findings. If you are a climate scientist, you will not get the next research grant if your findings disprove global warming. "

Ha! Not at all, if you could deliver the goods, actually proving that all the others who supported global warming were wrong, you would be The (Wo)Man! You'd be in like Einstein.

leedavid 8 years, 2 months ago

Thanks A Flock Of Jawhawks. I have read and understand your post. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me....I'm just a simple guy really. After all of this....I am sorry to report....I have to go spray another coat of lacquer on a new guitar I am working on....I'm being serious....Later!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says...

"Flock, ask the thousands of Kurds who were gassed (a WMD, right?) by Saddam if the Iraqi's had WMDs. Just because we didn't FIND any doesn't mean they didn't have them, were capable of making them again and more than willing to use them on innocent people."

OK, way off topic, but, since I bear some of the blame, I'll provide a better reason, although I still contend that Iraqi WMDs were a hoax, especially the claim of uranium, as we now know.

Better reason, we had Saddam/Iraq basically surrounded. We had control of the airspace over the majority of Iraq and his regime practically couldn't wipe their *** without us knowing it. My brother and several friends and acquaintances were there and participated and, while they may have a different political persuasion than I, they agree. While it was somewhat costly to maintain that deterrent, compare it to the costs incurred and the lives lost by forcing the issue. But, it is what it is and now we must deal with the consequences. To even insinuate that it was not a hoax is just wrong.

jafs 8 years, 2 months ago


Why do you assume that government scientists are not good sources of information?

Would you be more inclined to believe those funded by particular moneyed interests, like oil/gas companies?

In theory (if money weren't a factor), governments have more potential to be unbiased and interested in the common good than private businesses.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

leedavid (anonymous) says...

"I'm just a simple guy really."

No problem. Truth is I am a fairly simple, too - not a mucky muck, either. I just happen to enjoy science and it has put the bread on the table (and, no, Liberty, I don't work for the government or receive research grants or similar to solve problems).

"After all of this....I am sorry to report....I have to go spray another coat of lacquer on a new guitar I am working on."

Sounds much more fun. I have a guitar collection of my own, but they are all purchased and stock minus the few repairs that were necessary. My current guitar research is to find the best locking tremolo to put on a Les Paul on a budget. I have an extra Floyd Rose and I'm looking at Kahler, but I am worried that I could ruin a great guitar.

Olympics 8 years, 2 months ago

I like the the Piper-David technique for fact-based argumentation.


Olympics 8 years, 2 months ago

Careful liberty most of them gubnant scienticiens also believe in evilution and using a fact based education. Scary stuff indeed. It's a grand conspiracy to get rich I's tell ya.

Those same scientists who remain poor for an additional 9-11 years of poverty after high school, so they can then sit around farting through silk in their multi-million dollar homes while deciding how to keep the corporate man down.

jumpin_catfish 8 years, 2 months ago

bah bahbah bah bahbahbah....oh the sky is warming the sky is warming.

Olympics 8 years, 2 months ago

Knowledge, new innovations. Scary stuff like understanding how the planet works. I realize that new knowledge is scary stuff to many on the right.

Come on Liberty. Just put on the knowledge sunglasses or you can wait until you meet Roddy Piper in an alley.

Olympics 8 years, 2 months ago

Liberty, if it looks and acts like conservative, then..... You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep (and the energy companies you defend).

Could you be more vague...with your "question" about what the government hopes to buy? I got a question for you "what is the meaning of life?" ANSWER ME!!!!!

I can hardly explain how science works to you on a blog posting. There are first principle ideas about the historical sciences in particular that clearly, you summarily reject. But by all means, keep questioning all of the INDEPENDENT data sources that point to a same conclusion. All those lying/biased scientists!

Tom....a note: Merrill thinks you are copy and pasting "al gore" too often.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says...

"tell me what the government hopes to buy?"

Ponies! White, smiling ponies with bedazzled streamers and plush, comfy saddles. Three for each person and a lifetime supply of sugar cubes, carrots, and oats.

Sheesh! You are uber paranoid.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says...

"porch, you know that every time you lie Zeus kills a puppy."

Puppies! White, smiling puppies...

Olympics 8 years, 2 months ago

A mobil-exxon is the dog that doesn't play by the same rules as the scientist does.

A scientist lies, career over. Methods and Data must be submitted for anonymous peer review. This lends credibility to their work. Exxon want to play by those rules? You think their in house lawyers would allow it?

Being bull headed and willfully misinformed is not a good label I would like assigned to me. I would argue that applies to most of the anti-science crowd (a majority of the anti-global warming crowd, all creationists, a significant number of republicans and a number of democrats too, etc....)

Regarding you not mentioning energy companies, fine. But you are making their argument. You are following the playbook of "the republican war on science". Own it. You are exxon. You are wading in the waters with people who don't trust anything about science....the earth is 6000 years old, evolution is a lie, etc.... Again, the company you keep.

Liberty275 8 years, 2 months ago

Dear hippies,

Please tell us what the optimal temperature for the earth is so we can help you fight global warming, or the next ice age, or climate change or whatever you are calling it this week.

On a side note, I agree with Inhofe. We need a criminal investigation of the climate change fraud scheme, and we need to see the main perps, starting with algore, questioned by congress in front of CSPAN's cameras. Start handing out the subpoenas now.

Liberty275 8 years, 2 months ago

"Still waiting on that data refuting global warming"

I'm still waiting for evidence of global warming and an explanation for the glacial erratics in Douglas county.

Olympics 8 years, 2 months ago

Inhofe...now there's a deep thinker. I thought he was busy with trying to have gay people killed in Uganda.

Glacial erratics in Douglas County = Noah's flood, duh. Everybody with a book published in the 19th century knows that.

I'm really looking forward to the insights of Liberty2 through Liberty274.

Liberty275 8 years, 2 months ago

"Glacial erratics in Douglas County = Noah's flood"

That is so funny it made jesus fall off his dinosaur because he was laughing so hard. However, it's a good example of a typical AGW cultist dodging the science that calls into question the divinity of his algorian religion.

Get with it. Even the IPCC is backing away from the lie. You garden variety cultists can too if you think for yourselves.

Liberty275 8 years, 2 months ago

"landmark case like Roe v Wade has "no constitutional standing" is just too dumb"

I missed the part where the constitution assured a person's right to an abortion. Is that somewhere around unlimited corporate spending on political races?

It's an opinion of the court, and the right set of judges could overturn it in a heartbeat. That's the extent of it's constitutional standing.

It is interesting that the same set of people that celebrate the federal goverment usurping power in the R.V.W case are the same ones that whine because the fed busts medical potheads in california. Once you give up your state's rights, don't expect the fed to give them back without a fight.

independant1 8 years, 2 months ago

As I see it 1. settled science, the earth will crash into the sun in 10million years, man caused global warming chicken littles should change the strategy of your witnessing in the public square. 2. settled science, those who chose to build in river bottoms and shorelines will get wet someday. 3. settled science, All that THC deposited in your progressive/liberal brains during your college years manifests itself in your general irritability and loss of control. I say amen !- Let the real scientific community critique a theory and pundits like Will opine about what's become of a rather poorly supported but highly advertised/politicised GW theory/religion. Almost all real scientists beleive in God/their religion and examine theory, I say keep amateurs (esp. politicians) out of science.

Liberty275 8 years, 2 months ago

"m sure there are a lot of things that you've "missed" over the years but the ability to claim that there is no constitutional right to abortion in one paragraph and then to claim that this same "unconstitutional" law could be overturned with the "right" set of judges makes you appear to not know when you're contradicting yourself."

Sets of judges can have a political bent. That's why R.V.W was passed and that's also why unlimited political spending by corporations also passed. What you call "constitutional standing". I call "tenuous". Unlike you, I don't always agree that what the courts, even the supreme court, opine is constitutional. What seems to you like contradiction is just a symptom of our difference. I think for myself, you think what you are told, porch person.

Also, medical potheads only have a brief reprieve until obama is tossed out of office in 2012 for not doing his job (part of which is insuring federal law is enforced).

jafs 8 years, 2 months ago


It is not absurd to believe that Roe vs. Wade was an incorrectly decided case by the Supreme Court.

Do you really believe that all decisions made by that court are correct, and that politics/biases do not influence them?

If so, how do you explain it when the Court changes their rulings over time?

Supreme Court justices are just people, and as flawed/imperfect as the rest of us.

georgiahawk 8 years, 2 months ago

All the science I disagree with I label as tainted which allows me to ignore it without repercussion. This is especially helpful when any new information may imply that I need to change my life or force me into changing something that I hold dear. I cannot know everything so the only thing I am doing is choosing my ignorances and how else should I choose them but to fit my lifestyle that I want to keep. So, don't expect me to change my lifestyle based on your "science" or your "facts"!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 2 months ago

Science is your friend and your enemy. Science doesn't care. Science doesn't love or hate you. Science doesn't care how you vote, what you think, who you date, if you pray, what kind of car you drive, or whether you are a winner or a loser. It just is. And anyone who chooses to ignore it risks getting beat about the head and shoulders mercilessly by it. 'Cause that's how science rolls when you get on the wrong side of it.

I love science even if it doesn't love me back. I respect it deeply and strive to know as much as I possibly can about it, even though I realize that no one will ever know everything there is to know about it. And generations will follow that will find out more about it and there will still be more.

Science does not like or dislike George Will. Science leaves it totally up to George as to whether he respects it or not.

Liberty275 8 years, 2 months ago

"Liberty275 thinks that medical marijuana being dispensed is illegal. It's not. He didn't know that"


February 12, 2010 - Denver resident Chris Bartkowicz's medical marijuana garden was raided by the DEA the day after he was interviewed on a local television station. Bartkowicz, who allegedly had 120-224 plants, was charged in federal court on Feb. 16. Read more.

September 11, 2009 - James Stacy and Joseph Nunes are facing federal charges after 30 people were arrested during a DEA-assisted raid of medical-marijuana collectives in the San Diego area. Stacy, 45, operated Movement in Action in Vista when an undercover San Diego County sheriff's detective posed as a patient and went to the cooperative in June.

Upper Lake, August 24, 2009 - Scott Feil and his wife Diane, along with Steven Swanson, were raided and arrested by the DEA in a case stemming from Feil's former involvement with the UMCC medical cannabis dispensary in Los Angeles. Feil has been fighting a federal forfeiture case for several years and is facing a 5-10 year sentence. Update 11/09

LOL Porchie. If you weren't counting on the promises of a liar and instead on laws repealing those that make drugs illegal, you'd be on better footing to divine whether or not I knew people were legally dispensing pot. Any medical pothead can be busted and put in prison at any time.

Liberty275 8 years, 2 months ago

"What I find utterly hilarious is a "libertarian" arguing against the constitutionality of a law which protects a woman's privacy and a "libertarian" arguing for the Federal government to restrict people's freedom to use a drug that has been on the market in pharmaceutical form for years."

Porchie, you have reading comprehension problems. I'll make it easy for you.

All drugs should be legalized at the federal level and made illegal at the discretion of the states. Until they are federally legalized, they remain illegal and buyers and sellers should be prosecuted. Laws are laws whether we like them or not.

The federal goverment should remain neutral on abortion and leave it up to the states to decide whether it is legal or not.

Personally, I don't care if a woman snorts a few lines, drops some acid and fires up a blunt in the abortion provider's office as he crushes the head of her 279 day old fetus.

melott 8 years, 2 months ago

So, like every other thread, it degenerates to 2 or 3 people calling each other names.

benanhalt 8 years, 2 months ago

This observation from Bruce Sterling is really funny:

«Thirty years, that’s how long I’ve been listening to climate denialists. They don’t have the multi-decade record of Creationists yet, but they’re getting there. If they were prospering, that would be one thing, but every year they get poorer and more frightened. I’m gonna live to see climate denialists in climate refugee camps.»

From http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2009/09/austin-the-accelerating-climate-crisis/

I always wonder how many of the denialists are actually principled (if stupidly so) and how many are just trolls. And now that I think about it... maybe this whole populist - libertarian - tea party thing that seems to be going on is really a troll ideology. Hmm.

benanhalt 8 years, 2 months ago

«If that doesn't happen will you guys shut up about it finally?» -- Liberty_Troll laments the failure of the interwebs to shut-up about the very topic regarding which he himself contributed dozens of comments in just the past two days.

If the icecaps do melt, will you pay the rest of us damages for putting up with your stupidity? Oh, who am I kidding? Any icecap melting that may or may not occur is due entirely to natural processes and not to be interpreted in any eventuality as contradicting the world view of Liberty_One or George Will. If there was a god and it came down out of the sky and said, "The Earth is screwed. Climate change is real. And you stupid humans brought it all on yourselves... not by making a deal with the devil like those poor slobs in Haiti, but because you just couldn't lay off the dinosaur juice," you deniers would come up with some yarn about how God had sold out for government grants or was working an angle to get it on with one of Gore's daughters or something. Tell me I'm wrong.

benanhalt 8 years, 2 months ago

«But seriously, if the icecap doesn't melt in five years are you going to give up on this hoax?»

Nope! I'm planning to cash me in on some of those sweet government grants they're handing out to us true believers. Man! If you were only a little less principled and concerned with your precious "truth", you could be in like flint, smart guy like you! I bet you could cook up climate data better than any of those hacks at NOAA. Come on, don't be modest. The way you saw through that straw man ploy, WOW! And pointed it out for all the slower kids. See, that shows your generous side.

benanhalt 8 years, 2 months ago

«Nice to see some honesty.»

I'm not real good with honesty... Is that what you call it when someone tells you what you want to hear?

benanhalt 8 years, 2 months ago

«Depends, if it's the government then yes.»

When the government tells you what you want to hear that's honesty? What about when George Will does it?

«Were you aware that benanhalt was making fun of you or were you pretending he was not?»

Or was he pretending to be unaware of me pretending to make fun of what I was aware that he was pretending that I was?

benanhalt 8 years, 2 months ago

«Yes, unlike some I can discern sarcasm.»

Now, if only people were as good at discerning anti-science propaganda.

jafs 8 years, 2 months ago


There is in fact no specified "right to privacy" in the Constitution. It must be inferred from other specific rights, like the right to be without "unreasonable search and seizure".

And, personally, I find it an odd "right" to base abortion on, given that abortion involves more than a simple personal act/decision without consequences on any others.

If you don't in fact believe that Supreme Court Justices are perfect, then it indeed follows that their decision may be wrong, regardless of the 7-2 vote.

There are many things that the majority has agreed on historically which I would find to be morally unacceptable - at one time 5 black people were considered to be equivalent to 3 white people in the eyes of the state.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.