You've missed the good news about the Kyoto Protocol though; it works!

Wow! That's exciting.

Eureka for the naysayers who said reducing emissions wouldn't.

Imagine if the US, Australia and India and China would join the protocol.

Then it would really work.

At that rate, it would take 667 years and cost $100 trillion to hypothetically avert just 1 degree Centigrade of global warming.

a) 667 years - That's a blink in the eye of the age of the earth and not a long time to achieve ongoing sustainability, and not a lot of money either.
The War in Iraq Costs $243,292,239,804.
b) you can't honestly say 'hypothetically' and still complain that reducing emissions work.

Hi Wadard,

You missed the part where it says nobody's even meeting the current goals. The $150 billion is what Kyoto would have cost if the goals were being met. Emissions are continuing to rise, not fall.

And it's 667 years to reduce one degree Centigrade. By then, according to the global warming joes, the higher temps will have melted the poles, flooding the seas with fresh water, and disrupting the great ocean conveyor belt. Result: Ice, Ice, Ice Age, baby. At that point, we'll be pumping green house gases into the atmosphere to warm things back up again!

Yea you are right, I missed it .... but I read the story now and .. I don't think that author is a friend of science. Anyone working towards dumbing down as he does is suspect.

Hansen’s problem isn’t that anyone is trying to silence him; it’s that he has a track record of being wrong – for example, overestimating 1990s warming by 200 percent.

That beggs the question, why silence him in the first place? Free speech is about being wrong as well.

Right you are, Milloy runs the Junk Science website and is a major Global Warming skeptic because of attempts to blame humans for any climate change.

I'm skeptical too. There probably is a warming trend under way, but not for the reasons the zealots claim. I expect we'll eventually find the cause is sunspots, shock waves from a supernova, dark matter, quantum effects, something--just not mankind.

The way you describe him it's like he works for the oil company. One should be a skeptic based on the facts ... not because 'of attempts to blame humans'.

Not a very scientific way to go about things. What is his and evidently your problem with identifying anthropogenic global warming?

Do you realise you are avoiding reaching a logical conclusion out of some sort of principal that it is wrong to blame humans. This is willful ignorance you are subjecting youself to. Why?

Hi Wadard,

I reject the human influence on climate change for many reasons, but these come quickly to mind:

• There are serious problems with the "hockey stick" graph that supposedly shows a sharp upswing in global temps in the last century:
  

  Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
  
  But it wasn't so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
  
  Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

  
  
  [Source: Global Warming Bombshell]

• It's clearly a political issue intended to hamstring the economies of the United States and other developed nations

Until there's clear proof that humans are responsible, I'll continue to regard global warming as a natural cycle in the Earth's long-term weather.

Finally, so what if Milloy works for an oil company? Everybody works for some interest, including scientists who need grants, environmentalists who need sponsors, politicians who need votes, and so on. But just because you work for industry doesn't mean your research and opinions aren't valid.

P.S. I like your blog. I don't agree with your conclusions, but you make good points.

Thanks mate, nice of you to say. Yours isn't half bad either to be quite honest.

OK - that hockey stick stuff - I'll have to read up on McKintyre and McKitric. Statistics is not my strong suite although I understand the basics. I though th Hockey stick was tmperature over time - nothing more complicated. I do note though - that Mann's hockey stick has not been roundly rejected by the climate science mainstream, and that criticism of his methodologies have not taken any traction.

As for working as a propagandist for an oil company - fine, if that is your karma - just don't ask me to believe the fellow is impartial. He is paid to say things in favour of his employer's business whereas the idea of science and is that one is beholden to naught but truth.

You may not believe in anthropological warming - but Bush does. He said so in 2002.

As for proxy evidence of GW - the Manua Loa graph by Keeling and Worf says it all for me
Check it out it's a most beautiful graph because it shows the planet breathing.

1) If C02 is increasing in the atmosphere it is coming from somewhere other than where it normally would come from in addition to where it normally comes from. Or the graph would be a flat line.
2) Guess what - fossil fuels break down to CO2 gass which are emitted into the atmosphere.
3) There is no debate that Co2 doesn't trap heat - this is a property of Co2.

Once you put 1, 2 and 3 toghether you have very little altenative but to look to mankinds activities as the source of co2 as the source of global warming.

Tell me if I going wrong in my logic.

This is what I got from researching McKintyre and the other fellow at my climate science site of choice RealClimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8

A number of spurious criticisms regarding the Mann et al (1998) proxy-based temperature reconstruction have been made by two individuals McIntyre and McKitrick ( McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). These criticisms are contained in two manuscripts (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2004--the latter manuscript was rejected by Nature.

McIntyre works in the mining industry .... oh poleeeze, the other git is an economist. Come on, now.

Rejected by Nature magazine, huh? Truely impressive.

But let's not play the man when we can play the ball. Seems they left out data for the 15th century. Seems Mann's hockey stick graph can be reproduced using a completely different methodology. Seems your 'scientists' are fossil fuel stooges. Meanwhile Mann is on every scientific committee and board worth being on.

1) If C02 is increasing in the atmosphere it is coming from somewhere other than where it normally would come from in addition to where it normally comes from. Or the graph would be a flat line.
2) Guess what - fossil fuels break down to CO2 gass which are emitted into the atmosphere.
3) There is no debate that Co2 doesn't trap heat - this is a property of Co2.

Once you put 1, 2 and 3 toghether you have very little altenative but to look to mankinds activities as the source of co2 as the source of global warming.

See, this is what happens when you limit the sources of your data.

Take a look at this graph that shows global temps and CO2 over geologic time.

Over the last half-billion years, the only time temps were as low as they are today was back 270-315 million years ago in the Carboniferous and Ordovician periods. As for CO2, only the Carbonifeous Period had C02 levels and temps similar to today's.

The normal state for Earth is to have far higher levels of CO2 than we are currently experiencing. All the Keeling curve does is confirm that the Earth's CO2 level is continuing on a climb back to normality.

Finally, back in the Ordovician Period, the CO2 levels were 12 times higher than they are today and yet the global temps were about what they are today.

Check me if I'm wrong, but human beings weren't around back then, so the Earth must have mechanisms for creating CO2 and controlling its effect on global temps that we don't understand yet. Certainly mankind hasn't had anything to do with it. So your assertion that we have "very little alternative but to look to mankind's activities as the source of CO2" is more than slightly flawed.

You may not believe in anthropological warming - but Bush does. He said so in 2002.

President Bush says that humans are having an effect on the climate, but you notice he hasn't signed onto Kyoto yet. Certainly we're having an impact, but my guess is he figures it's a negligible one and not worth changing our economy to deal with it.

As for working as a propagandist for an oil company - fine, if that is your karma - just don't ask me to believe the fellow is impartial. He is paid to say things in favour of his employer's business whereas the idea of science and is that one is beholden to naught but truth.

Comments like that don't add anything substantive to this discussion. If we continue on in that way, I'll say something snarky about "Gaia" being a fad religion for environmentalists. Next thing you know, we'll be meeting at dawn on a grassy field somewhere, our seconds standing by holding dueling pistols for two and coffee for one.

It doesn't matter what a researcher's credentials or motivations are, the only thing that counts is whether his data and conclusions bear up under scrutiny.

_______

I've got to go to work soon, so I'll reply to your other comment later. But if you want a hint as to what I'll say, check out this PDF: McKitrick on the Hockey Stick and this Canada.com article Breaking the hockey stick for M&M's account of what it was like trying to pry information from Mann so they could double-check his results. I'll also have more current stuff, but that'll give you some of what the other side has to say in the debate.

By the way, I also refer to RealClimate.org a lot to keep tabs on what the global warming advocates are saying, as well as ClimateAudit.org to learn what the skeptics think. Helps maintain balance.

See, this is what happens when you limit the sources of your data.

I take it then you agree with the 1 2 3 logic if you have to counter that my data is limited.

Take a look at this graph that shows global temps and CO2 over geologic time.

Over the last half-billion years, the only time temps were as low as they are today was back 270-315 million years ago in the Carboniferous and Ordovician periods. As for CO2, only the Carbonifeous Period had C02 levels and temps similar to today's.

The normal state for Earth is to have far higher levels of CO2 than we are currently experiencing. All the Keeling curve does is confirm that the Earth's CO2 level is continuing on a climb back to normality.

OK - the period I am interested in is the one I am living in, the Holocene, the last 10,000 years or so since the last ice-age. It's been very beneficial to humans, as evidenced by their population growth from 5 million to 6 billion.

I don't know why you think the Cretaceous climate is the go - it seems very high atmospheric CO2 wasn't much fun for the dinosaurs - http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2005/12/dinosaurs-cooked-by-global-warming.html - why would you fare any better?

During the Holocene the co2 levels have been flat at about 220ppm - the Keeling graph demonstrates a sharp and sudden almost linear rise since '49 that show no signs of slowing. Does this remind you of the dreaded hockey stick graph? It should.

Certainly mankind hasn't had anything to do with it. So your assertion that we have "very little alternative but to look to mankind's activities as the source of CO2" is more than slightly flawed.

One para later you say ...

President Bush says that humans are having an effect on the climate, but you notice he hasn't signed onto Kyoto yet. Certainly we're having an impact, but my guess is he figures it's a negligible one and not worth changing our economy to deal with it.

Mate, just pick a point of view and argue it , not two opposing points of views 'cos then there is no room for me ... So which one is it?

Comments like that don't add anything substantive to this discussion. If we continue on in that way, I'll say something snarky about "Gaia" being a fad religion for environmentalists. Next thing you know, we'll be meeting at dawn on a grassy field somewhere, our seconds standing by holding dueling pistols for two and coffee for one.

Go on then, I have nothing to fear if your shooting is anything like your logic. You second might though.

By the way, I also refer to RealClimate.org a lot to keep tabs on what the global warming advocates are saying, as well as ClimateAudit.org to learn what the skeptics think. Helps maintain balance.

This is where you lose me, I'm afraid. 'Balance' is for FoxNEWS ... I'm interested in science.

So do you want to argue that "Certainly we're having an impact, but my guess is he figures it's a negligible one and not worth changing our economy to deal with it."?

By the way ... if you really are finding it difficult to get a second I hear Vice President Dick Cheney is desperate for hunting partners. I see an elegant solution with him as your second, and you as his hunting partner.

There is the 'balance' you strive for; you would neatly cancel each other out without me having to let off even a fart in anger. And of course I would choose a barista for my second.

Let me have one more shot mate ... I can't help myself. How do you bring 'balance' to your technical writing?

I take it then you agree with the 1 2 3 logic if you have to counter that my data is limited.

Oops! You must have missed this:

Finally, back in the Ordovician Period, the CO2 levels were 12 times higher than they are today and yet the global temps were about what they are today.

Check me if I'm wrong, but human beings weren't around back then, so the Earth must have mechanisms for creating CO2 and controlling its effect on global temps that we don't understand yet. Certainly mankind hasn't had anything to do with it. So your assertion that we have "very little alternative but to look to mankind's activities as the source of CO2" is more than slightly flawed.

I was being polite, but so you don't misunderstand, I meant "you're wrong!"

OK - the period I am interested in is the one I am living in, the Holocene, the last 10,000 years or so since the last ice-age. It's been very beneficial to humans, as evidenced by their population growth from 5 million to 6 billion.

Yes, we're fortunate that there's been a mild spell allowing humans to flourish. But you missed my point. The Earth isn't static, there are long-term swings of climate and temps that extend well beyond such puny lengths of time as 10K years. The records show the planet tends toward much higher levels of CO2 than we're experiencing, which could mean the Holocene was at the extreme end of a climate's pendulum arc, now the pendulum is swinging back.

I don't know why you think the Cretaceous climate is the go - it seems very high atmospheric CO2 wasn't much fun for the dinosaurs - http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2005/12/dinosaurs-cooked-by-global-warming.html - why would you fare any better?

I read your reference, are you serious? I assume you mean the Alvarez meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and most other living things. I've also got a post on that and I can't imagine how you think it relates. The impact blacked out the Earth's surface for as long as 10 years, yes there was CO2 released, but there was also acid rain from vaporized gypsum and sulfur that made the oceans acidic.

How do you figure that applies to our discussion??

Mate, just pick a point of view and argue it , not two opposing points of views 'cos then there is no room for me ... So which one is it?

Why do you see them as being in opposition? They were addressing different parts of your argument! Also, if you're going to strain at finding contradictions in what I post, kindly include context:

Finally, back in the Ordovician Period, the CO2 levels were 12 times higher than they are today and yet the global temps were about what they are today.

Check me if I'm wrong, but human beings weren't around back then, so the Earth must have mechanisms for creating CO2 and controlling its effect on global temps that we don't understand yet. Certainly mankind hasn't had anything to do with it.

We weren't around through most of the Earth's history when CO2 levels were much higher than they are today, so what caused the increases? It wasn't us.

President Bush says that humans are having an effect on the climate, but you notice he hasn't signed onto Kyoto yet. Certainly we're having an impact, but my guess is he figures it's a negligible one and not worth changing our economy to deal with it.

Of course we have an impact on the planet! According to Chaos Theory everything's interconnected, so when I start my car, it eventually causes a butterfly in China to flap its wings and we get a hurricane in New Orleans. But the effect is neglible as I said and not something we control.

By the way ... if you really are finding it difficult to get a second I hear Vice President Dick Cheney is desperate for hunting partners. I see an elegant solution with him as your second, and you as his hunting partner.

There is the 'balance' you strive for; you would neatly cancel each other out without me having to let off even a fart in anger. And of course I would choose a barista for my second.

Not bad. Not funny, but it did make me smile.

Let me have one more shot mate ... I can't help myself. How do you bring 'balance' to your technical writing?

Non sequitur much?

Oh I see, you're having problems with my saying I consider both sides in the global warming controversy, for a balanced, informed viewpoint. So you refuse to consider both sides of a scientific argument? I'm afraid your attitude is unbalanced.

Wadard, we're hitting a point where the signal-to-noise ratio is becoming solid static. I'm tempted to invoke Godwin's Law and call you "Hitler," putting an end to it.

I am afraid Wadard won that one. He ripped you apart cchris. There is no 'context' from which to justify your flip-flopping. Mankind either has an impact on GW or does not have an impact. You can't argue both ways. But thank you that was a good read.

I am afraid Wadard won that one. He ripped you apart cchris. There is no 'context' from which to justify your flip-flopping. Mankind either has an impact on GW or does not have an impact. You can't argue both ways.

Sure I can! Just watch me:

What is it about the word "negligible" that people have such a hard time comprehending it?

We have an impact on climate because we exist. Our breathing affects the climate!

But if humanity disappeared tomorrow, I think the Earth would continue its warming trend, because our impact is a negligible one. Dang, there's that N-word again!

Out with "negligible," then. From now on it's: "We have a teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy, less-than-your-pet-puppy impact on climate change."

"Ah, ha!" some global warming zealot will no doubt reply, "so you admit, we do cause global warming."

Sigh. Better stop breathing, folks.