H4: The Battle of the Scientists

Open Letter by 18 Climate Alarmists

January 28, 2011

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change

As you begin your deliberations in the new 112th Congress, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change.  Climate change is not just an environmental threat but, as we describe below, also poses challenges to the U.S. economy, national security and public health.

Some view climate change as a futuristic abstraction. Others are unsure about the science, or uncertain about the policy responses. We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation. Our coastal areas are now facing increasing dangers from rising sea levels and storm surges; the southwest and southeast are increasingly vulnerable to drought; other regions will need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency.  These and other consequences of climate change all require that we plan and prepare. Our military recognizes that the consequences of climate change have direct security implications for the country that will only become more acute with time, and it has begun the sort of planning required across the board.

The health of Americans is also at risk. The U.S. Climate Impacts Report, commissioned by the George W. Bush administration, states: “Climate change poses unique challenges to human health. Unlike health threats caused by a particular toxin or disease pathogen, there are many ways that climate change can lead to potentially harmful health effects. There are direct health impacts from heat waves and severe storms, ailments caused or exacerbated by air pollution and airborne allergens, and many climate-sensitive infectious diseases.”

As with the fiscal deficit, the changing climate is the kind of daunting problem that we, as a nation, would like to wish away. However, as with our growing debt, the longer we wait to address climate change, the worse it gets. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide is building up in the atmosphere because burning coal, oil, and natural gas produces far more carbon dioxide than is absorbed by oceans and forests. No scientist disagrees with that.  Our carbon debt increases each year, just as our national debt increases each year that spending exceeds revenue.  And our carbon debt is even longer-lasting; carbon dioxide molecules can last hundreds of years in the atmosphere.

The Science of Climate Change

It is not our role as scientists to determine how to deal with problems like climate change. That is a policy matter and rightly must be left to our elected leaders in discussion with all Americans.  But, as scientists, we have an obligation to evaluate, report, and explain the science behind climate change.

The debate about climate change has become increasingly ideological and partisan. But climate change is not the product of a belief system or ideology. Instead, it is based on scientific fact, and no amount of argument, coercion, or debate among talking heads in the media can alter the physics of climate change.

Political philosophy has a legitimate role in policy debates, but not in the underlying climate science. There are no Democratic or Republican carbon dioxide molecules; they are all invisible and they all trap heat.

The fruits of the scientific process are worthy of your trust.  This was perhaps best summed up in recent testimony before Congress by Dr. Peter Gleick, co-founder and director of the Pacific Institute and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.  He testified that the scientific process “is inherently adversarial – scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics.”

National Academy of Sciences

What we know today about human-induced climate change is the result of painstaking research and analysis, some of it going back more than a century. Major international scientific organizations in disciplines ranging from geophysics to geology, atmospheric sciences to biology, and physics to human health – as well as every one of the leading national scientific academies worldwide – have concluded that human activity is changing the climate. This is not a “belief.” Instead, it is an objective evaluation of the scientific evidence.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was created by Abraham Lincoln and chartered by Congress in 1863 for the express purpose of obtaining objective expert advice on a range of complex scientific and technological issues. Its international reputation for integrity is unparalleled. This spring, at the request of Congress, the NAS issued a series of comprehensive reports on climate change that were unambiguous.

The NAS stated, “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities . . . and in many cases is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems.”  This conclusion comes as no surprise to the overwhelming majority of working climate scientists.

Climate Change Deniers

Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science. Sometimes they present alternative hypotheses as an explanation of a particular point, as if the body of evidence were a house of cards standing or falling on one detail; but the edifice of climate science instead rests on a concrete foundation. As an open letter from 255 NAS members noted in the May 2010 Science magazine, no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why.

The assertions of climate deniers therefore should not be given scientific weight equal to the comprehensive, peer-reviewed research presented by the vast majority of climate scientists.

The determination of policy sits with you, the elected representatives of the people. But we urge you, as our elected representatives, to base your policy decisions on sound science, not sound bites. Congress needs to understand that scientists have concluded, based on a systematic review of all of the evidence, that climate change caused by human activities raises serious risks to our national and economic security and our health both here and around the world. It’s time for Congress to move on to the policy debate.

How Can We Move Forward?

Congress should, we believe, hold hearings to understand climate science and what it says about the likely costs and benefits of action and inaction.  It should not hold hearings to attempt to intimidate scientists or to substitute ideological judgments for scientific ones. We urge our elected leaders to work together to focus the nation on what the science is telling us, particularly with respect to impacts now occurring around the country.

Already, there is far more carbon in the air than at any time in human history, with more being generated every day. Climate change is underway and the severity of the risks we face is compounded by delay.

We look to you, our representatives, to address the challenge of climate change, and lead the national response. We and our colleagues are prepared to assist you as you work to develop a rational and practical national policy to address this important issue.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

John Abraham, University of St. Thomas
Barry Bickmore, Brigham Young University
Gretchen Daily,* Stanford University
G. Brent Dalrymple,* Oregon State University
Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University
Peter Gleick,* Pacific Institute
John Kutzbach,* University of Wisconsin-Madison
Syukuro Manabe,* Princeton University
Michael Mann, Penn State University
Pamela Matson,* Stanford University
Harold Mooney,* Stanford University
Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University
George Woodwell,* The Woods Hole Research Center

*Member of the National Academy of Sciences

_____________________________________________

Responding Open Letter by 82 Climate Scientists

The Truth About Climate Change Open Letter:

Open Letter to the United States Congress

8 February 2011

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”

On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter (see also this news story) to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.

We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.

The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.

To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.

For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.

If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at http://www.nipccreport.org.

These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.

In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.

But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.

Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.

Signed by,

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
Richard Becherer, University of Rochester
John Boring, University of Virginia
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University1
Will Happer, Princeton University2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1

1 – Emeritus or Retired
2 – Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Endorsed by:

Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Terry Donze, Geophysicist1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC
Dick Flygare, QEP Resources
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1
Art Horn, Meteorologist
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute
Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.
Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org

1 – Emeritus or Retired (1236)

Comments

  1. 1

    All, Where did the two titles for the above come from, I wonder. The first title suggests that the letter is from “AGW Alarmists” while the second comes from “climate change scientists”. Who is it, I wonder, who choose these silly but emotionally effective titles? Ed, do you have any idea who that devious person might be?

  2. 2
    Berthold Klein says:

    Dr. Eric says:

    January 31, 2011 at 10:04 pm
    @12 Ed,
    “I don’t understand why you would say to me,
    “I don’t think you have shown, in all of climate clash, any convincing scientific evidence that “Mother Nature” gives “a hoot about” human CO2 emissions.”

    Is it not clear that CO2 has been considered a main GHG for well over 150 years. That Arrhenius first modeled its warming effect in about 1896 and even with primitive tools predicted a Sensitivity value (including water vapor feedback) that is remarkably close to those predicted today using exceeding comprehensive models with super computers. And finally and MOST IMPORTANTLY, with the advent of ice and ocean bottom core samples, we have been able to measure both temperature and CO2 content in time, thereby observing the strong correlation between them, leading also to magnitudes of Sensitivity, both short term and long.”

    From Wikepeadia

    Beginning in the late 1850s, Tyndall studied the action of radiant energy on the constituents of air, and it led him onto several lines of inquiry, and his original research results included the following:

    “Tyndall’s setup for measuring the radiant heat absorption of gases. (Click on image for a description).
    Tyndall explained the heat in the Earth’s atmosphere in terms of the capacities of the various gases in the air to absorb radiant heat, a.k.a. infrared radiation. His measuring device, which used thermopile technology, is an early landmark in the history of absorption spectroscopy of gases.[8] He was the first to correctly measure the infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other gases is negligible. Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth’s atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was first to prove it. The proof was that water vapor strongly absorbed infrared radiation.[9] “
    How does the fact that water vapor absorbs infrared proof the “greenhouse gas effect”?

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .
    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental wackos- that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

  3. 3

    @2 Eric,

    Yes, but I do not accept the description “devious.” I added the titles to properly introduce the two letters, taking the titles from the substance of the letters themselves, as an editor is supposed to do.

    The responding letter says:

    The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.

    So clearly “Alarmists” is an appropriate description. I could have used “Climate” rather than “AGW” in the first title but AGW is a better descriptor of what the alarm is about. Has AGW suddenly become a politically incorrect term?

    Here’s the story:

    Eighteen alarmists start a little political battle because they are not happy with merely working on their plush government research grants. They want to stick their noses into politics as well, on government time of course, and they deviously include in their letter their pet attack phrase “climate change deniers” as if there were something to deny.

    Along comes a response from climate scientists, few of whom have fat government research grants, with a letter that will likely get ten times as many signatures, wherein the responding scientists call the alarmists “alarmists.” I expect the alarmists will now squeal and claim the scientists did not play fair.

    The content of the letters is clear: The alarmists talk about alarms. The scientists talk about science. Therefore, the letter titles are quite appropriate.

    These two letters are significant. They represent a clear crossing of swords that is destined to become a political football. It makes sense for Climate Clash to follow this news.

  4. 4

    @3 Ed,

    You say “The content of the letters is clear: The alarmists talk about alarms. The scientists talk about science”. — As if the former do not know and talk about the science!!!! And why then did you not attach a label to the sencond group – such as “The deniers talk about denying” which they do?

    Yes DEVIOUS for sure and also SICK. You have lost all pretense of being fair. BUT AGAIN this is your show and you run it as you wish, no matter how sick it is. The Great Debate is looking more and more like your regular website, edberry. com. Perhaps its time for you to once again entertain us with some Al Gore jokes. Uff Da!!

    The piece called “Hypocrasy at Climate Clash” at by [Tom Curtis] was sure right on.

  5. 5

    @4 Eric,

    Did you not read the title: “The Battle of the Scientists”? Was that not a fair post title?

    If we go back many years to when no one was sounding climate alarms, everybody was happy … with the climate at least.

    Then along came some people looking to boost their research money with devious “grantsmanship,” who sounded a climate alarm. First, it was about an ice age. But along came data that destroyed that alarm. The same alarmists flipped 180 degrees to claim AGW was a serious problem.

    Now, because they are losing political power, the alarmists send an open letter, clearly intending to stab those scientists who disagree with them by calling them “deniers.” That is SICK! It has nothing to do with science. But you overlook it.

    The alarmists begin with the environmental extremist, meaningless mantra of “Addressing Climate Change” which phrase identifies them well.

    By contrast, the scientists simply list the alarmists claims, negate the claims, and back up their position with two references that include an extensive list of scientific papers. Negating hypotheses, as the scientists so properly did, is called science.

    Since when do alarmists have the right to call those who negate their hypotheses, deniers? Since when do alarmists have the scientific right to not accept their hypotheses have been negated?

    Now, that your case for AGW has fallen apart, you claim Climate Clash is a hypocrisy, a word you cannot even spell? And you do so on the basis of sub-titles to open letters? Can you point to any example in Climate Clash where you have not been able to fairly present and defend your case? No.

    As I predicted in @3:

    I expect the alarmists will now squeal and claim the scientists did not play fair.

  6. 6
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    Dr. Eric,
    I am sorry that fewer supporters of your position have responded on this site than “deniers” as you call them. I wanted fair debate. You personally have not put up supportable arguments very well, and the unbalance number of comments from the other side do seem to make the arguments more one sided. Tom Curtis was doing a good job defending your position, but he was offended him by my response on NZ (where I still disagree with some of his conclusion, but do agree that the skeptics made mis statements), and with drew from this debate. However, I have tried to argue the facts as I see them, and you do not respond well to support your side. I agree some of the skeptics make what even I consider to be wrong arguments, but the skeptics includes a large number of different positions. Showing some of those positions as being wrong does not support your case, only actual real data that can be verified can do that, and you have not shown any. In the end there is only one fact that matters on this debate. That is the sensitivity to doubling CO2. If it is 3 C or more, you are correct in your basic position. If it is 1 C or less, the skeptics are right. Right now, it appears to be 1 C or less, but the next few years will nail the result. Since we are now in a LaNina and expected to cool a year or so more at least, I won’t claim that is proof, but if 4 or 5 years out if the temperature has not risen back (on average) to a steep rise (0.2 C/decade or more), that it is all over for your position.

  7. 7

    @5 Ed,

    You are so biased in the direction of denial that you need to discredit all of science by claiming you know their motives. As when you say:

    “Then along came some people looking to boost their research money with devious “grantsmanship,” who sounded a climate alarm. First, it was about an ice age. But along came data that destroyed that alarm. The same alarmists flipped 180 degrees to claim AGW was a serious problem.”

    You suggest that the case for AGW is all driven by bad scientists looking for money. And at the same time you claim to be a good guy scientist who probably receives nothing for his “good word”. Hard core Deniers need to kill the messengers because the science is clear. They can’t play fair. The messenger must be killed.

    You claim to have the answers – even though you have shown here that you know very little about the actual science of climate change. So you use titles labeling the good guys and the bad guys along with Al Gore jokes instead of talking science yourself (when by the way are we going to see your long awaited rebuttal). You defend what you say being “self evident” even though none of it would pass peer review. Again, where is the Beef (that is, a better explanation of observables).

    And you don’t think there is any hypocrisy or sickness at work on this web site. During the course of this debate you have changed from “sticking to scence” to “sticking it to science”. Do you suppose all of science is equally “bad” or is it just in the many fields that have a say in climate change?

    And the National Academy of Science established by Abe Lincoln for providing the best scientific advice possible to our country’s leadership, are you saying that they also all motivated only by the acquisition of their research grants?

    As always, I am not surprised by your attitudes and am not even complaining. I am just pointing out what you are doing. I’ll leave it to others to decide for themselves just how sick, biased and unfair you are.

    But, you did go too far as far as I am concerned, however, when you asked me a question and then answered it incorrectly for me – when you asked,

    “Can you point to any example in Climate Clash where you have not been able to fairly present and defend your case? No.”

    IF you will allow me to answer the question myself, my answer would be YES. Have you already forgotten the several comments I tried to post on Climate Clash that you removed? Have you also forgotten the period when I was entirely blocked out of Climateclash by your deactivation of my password? Most importantly, have you forgotten that you blocked out the parting comments of one of my few supporters and perhaps the most knowledgeable participant on Climate Clash when he (Tom Curtis) also noticed and then took issue with your bias and selective defense of your set of “good guys” on this site. (If anyone wishes to see documentation of what I have said in this paragraph, you won’t find it on this censored site, but will find it on [website of Tom Curtis]).

    Concerning your final comment:

    “ I expect the alarmists will now squeal and claim the scientists did not play fair.”,

    perhaps you should not flatter yourself so much. Most real scientists totally ignore the hard core Deniers of the world as they should. Possibly I am the only exception. I might be all you’ve got!! Isn’t that a sobering thought !!!

  8. 8

    @6 continued. What Battle of Scientists is Ed referring to?

    The overall title at the head of this post is a misrepresentation of fact. There no longer is a “Battle of the Scientists” going on. Ed would like you to think that there is and also to think that “even the scientists can’t make up their minds” on AGW.

    All of this has not been true for almost 10 years now. There no longer is a SINGLE research paper that appears in the peer-refereed journals that seriously questions the notion of AGW. The papers that deal with this topic are now mainly trying to better define the details – such as how much, how soon, where first, what can be done, etc. The impression that Ed is trying to convey – that there is a battle raging between real scientists on this issue – is a fabrication if one defines the scientific community in this case to consist of the professionals that work in this area every day and have done so for many years. This definition of a community is important – after all, if you needed to have heart surgery, would you get to opinions of all minimally qualified health care providers or would be get the opinions of the professional MD’s that perform heart surgery every day?

  9. 9

    @6, 7

    Eric,

    You claim my choice of subtitles in this “implications” post prevents you from properly presenting your case for AGW in the science posts. I claim your claim is irrational.

    You claim the time I temporarily halted climate clash has caused you to not be able to present your whole case for AGW. The truth is my forced cooling off period had zero, nada, zip effect on preventing you from arguing your case for AGW. To claim otherwise is as silly as saying a traffic light that caused you to stop momentarily on the way to the grocery store, caused you to not be able to get to the grocery store.

    If you had a valid claim, you would simply say, “Ed, I would like to have more to say about …. subject.” Would I prevent you? Of course not.

    There are really only two relevant points to make in this discussion:

    1. The subtitles I assigned to the two open letters are totally irrelevant to your opportunity to present your case for AGW.

    2. You case for AGW has fallen flat for two key reasons independent of the subtitles:
    (a) you have not invalidated the papers that show your CAGW alarms are false, and these papers are referenced in the responding letter from the scientists.
    (b) your use of ancient temperature-CO2 history to predict the temperatures for the next century is scientifically invalid. You claim the data supports your hypothesis. But original data does not support a hypothesis, and only new data can support a hypothesis. You have not formulated a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. You claim you don’t need models, but you do need some kind of model to predict anything with your hypothesis. Your refusal to present a model that incorporates your hypothesis leaves your scientific case vacuous.

    Regarding your question about “Battle of the Scientists,” are you now claiming the case for AGW is closed?

    You have certainly left the case for AGW wide open and so have the distinguished signers of the alarmists letter. So, yes, I predict we are going to see a battle of the scientists like we have not seen before. For the first time, the opposing groups have crossed swords.

  10. 10
    Richard Petschauer says:

    The statement [in the first open letter]

    “But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics”

    is very clever. But neither have the alamists developed a theory that explains obserable evidence. Remember Trenberth’s comment lamenting that they cannot explain lack of warming for over a decade.

    My new theory says green men from a far off planet will evade te earth. Since you cannot disprove it, it could be true.

  11. 11

    @9 Richard, By any chance did you happen to study the article by Hansen et al. highlighted in Post 6. The model thereby described can not be dismissed simply because a few hard core Deniers dismiss it. You should read it yourself and then decide if this theory explains observable evidence better than any other. If not, which other theory would that be?

  12. 12

    @8 Ed,

    Concerning your statement “You claim my choice of subtitles in this “implications” post prevents you from properly presenting your case for AGW in the science posts. “ — I made no such claim. I have no problem presenting my case (other than having you understand it). I just pointed out how stupid, misleading, and inappropriate your title and subtitles are.

    Concerning your statement, “You claim the time I temporarily halted climate clash has caused you to not be able to present your whole case for AGW.” This is also BS. The cooling off period you referred was simply due to the fact that you did not want your readership to see the comment posted by Tom Curtis at that time and also did not want your readership to see my comments after I noted your subterfuge and tied to inform the readership that “someone” was tampering with submitted comments without the permission of their authors. In short, you were being exposed for what you were doing and are now trying to cover your tracks by suggesting that you were doing us all some benevolent favor. I did not need any “cooling off” period. Nor did Tom Curtis. You were simply afraid that our comments would see the light of day.

    Concerning your comment: “Regarding your question about “Battle of the Scientists,” are you now claiming the case for AGW is closed?”. Of course, the case for AGW is roundly accepted in the real scientific world. It is only among the lay public that confusion reigns – due to the valiant efforts of the likes of you. What I am trying to do on this web site is close the gap between scientific and public opinion. No real scientists are reading this web site – expect possibly for their amusement. What is important here for me is to try to minimize the damage you do to public opinion. This is important and necessary because in our country we have one man one vote (as we should have) and only a small fraction of the population are real scientists and the rest are vulnerable to the comforting lies being told by the likes of you.

    Concerning “ So, yes, I predict we are going to see a battle of the scientists like we have not seen before. For the first time, the opposing groups have crossed swords.” While there is a tiny bit of truth to what you say, your timing of events is way off. Scientists crossed swords on this issue of AGW during the several decades prior of the last one. Now the only crossing of swords going on is that between the real scientific community and entrenched financial powers that want BAU to continue as long as possible.

    I also noted that you failed to respond to the most important point I raised concerning past censorship at Climate Clash – that of removing Tom Curtis’s last post. Tom Curtis was a very knowledgeable and dedicated participant of Climate Clash. But as soon as he expressed some criticism of its leader, you threw him out. While you have clearly allowed yourself to lecture us on the proper means of communications on Climate Clash, you did not allow this person to express his thoughts. In order to ensure that Tom’s comments did not get to your readership you kicked him off the site.

    Again, Ed, I am not complaining here so much as explaining. As always, its your show. Keep up the good work. But the readership of Climate Clash does not even know about the Tom Curtis incident I am referring to above and that does not seem to be fair by any normal measure. If Tom was out of line (which he was not) why not let the readership see his statement and decide for themselves. In short, an explanation of the censoring of Tom Curtis is in order.

  13. 13

    @12 Eric,

    As you will recall, the event you refer to regarding Tom, began well before Tom’s comment. It began after I had issued multiple warnings to you to remove personal attack material from your discussions of science. You did not abide by my request. Maybe you purposely ignored my warnings or maybe you did not comprehend the difference between science and personal attacks. Based upon your personal attack comments in this post, I conclude you truly do not understand the difference.

    My response to your continuation of personal attacks was to line out the parts of your previous comments that played no part whatsoever in your science argument. I hoped my line outs would be instructive to you. Comments by others after the event unanimously concluded that my line outs in no way distracted from your scientific argument. In fact, my line outs improved your scientific argument by removing the clutter you typically enter in your comments.

    When you objected to my line outs, Tom reappeared, after saying good bye some weeks before, to enter an off subject, inflammatory comment that had no bearing whatsoever on our discussion. This is where I made a decision. I blocked Tom’s comment. Tom took the position that my line outs were depriving you of your ability to argue your scientific case, which was totally incorrect.

    Pardon me if I be blunt, but Tom’s comment was (a) incorrect, (b) inflammatory, and (c) out of order. Using the analogy of a courtroom, a judge would have immediately had the deputies haul Tom, kicking and screaming, out of the courtroom. The fact that you sympathize with Tom’s actions shows you have very poor judgment, indeed.

    The bottom line, Eric, is the only reason you even bring up this event with Tom, which has nothing to do with your science argument, is because you still cannot separate between issuing personal attacks and arguing science. I have every right in Climate Clash to keep order and focus. When you, Tom, or anyone else gets out of order I will do what is necessary to restore order. Understand?

  14. 14

    @13 Ed,

    Let me make a few corrections to you concluding statement in @13,

    “When you, Tom, or anyone else gets out of order I will do what is necessary to restore order. Understand?”

    1. First remove the “or anyone”. The sentence, then referring to just Tom and I would be an accurate description of fact. When you or Al or Berthold, just to mention three examples on your “side” who frequently resorted to mindless labels and name calling, you sat on your hands. All of this is evident in the record – unless it has been altered retroactively.

    This was the major point of Tom’s letter that you refused to let the readership see. I had also made the point as clear as I could without complaining, but you could not stand to have an independent outside party drive home the point in front of your readership, could you? And you justified this as constituting a needed “cooling down period” when you should have called it a “save my sorry butt period” by use of all means at your disposal only. Yes you are indeed”more equal than the rest of us” but you have also been unfair by creating an unlevel playing field – you allowed the likes of Al, for example, regularly and repeatedly refer to Tom and I as “climatards”.

    And out have introduce myriad topics at the head of numerous posts without consulting me – while I have always asked permission to post mine. The only one I am looking for from you is the one that would be at the heart of the matter – your description of a better model for observed climate changes. That one is now several months overdue and I am beginning to think that it will not appear – as you continue to post side issues and the thoughts of amateurs at the heads of posts.

    2. “Restoring order” should not be confused with being asked by others to justify your actions or comments. The single virtue of Jospeph Stalin was that he was unsurpassed in “restoring and keeping order”. In democracies such as that of the USA, we don’t take such shortcuts to comply with any specific person’s perception of order and we don’t need protectors of the proletariat such a Stalin – because we simply let the views of all be explessed by all parties and then work it out from there. – and EXSPECIALLY WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS BEING CALLED A DEBATE. Your proclamations such as “Pardon me if I be blunt, but Tom’s comment was (a) incorrect, (b) inflammatory, and (c) out of order.” constitute simply the impression of one party in the debate and if insisted by the authority in charge is itself out of order as well as downright condescending and unAmerican. Perhaps you do not extend that level of respect to Australians and harbor the notion that Tom is part of some sore of “international conspiracy”? I, for one don’t get it and find your behavior to be indefensibly unAmerican and constitutes the major problem with Climate Change – if it lays any claim to be an open debate. Understand?

    In addition, I wonder if you cut the sitting President of the USA as much respect and priveledge for calling some of the shots in the USA as you claim for your self on this meager web site? Just to bring you back to Earth on this point, perhaps you should share with us another round of Al Gore Jokes just to show your actual lack of respect for public officials with whom you happen to disgree and love to ridicule (reference: edberry.com). After that then tell us again about your interest in maintaining order and respect at Climate Clash. Yes the word, hypocrisy, does come to mind.

    It is indeed a good thing that we don’t have combined Judge/Advocate positions in this country such as in the show trials of the Soviet Union and Climate Clash. If the orchestration of Climate Clash is any different from the SU versions (hopefully excepting the predicatable sentences to be dished out when the verdict of the Judge/Jury combo position is revealed), I fail to see how they differ. But then again – it is your show, Ed, to do with as you wish – and perhaps a continuation of your Soviet style hypocrisy, rather than that of an American democracy will provide your only means of getting through the “Great Debate” with the retention of a bit of dignity in front of your customers many of whom possible paid to see the “roast” of a Scientist and now that of a Denier.

  15. 15
    Richard Petschauer says:

    @10
    Dr Eric, what post 6? Or can you point me to the Hansen Article you refer to. I will review it. However, it seems that natural variations such as the ocean oscillations and sun spot variation role in cosmic rays correlate much better with temperature records than does CO2 content. Have you seen Roy Spencers latest book ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder”? And temperature records in the last 100 years are not unusual compared to that of the past 2000 years, especially when the heat island effect is correctly accounted for.
    No one argues that CO2 will not cause some warming. The question is how much and is it a problem.

  16. 16

    @15 Richard,

    Under the column called “categories” select “by Dr. Eric”. My main posts are posts 1, 6, 7 and 9. The one focussing on the Hansen paper is post 6.

    No I haven’t read the Spencer book you refer to. While I do read the popular media, I don’t pay much attention to there content unless it has passed peer review – which good stuff should by the time a book has been published. Nevertheless I enjoy reading the arguments, discussions, biases, etc of essentially all works and will keep an eye out for “Blunder” in spite of its title.

  17. 17

    @14 Eric,

    Your comment is so far removed from the reason for Climate Clash that I am going to ignore it and attempt to bring you back to reality. You clearly have loads of time to waste and I don’t have time to babysit you through your temper tantrums.

    Here is what you should have done way back in your @2 and what I suggest you focus on now:

    1. Notice the alarmist letter blames several alleged consequences on human CO2 (about 9 consequences depending upon how you count them).

    2. Notice the responding letter disputes all these alleged consequences and lists two comprehensive references to support its case.

    3. Notice the first responding reference, the CO2 Science report, is the same one Leonard gave you in Post H1 @17 and which you told Leonard you would read and respond.

    4. Notice your alarmist colleagues desperately need help because if they cannot disprove all the claims in the responding letter, they will become village idiots.

    5. Connect the dots and realize you have an opportunity to be a hero if you can save your alarmist colleagues. This is a real life adventure for you if you are up to it.

    6. Get to work and show the readers of Climate Clash how the responding scientists are wrong … if you can … and which I claim you cannot.

    Such focus on science is the reason for climate clash. We are not doing climate clash to waste our time on your stupid, irrelevant pissing matches.

  18. 18

    @17 Ed,

    Your response:

    “Your comment is so far removed from the reason for Climate Clash that I am going to ignore it” are code words for “I don’t dare level with the readership of CC concerning the Tom Curtis censorship because it would prove to be too embarrassing” – just as I expected.

    Therefore, perhaps you would allow me to begin a new post called “Climateclashgate” in which I would reveal information only you and I are aware of but was concealed from the public by you for reasons known only to you. What do you say? Are you ready yet to show the public what you have used your Administration powers to conceal?

  19. 19

    @17 Ed, How about doing a ClimateClashGate investigation?

    I suspected that you would continue to ignore the challenge I put to you in my comment 16, but I am going to continue to encourage you the face the music on this one anyway – because of its central importance to any debate that claims to be fair. It is not enough to say it is fair. That must be continuously proven whenever the question arises and I am officially raising it here.

    Please recall: Back in your comment #5, you asked me:

    “Can you point to any example in Climate Clash where you have not been able to fairly present and defend your case?”

    And I then did exactly that in this post with various examples and in particular, by referring to the Tom Curtis letter (which you did not let the other readers see). The Curtis letter provided valuable input concerning the future of this debate and you destroyed it. You then also destroyed the subsequent comment I made in which I tried to alert the readership to what was happening.

    It appears that you destroyed the Curtis letter ONLY because it was critical of you and for no other reason. That letter was very well written and thoroughly documented by the electronic trail of Climate Clash. The excuses you provided for your unique actions in this instance were lame to put it mildly. No one needed a cooling off period (other than you possibly) and Tom’s remarks were not generally offensive – unless you define the word critical to be offensive and then only if that criticism was directed at the person of Ed Berry.

    And the topic Tom addressed concerned the essentials for having a fair trial and for following the Scientific Method, as well. While Ed allowed himself to expound on his version of proper ethics in a scientific debate, he did not even let Tom’s thoughts on that subject see the light of day on HIS site.

    If it can be shown that anyone has unduly used their power to tilt the playing field in their favor, that would result in a mistrial Perhaps that is what you want, Ed, so that you can pick up your toys and go home?

    But before you do go, let me suggest an alternative action. Let me start a new post that focuses on this issue. We will call it ClimateClashGate. In it, we will first provide the basic evidence that might be found to constitute unfairness by the Administrator of Climate Clash. In might also include a few select passages from emails between you, Curtis, and me in which legal threats were made to Tom and me and, in addition, and one might be perceived in a real court of law to be a threat to my person – should I press you too forcefully on the issue of censorship versus openness.

    As in what has become known as ClimateGate in the investigation of events at East Anglia, we could apply the same standard for public expose here. I would understand if you might not think those standards apply in your case because your sources of funding are undoubtedly from the private sector. Nevertheless, wouldn’t you like to show us all that you operate under ethical standards at least as high as those in the academic sector?

    So let me know your intentions. Do you intend to “cut and run”, or continue to “cut and sensor” or “let the Sun shine it”? Its your choice. Also, just say OK and I’ll start that new post. (First, however, please assure me here in the public domain that you will not follow through with those threats referred to above should I share some of our secrets with the public.)

  20. 20
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    @38 in post O, Dr. Eric

    If you can logically demonstrate even one fact even made by this child is clearly in error, I would be glad to see it. Just making statements such as you have shows your weakness, not strength. Her understanding of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effect is poor, but so is yours. Most skeptics do agree that there is an atmospheric greenhouse gas, and CO2 is one of them, and it has some effect. The entire CAGW argument rests on the sensitivity and data, not assumptions and models. This 16 year old’s analysis was somewhat limited, but far better than anything I have seen from you.

    I have been, and still am, basically open minded to facts, although I have become somewhat biased toward being skeptical due to the continual lack of any reasonable supportable evidence for CAGW. This bias, which resulted in my being resistant to his analysis on NZ (and which I was slowly coming toward agreeing with him, but he left too soon) bothered Tom Curtis so that he left the debate, and I am very sorry for that, as I greatly respected him, but he and all others are also biased somewhat, that is just being human. Bias is not bad as long as in the end you consider FACTS, and not just opinion. You present nothing but a bunch of opinions that you now treat the same as a religion. I have tried to get you to read other views with FACTS associated with them, but all you do is repeat the same positions that lead to no supportable result.

  21. 21

    [ADMIN] To explain the mysterious evaporation of several of your comments, I found them lying in the spam folder. I did not expect this because none of the comments have any contents that should be trapped as spam. Anyway, they are all back here now.

    I removed all duplicate comments and those referring to the problem of missing comments. I had to renumber some of the @refs to the new comment numbers.

    I am sorry for this occurrence. I never expected our normal comments would be diverted into the spam folder. I will leave this summary comment here. You may now carry on with adding comments as you wish and I will be watching the spam folder.

  22. 22

    I have a question for everyone:

    Whereas (A) Dr. Eric accepted my request for this Climate Clash debate by writing:

    A Scientific View of Climate Change (no politics, no personalities)

    “I gladly accept Ed Berry’s invitation to participate in a scientific discussion of the climate changes we believe are presently occurring. In accordance with Ed’s request, I will limit my remarks here entirely to the scientific aspects of climate change (in which I am a recognized expert) and will not venture into other aspects of climate change (in which I have opinions like everyone else, but I am not an expert), such as economic and societal consequences.” – Eric

    And it was upon that promise that I put together Climate Clash,

    And whereas (B) Dr. Eric has ramped up his personal criticism in this post initially over my choice of subtitles for the two letters from his @2 through his @19 wherein he has made false, actionable allegations,

    And whereas (C) he has expanded his personal criticisms while providing no scientific discussion related to my comments @9, point 2, and @17,

    And whereas (D) he is now requesting in @19, no demanding in a manner smelling of extortion, that I give him a whole new post where he can divert Climate Clash into his own personal pissing match, which would have nothing to do with science,

    And whereas (E) I have made it clear that I have very high demands on my time and I have no interest in wasting my time on useless pissing matches, rather my interest in sponsoring Climate Clash, entirely at my own personal expense, was to provide a place for polite, rational scientific discussion,

    What should I do?

  23. 23

    @22 Ed,

    Yes, it does appear that both of us have been disappointed with respect to promises and assumptions initially made. You have quoted my initial promises and I thought or assumed that you would provide a level playing field.

  24. 24

    Note how history repeats itself. Watergate happened and Nixon left office simply because he misused his power and when caught, did not let the Sun shine in.

    All of this stuff you referred to as being a “pissing match” and what now might result in a ClimateClashGate would have been avoided simply by not overusing your power by censoring one carefully considered comment by Tom Curtis.

    Now you ask us, what should I do? As always my vote would be to let the Sun shine in. But. also as always. this is your show, Ed. If you want it to be merely a show trial, so be it.

  25. 25

    Millfruntion

    An essay on the irony of those, whom perhaps, are just a touch ill equipped to be casting aspersions. (Or people that live (believe) in glass/green houses should not throw stones.)

    There appear to be some common mental aberrations suffered by many of the leading lights in the discussions about anthropogenic global warming. (Not just global warming, any subject with a slightly awkward or complex theme will do)
    These aberrations are not confined specifically to any particular group, but appear widely spread throughout the populace.
    I have named this condition Millfruntion. It is an affliction that affects only those of limited intelligence and artistic integrity and then not all of those, there must be a certain extra quality to achieve Millfruntion.
    A part of this state is a strong self belief that they are humanistic, caring and yet, demonstrate no empathy ever.
    One of the most obvious and commonly seen effects is the inability to proof read.
    Not all typographical errors will be caught by spill chucker’s.
    When the problem is that a word has just been completely left out, the sufferer of these aberrations cannot see that the word is missing, every time they try reading it, the word is there.
    Even simple mathematics can leave one afflicted with Millfruntion floundering.
    I have found that merely by writing in a certain slightly old fashioned or polite fashion, I can make much of what I write completely invisible to a whole section of society.
    Length, complexity and verbosity or using an extended lexicon will help to alienate those poor people who cannot even see this kind of writing.
    If one desires to keep their attention, one can try using paragraph breaks to make smaller and more easily assimilated portions.

    If I include any verse in the form of ode or poem, I know I will automatically be able to discount a large proportion of those worried by the latest end of the world scenario.

    I found this wonderful quote while doing a little research on NPD

    “The study of human nature may be thought of as an art with many tools at its disposal, an art closely related to all the other arts, and relevant to them all. In literature and poetry, particularly, this is especially significant. Its primary aim must be to broaden our knowledge of human beings, that is to say, it must enable us all to become better, fuller, and finer people.” — Alfred Adler

    The Dunning –Kruger effect has been bandied around by both sides of the AGW debate, I must admit to having mentioned it in the past myself.
    Bias is a recognized problem to any one with honesty, I believe in my world view, it is all I have.
    I understand reality from my frame of reference only, of course I will find that theories that fit in with my world view are absorbed and understood with a great deal more ease than something new, different or challenging to my world view.
    A part of understanding bias is to try and see things from the other side.
    If one ignores all the illogical inconsistencies, the fudged data, the tricks, the post normal science, the calls to authority, the misunderstanding of cause and effect etc and really tries to imagine how it must be in the head of a true believer, I think we, as rational intelligent people who can read, write and comprehend lengthy discourses and understand and appreciate the power of poetry and prose, will find it a dark and confusing place.

    It does not matter what happens in the future it is all bad. If the climate gets hot we cook and drown, if the climate gets cooler we starve and freeze. “Won’t somebody please think of the children?”

    Here is a plan, let us borrow a bunch of money to spend on something that may or may not happen. Worst case scenario, we go broke before we destroy all CARBON based life on the planet by attempting to strangle the plants that are the basis for all life on earth.

    For four and a half billion years (or there about) the climate of out planet has changed, luckily for us, from an incandescent blob of molten rock with no life, to a solid crusted blob of molten rock with life.
    Our planet has cooled a lot looking at the big picture, despite a variable star that is approximately 99% of the matter in the solar system increasing its output substantially over that time frame.
    Looking at much shorter time frames we can see that we are currently at the end of an interglacial period in an ice age.
    According to a vast body of data, previous interglacial periods may have been 6C warmer than this one. (Past sea levels reinforce this.) This information has been gathered from ice cores that seem to also show us CO2 levels that are much lower than today. These icy parts did not melt in these much warmer past times with much lower CO2.

    Agreed facts about climate change are few and far between.
    Facts, the climate changes, it always has and it always will. (As long as there is an Earth and a Sun)
    Man can change the climate; most of humanity does it to some degree every day. Most of our climatic changes are short term and local.
    Some of mankind’s achievements can be climatically altering on longer time scales and greater degrees.
    There is some evidence that the Sahara may have been turned from the lush grasslands, that used to support a wide range of species, into the hostile arid wilderness that we see today, by the early actions of deforestation along the Mediterranean coast.
    Much of Holland has land that has been ripped out of the grasp of a hungry sea.
    Ever since man gained control of fire he has controlled his local environment, rather than being controlled by his environment.
    We fight the climate and its Weatherly ways daily, mostly we win and survive; the death tolls rise with swings away from the optimum temperature (which cannot be defined!) and the increase in those denied access to fire. (Or electricity, our modern day fire that can cool or heat as we command)
    So here we are in a changing climate that no body can deny (it changes daily and seasonally all the time, regardless of any perceived long term average increase or decreases)
    We cannot deny that we use our intelligence and mastery over the elements to control our local environment or climate conditions. (Lucky for us)

    But hark the alarmist’s shriek, the cheap abundant oil is running out!

    Quote from page 6 at

    http://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/reports/the_new_home_front_FINAL.pdf

    “We are now living through our own Locust Years in the face of global warming, the decline of oil reserves and the over-exploitation of our planet’s life supporting biosphere.”

    One way or another, the sky will fall! We will run out of oil! We will pollute our atmosphere with an abundance of plant breath from these finite resources!

    The CO2 molecule has four main groups of absorption features in the thermal IR, of which the most important for Earthlike conditions is the one with the wavenumber near 667 cm−1. (The corresponding wavelength is 15 µm.)

    As Dr Eric kindly taught me about Wien’s displacement law I was able to calculate the frequency for maximal or peak radiation power of 15 µm is from something at -79.97 Centigrade.
    So we have the mythical beast gas, whose wave number is 666.666cm, revealed as an absorber and emitter at a temperature that is just about the coldest temperature measured in nature at the earths surface.
    Remembering another favorite law, the second law of thermodynamics, we can easily see that this innocuous gas is absorbing FIR (Far Infra Red (depending on the scheme used)) and emitting at such feeble temperatures that that the very suggestion it can somehow magically cook the planet is pathetic.
    The planet has been much colder and much warmer than now it seems, all without our help or interference
    About the only thing that can truthfully be stated about our future climate is that it WILL change, just as it always has.
    I deny that warm is bad, I deny that cold is good. If you want to accuse me of trying to deny the science feel free. I know how long I spend looking at a wide variety of sources about lots of things.
    Mostly I find new questions, sometimes I learn new laws.
    I am not a scientist, I am not a mathematician, I have a PHD (Preponderantly hideous Disposition) from the University of Life in sniffing out things that smell funny.

    If it looks like a cult, smells like a cult and quacks like a cult…
    (All in the name of dark humour! But was it cute?)
    Um, Houston, we have a problem here.

    Or have I got something very wrong?

    NoIdea

  26. 26

    @24 Eric,

    You wrote in your @19:

    And I then did exactly that in this post with various examples and in particular, by referring to the Tom Curtis letter (which you did not let the other readers see). The Curtis letter provided valuable input concerning the future of this debate and you destroyed it. You then also destroyed the subsequent comment I made in which I tried to alert the readership to what was happening.

    First, you have provided above the link to Tom’s site where, when I last looked, he posted his deleted comment along with his diatribe against Climate Clash. So any readers wishing to follow up on your suggestion can merely follow your link.

    Second, you have failed to show how my censoring of Tom’s referenced comment and your following comment, has affected in any way your ability or opportunity to present your scientific argument for AGW. In legal terminology, you have failed to demonstrate damages. (Therefore, if this were a court case, your case would be dismissed and you could be liable for damages caused by your malicious accusations and lawsuit.)

    By contrast, you have wasted significant space and time complaining that I have not allowed you the space to present your case, but you used none of your space to present your case.

    Is not something illogical here?

  27. 27

    The final edition of the Responding Open Letter by Climate Scientists has just been published and reproduced above. It now includes 69 signers and endorsers. Visiting scientist to Climate Clash, Leonard Weinstein, is among the signers.

  28. 28

    26 Ed,

    Let me help you out in understanding what the criticism of Climate Clash has been about.

    First, you clearly misunderstand where the problems have been or are simply making things up when you say,

    “By contrast, you have wasted significant space and time complaining that I have not allowed you the space to present your case, but you used none of your space to present your case.”

    I have never made that complaint. The facts are that I have been given sufficient space for making my case and I have done exactly that. By any chance have you noticed the my lead presentations in Posts 1, 6, 7, and 9. They constitute the bulk of my case. While you and other hard core Deniers simply dismiss this case out of hand without counterevidence and without providing a better candidate model, the clear fact is that I have used my opportunity to made my case – and did that A VERY LONG TIME AGO – completing it in November, I believe. What you have not done is used the unlimited space you have for making your case – FOR SEVERAL months now we have been waiting for it.

    So why has there been criticism in some quarters? That came as a result of two other aspects of CC. They involve

    (1) your manipulation of subsequent conversations in various posts and

    (2) your indiscriminant posting of various stuff on new posts that deflect attention away from the basic science of AGW. Mother Nature does not give a rat’s behind about the “he said/she said” stuff you focus on in these extraneous post. All of these multiple misleading posts were chosen by you. I have initial only the ones referred to above in which I stuck to the basic science.

    As you know very well, all of this was exceedingly well explained by an outside participant’s (Tom Curtis) last comment on climate change – and that is exactly why you chose to block it. If I had made that charge, you would simply call it “bitching”. But having it come from one of our very best outside participants was too much for your to deal with – so you blocked him out.

    So if you really want everyone else to see the very best answer to your question, just let Tom’s last comment see the light of day. Sure someone can now find it also at bybrisbanewaters, but it really belongs here. It should not be necessary for our readers to look at two different sites in order to see things that you prefer to hide from your dedicated readership. Do you really want to transfer free and open conversations to another web site. As you know Tom has offered you complete freedom in expressing yourself there. My own choice, however, is to stick with Climate Clash and improve it.

    Ed, I hope this helps you understand and also has been written a manner that will not be simply dismissed as unjustified “bitching”.

  29. 29

    @20 Leonard,

    Without rereading the article and looking for specific errors, my overall problem with this young girl’s presentation is its omission of well-known and important science concerning AGW.

    Just to point to one very painful omission and perhaps I missed it, but where does she deal with the most important historical evidence we have today – the ice core record?
    Also what model of climate change does she have for explaining the climate of the most recent glacial and interglacial periods?

    I suppose, I could go outside, find its colder, and then use that observation to argue that AGW is not occurring. That obviously silly argument would be flawed, however, because I have too selectively chosen my “information” and would not be using all of the information that is available today. That is also the deficiency of the article we are discussion: nice words, nice graphs, nice discussion, but where is the rest of the story?

  30. 30

    @28 Eric,

    First, Tom’s comment was deleted long ago and no longer exists in this database. As I already mentioned, any reader who wishes to find it may use the link you gave to Tom’s website. So your point is irrelevant.

    Second, now that you have taken a large amount of space to complain about unfairness, you now admit that I have in no way constrained your ability to make your case for AGW. Thanks for admitting that now that you have wasted everyone’s time with your extensive complaints. Therefore, you have no damages.

    Third, you say

    (1) your manipulation of subsequent conversations in various posts

    If you want to start a “court case” you can begin by producing evidence to support your point (1) and be prepared to demonstrate damages. Without damages, you have no case. I suggest, however, you get back to science so you can attempt to save your fallen case for AGW.

    Then you say:

    (2) your indiscriminant posting of various stuff on new posts that deflect attention away from the basic science of AGW.

    Any reader can easily determine who has been most responsible for “deflecting attention away from the basic science of AGW.”

    Regarding Climate Clash, I am looking forward to discussing CO2 and climate sensitivities, etc. But it is your responsibility to first defend your case and you have not done so. Whatever relative volumes of print you or I have produced has NOTHING to do with your case for AGW. I refer you again to my @9 point (2) and my @17. Until you can produce satisfactory responses to these challenges, you have no case!

    The fact is, you and the 18 signers of the alarmist letter above have not and cannot show the letter by the climate scientists is invalid.

    I think your distractions are because you know deep down that you cannot respond to those challenges and that you have lost your case before I even begin.

    If you think otherwise: prove it!

  31. 31

    #29 Eric:

    Just to point to one very painful omission and perhaps I missed it, but where does she deal with the most important historical evidence we have today – the ice core record?

    She discusses it on page 1 of her document!
    Clearly you have not even read what she wrote.
    But despite this you seem to think yourself qualified to comment on it.
    Likewise you do not seem to have read the GRL paper referred to in H6.

  32. 32

    @30 Ed,

    This is painful to watch. You are being unnecessarily obtuse. Why not simply let the Sun shine in!

    Your say:

    “First, Tom’s comment was deleted long ago and no longer exists in this database”

    To help you out there I will provide Climate Clash with that file after submitting this comment.

    Then you say:

    “you now admit that I have in no way constrained your ability to make your case for AGW. Thanks for admitting that now that you have wasted everyone’s time with your extensive complaints.”

    As you know very well, I have never once complained about that point – you are making that up. If I have complained about any lack of opportunity I have had to present the science of AGW, I am sure that you would not have trashed that file. So show us where I did that instead of continuously repeating the lie.

    Concerning your 3rd point: who is it that has blocked communications at CC? Who has selectively charged two pro AGW participants of CC with “personal attacks” but has not done the same to anti AGW participants when they did the same? Who has had the power to decide which new posts appear on CC and who has not been even asked for input on those choices? Who has started posts that deal specifically with the basic science of AGW (as in posts 1, 6, 7, and 9) and who has not yet provided even one such post? After answering these questions, do you understand why some might want to consider if the rules of CC are fair.

    Now also note that I have generally accepted all of the above rules while being content to clearly understand them and point them out to everyone elso so that they too could clearly see the playing field – whatever it is. Tom Curtis, however, did go one step further by suggesting that those rules of Climate Clash produced a tilted playing field which, in his opinion, was damaging the quality of the Great Debate. Since you destroyed the file for his comments and for that reason (see your first quote above), you cannot repost it now, I will immediately send that file – for your convenience – after submitting this one. Again, In my opinion, we should be able to follow important comments made on climate clash without having to read them on other web site. I hope you agree.

  33. 33

    @31 Paul,

    Thanks for your help in finding that discussion (on page 2 actually). I did not recall it perhaps because her explanation for the glacial period climate changes is completely lame. Thus in rereading it, I can answer Leonard’s question which has to provide one example of error in her article.

    Her suggestion that the very small and subtitle heating and cooling effect of orbital changes due to the Milankovich cycles is dead at the onset. The power of these change (less than one watt per sq meter) is way too small to move the Earth from glacial to interglacial periods. EVERYONE I know (and do not yet know this young girl) recognizes what I just said – even Leonard, I should think. Therefore, in affect she has essentially ignored the feasible reasons for these climate changes.

    So yes, she did also present her model for the climate changes of this era. So I was wrong to say the she did not. Her model, however, was not worth remembering and I did not remember it.

    So thanks for the heads up on this point. I had read it and knew that I would not learn much by reading the entire piece again.

  34. 34

    @31 Paul,

    Perhaps you could also help me find a copy of that JGR paper. I am presently not near a university library and do not have a subscription. And please feel free to further embarrass me by pointing out how that file is right under my nose somewhere. Being of Norwegian descent and knowing that I am loaded with original sin, am essentially a miserable piece of shit and will be saved only due to the grace of God, I actually require and thrive on a daily dose of personal abuse. So please do keep it up. Where I do not to improve, however, is to refrain from returning the same.

    By the way, I sure miss Al. Anyone know what happened to him? Surely Ed did not kick him out for any alleged personal attacks on me, did he? If so, Ed, please let him back. I miss him almost as much as I miss Tom Curtis. Please let let him him also – should he want to just say hello once in a while.

    While we are on the subject of person abuse, I don’t know what culture you are from, Ed, but you should try it some time – or at least not try so hard to ensure that it never comes your way.

    But now I am wasting your precious time again – sorry about that. Back to business: as promised, I will immediately now send you that file I promised concerning Tom Curtis’s recommendations for improving Climate Clash. Allowing the public to see it here would be good for you (if not for your reputation), in that it would describe for you a path to your salvation.

  35. 35

    All, attached low is the file that Ed previously blocked and then lost: It was from Tom Curtis and was sent roughly on month ago. I hope you get to see it.

    The missing letter from Tom Curtis:

    ” ” Hello again.

    Apparently my indication that my previous post would be my last was inaccurate, but this one certainly will. I feel it was necessary to make this post because of the self serving and hypocritical comments made by Dr Ed @257. In it he accuses Dr Eric of behaviour that is “departing from normal professional conduct”.

    Dr Eric is a member of a group of people repeatedly refered to as “climatards” ,ie, “climate retards” by Al tekhasski. That same group has also been repeatedly accused of data manipulation and fraud by other participants in this forum. As a member of that group, Dr Eric has also been so accussed by simple logical inference. I believe Al tekhasski has meant to insult every accepter of AGW by his epithet, so that all his opponents on this board can reasonably consider themselves to be directly insulted by him in straight forwardly abusuive language. Of course, most of his opponents have had no need to consider themselves indirectly abused by Al tekhasski, for most have them have been directly abused by him, including myself and Dr Eric.

    However, from Dr Ed’s example as administrator we are to believe that Al tekhasski abusive commentary does not “depart form normal professional conduct”, for it has drawn not a single rebuke from Dr Ed as administrator (or as participant); while Dr Eric’s comments have repeatedly drawn rebukes.

    Based on Dr Ed acts as administrator, we can determine that calling an AGW proponent a “climatard” is not in his opinion a personal attack, but if an AGW proponent should write:

    “When doing basic research, how does one know what the practical uses that knowledge might be later be put to? Did the invention of the airplane precede or follow the work of Bernoulli in the 1730’s?”

    that is considered a sufficiently henious personal attack that it must be deleted.

    The evidence that Dr Ed has adminsitered this site in a biased manner intended to favor the case against AGW is overwhelming. He has placed evidence thought to be contrary to AGW in posts so that they can always be easily found, while more accurate evidence that rebuts it is allowed to languish in obscurity in the comments.

    He has used his position as administrator to move comments by anti-AGW participants into prominence as posts, a privilege never granted to pro -AGW participants. He has posted parts of his case while preserving them from “cross examination” for weeks, and potentially months, while Dr Eric’s posts were always subject to immediate attack. And he has turned a blind eye to repeated, and continual personal abuse by anti-AGW participants of pro-AGW participants while policing Dr Eric for “offences” which look very much like good nature banter in the face of continued personal abuse.

    In other words, in every way possible, he has given his side of the argument administrative advantages denied to his opponent. Saying that he has adminstered as though conducting a soviet style show trial is a fair comparison.

    As previously indicated, I am no longer willing to discuss AGW with its opponents on this site. That is in part because the biased administration by Dr Ed has made it unpleasant to do so by not preventing personal abuse from his side. It is also because even the best of the anti-AGW participants (Dr Weinstein) is apparently so uncommitted to rational discourse that he throws up objections which are improbable, and contradict peer reviewed papers of which he is aware without even bothering to fact check his claims by so simple a procedure as googling. (That fact contradicts Dr Weinsteins no doubt sincere self image as a truth seeker.)

    I am, however, still continuing to comment on the issues raised here. Primarily I am doing so on my new blog. My initial posts on the blog critique Dr Ed’s first witness for the defence (something currently forbidden on this site). I am currently following up by critiquing George White’s argument against AGW (Cyril and Leonard may be interested). I welcome anyone who can restrict themselves to rational enquiry to comment on [my website].

    Good bye “”

  36. 36

    @35 Eric,

    I assume you realize you have now taken personal responsibility for everything in Tom’s letter.

  37. 37

    I would like to ask readers some questions:

    1. Do you appreciate Dr. Eric’s comments in this post?
    2. Have his comments enlightened you in any way?
    3. Would like to hear more such comments from Dr. Eric?
    4. Has Dr. Eric honored in this post his promise shown in @22?
    5. Has Dr. Eric responded to my science challenges in @9 and @17?
    6. Has Dr. Eric invalidated the points in the Response Letter?
    7. Has Dr. Eric convinced you the Alarmist Letter is accurate?
    8. Do you think Dr. Eric has made a good case for CAGW?
    9. Do you wish to hear more from Dr. Eric about anything?

  38. 38

    @37 Ed,

    Thanks for sending out that questionnaire. I look forward to seeing the feedback (assuming all of it gets through the sensor).

    Having been in the teaching business for so many years, I am also well aware of how one can tend to get the responses one hopes to get by the manner in which one phrases the questions. For that reason, the instructors in universities I have worked at are not usually allowed to create their own questionnaires. But don’t let that minor detail stop you, Ed, from getting the information you seek. Again I look forward to seeing the results.

    If, on the other hand, I had been invited to participate in the preparation of the questionnaire, I would have added a few additional questions, such as:

    1. Do you think Ed should provide a post of his own dealing with the basic science of climate change?
    2. Should that post include his favored candidate model?
    3. Should the predictions of that model be compared with observations of the real world?
    4. Should this model also explain various claims he has made in CC – such as the one that the EXTRA CO2 in the atmosphere is not due to the activities of Man?
    5. Do you think he should show us this post any time soon, say within the next month or so?
    6. And finally: do you think that Ed’s questions on this questionnaire focus as much as mine do on the central issue of the Great Debate – which is, what is Mother Nature is likely to do in response to the impacts of Man?

    Again Ed, please also understand that I am not complaining here about your questionnaire or insisting that you change it. This is your show. You run it as you wish. As always, I’ll go with your program. The fact that I can indeed add as much science on this site as I wish is now and always has been enough to me. I am merely providing some clarification here of what is happening -so that we all know what the playing field is. So, as you wish, go for it!

  39. 39

    @38 Eric, You are welcome.

    Realistically, we will have to wait a few days to give the mortals who do not sit in front of their computers all day, time to respond.

    Also, I think we have solved the problem of longer comments getting trapped in the spam folder.

  40. 40

    @36 Ed,

    Thanks for posting Tom’s comment. Upon reading it, it really is well and clearly written, is it not?

    But as to your comment:

    “I assume you realize you have now taken personal responsibility for everything in Tom’s letter”

    I’m afraid you’ll have to explain that part to me. As I see it:

    Tom wrote that letter to you. You destroyed it and then implied that you could not resurrect it for our inspection. I then told you here on CC that I have a file of Tom’s letter and that would sent it to you. It did that and you posted it. (good for you!!)

    While I might agree with what Tom says in his letter, I have kept any such “complaints” or suggestions for change to myself and have always gone along with your show. So why would I now be responsible for any recommendations Tom has made for improvements at Climate Clash? Again, you’ll have to explain that bit to me – thereby running the risk of wasting more time on the seemingly petty point.

    My hope is that you live and learn, as the rest of us try to do, so that Climate Clash is thereby improved. Sorry for the babysittiing here – you are entire free to ignore my advice, as always.

  41. 41

    @39 Ed,

    Don’t worry too much about how much I do have to sit in front of the computer in order to answer in a timely manner the remarks and questions addressed to me. The truth is that I get lots of exercise, often due to the needs of my good friend, Mr. Bek. As Harry Truman once said about life in Washington DC, “if you need a friend, get a dog” and that works very well for me. With your extensive following among the Deniers of the world, you probably don’t have that problem.

    On the subject of buddies, it is somewhat interesting to me that I get so little feedback from and have so little contact with the legitimate scientific community or as you like to call them the “alarmist” of the world (almost none in fact). Having been an active scientists myself, however, I think I understand this. Most of them have day jobs and do not spend their time watching blogeries like Climate Clash. I do this partially because I know that they are not going to. So yes I do spend a lot of time writing in this subject for the public domain. I don’t know that I am particularly good at it, but the competition for “my job” seems to be nil. Perhaps the fact that my job it pays nil and actually costs quite a bit might have a lot to do with it.

    In short, I’ll take your suggestion that I am spending too much time on this as a compliment. Perhaps only my grandchildren will understand why I will be spending my retirement years this way. Bye for now. Bek is calling.

  42. 42
    Duane Lawton says:

    Here we go….

    1. Do you appreciate Dr. Eric’s comments in this post? I’m happy to see him engaged, if off-point (though both of you seem off-point)
    2. Have his comments enlightened you in any way? Not about what I care about (i.e. the subject)
    3. Would like to hear more such comments from Dr. Eric? If they are germane
    4. Has Dr. Eric honored in this post his promise shown in @22?
    5. Has Dr. Eric responded to my science challenges in @9 and @17?
    6. Has Dr. Eric invalidated the points in the Response Letter?
    7. Has Dr. Eric convinced you the Alarmist Letter is accurate?
    8. Do you think Dr. Eric has made a good case for CAGW? 4-8. No
    9. Do you wish to hear more from Dr. Eric about anything? Yes, climate Science.

    1. Do you think Ed should provide a post of his own dealing with the basic science of climate change? He did
    2. Should that post include his favored candidate model? This is not the objective. We don’t need dueling “theories”.
    3. Should the predictions of that model be compared with observations of the real world? n/a
    4. Should this model also explain various claims he has made in CC – such as the one that the EXTRA CO2 in the atmosphere is not due to the activities of Man? n/a
    5. Do you think he should show us this post any time soon, say within the next month or so? n/a
    6. And finally: do you think that Ed’s questions on this questionnaire focus as much as mine do on the central issue of the Great Debate – which is, what is Mother Nature is likely to do in response to the impacts of Man? theological…not germane.

    Despite all the lofty and learned articulation, what I see needed here is maturity. I am waiting for a definition of the AGW hypothesis as a Scientific Theory including defining its falsifiability.

    Beyond Climate Clash, perhaps, when all is said and done, the situation will be resolved by The American People using the tools provided at the launch of the republic (apologies to non-US participants). . You may have noticed that historically America leads world opinion (when you have waded through all the intervening political and media BS).

  43. 43
    Jan Rogers says:

    I am not a scientist, just a concerned citizen. I found Dr. Ed’s blog when I was looking for truth.

    I have no idea what kind of a “doctor” Dr. Eric is, but I would bet my best snow boots that he is not a Scientist. He sounds more like all the rest of the Progressives that post on other blogs and say absolutely nothing and make no sense. You could show one of them a piece of black paper, tell them it is black, and they would argue ’til the cows come home that it is not black and try to convince others that it is not black.
    Logic and common sense seem to be a thing of the past.

    Personally, I believe that God made this planet, he knew exactly how many people and animals would inhabit it, and he knew how long it would last. He provided everything, including our brains to discern right from wrong.

    The first article from the alarmists is so telling. They are producing false documents in order for a hand full of people to get very rich.

    Just stop the jets from spraying our globe with chemicals and let God take care of our weather.

  44. 44
    frederick J. Hammel says:

    I have no college degree, but I do have common sense . If we have all this carbon dioxide , to me it would mean for food for all green plants and more oxygen for all animals including humans. Then I heard that the ocean absorb 90 percent of all carbon dioxide, then a lot of our oxygen also comes the sea. Now as far as global warming , when the sun gets hot the earth get hot, just the reverse if the sun cools down , then so does earth.

  45. 45
    Jim Hollingsworth says:

    3130 N Conference Dr
    Coeur d’Alene, Id 83815
    (208) 667-7748
    jimhollingsworth@frontier.com

    February 8, 2011

    Although I did not take time to read the totality of every post or the attached links I did read enough to understand most of the arguments. I am amazed that scientists can take so much time to talk about science without discussing the actual science. I understand that because I am “just a building contractor” I have no right to enter this discussion, yet I am going to enter it anyway.

    We sometimes conclude that the only ones who can talk about scientific subjects are those who have a PhD after their name. Now, there are many great scientists who are PhDs in one field or another. On the other hand, there are many folk who have an understanding of great things who are not actual professionals. You find them from place to place, and especially in the military and in industry. They are experts in their field, though they never followed a particular course of study leading to a PhD. Therefore, I believe it would be far better to discuss the science than to belittle someone just because they do not happen to possess an advanced degree in climate science. In fact it has only been in recent years that there was any such thing as a degree in climate science.

    As we enter this discussion I believe we have to break it into two parts: 1) That which is happening to the Earth and will continue to happen to the Earth, no matter what, and 2) Whatever is causing these changes to take place.

    Rising sea levels, storm surges, droughts, massive flooding, and challenges to human health such as heat waves, severe storms, air pollution, allergens, and infectious diseases: these have happened in the past and they will continue. In some cases the facts are disputed (such as rising sea levels; are they rising any faster than in the past ages?). In other cases the severity is questioned (such as the fact that hurricanes cause more damage, but has there been an increase in the severity of the storms?). It would be fairly easy to get scientists to agree on the observed data, so there would be little argument on the frequency or the severity of these events, and if the past is any key to the future, to be able to predict the future frequency and severity of said events.

    The difficulty comes when we try to attach cause to these events. Simply because two actions occur together does not mean the one was caused by the other. They may both have a third cause, or one may cause the other. Though CO2 and temperature have risen more or less together they have not always. Anthropogenic Global Warming depends on the following: 1) The relation of CO2 levels and temperature, 2) Proxies such as tree rings, and 3) computer models.

    We have already mentioned CO2 and temperature. Ice cores are a good proxy of this relationship. At first it was thought that the CO2 rose then the temperature. Subsequent analysis of the ice cores has revealed that the temperature rose first, then the CO2.

    As far as tree rings it is unfortunate that there have been so few real studies of this subject. One of the most important was an analysis of the Bristlecone Pines. Unfortunately there were few trees examined so the study was not very definitive. Also, tree rings are affected by many other things besides temperature, not the least being the humidity at the tree site.

    Right now many scientists are working on experiments and other analyses of Earth conditions. They continue to publish their papers, but unfortunately if those papers do not happen to agree with the “consensus” they do not get much traction.

    Rather than belittle other scientists let us seek better data to prove the case one way or another. Recently I read that 2010 was warmer than 2005. When I investigated I found it was supposedly warmer by .0018 degrees. Now, from my own observations I believe that it is difficult to measure temperature from a thermometer closer than a half degree. Probably with satellites we can get closer, but how close?

    It has been my recent experience that the climate scientists I know are very close minded. They are so convinced that the world is about to end and they are the only ones who can save it that they just do not have time to consider any other evidence. That, to me, is very tragic. The more data we gather, and the more information we gain the better we are able to perfect the science. It is not who says it that is important, but what he has to say. Let us work to improve the science and leave some of the rancor aside 

    Let me just share one other thought while we are on the subject. Several of my friends believe man is the cause of global warming and we must take drastic steps to stop the production of carbon dioxide. Yet none of them live in dirt homes or walk to work. Even Al Gore, for all his rhetoric, flies all over the world creating more carbon dioxide. I think if we truly understood the relation that carbon dioxide has to the biosphere we would welcome more carbon dioxide, not less.

    Jim Hollingsworth

  46. 46

    To look at science again, here are some facts:

    1. There exists no peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.

    2. There exists no peer-reviewed paper that has rejected the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.

    3. As referenced in the Response by the Climate Scientists, thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers show there is no real-world evidence to support the following statement in the alarmist letter:

    “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities . . . and in many cases is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems.”

    4. Leonard @6 correctly said to Eric:

    Showing some of those positions as being wrong does not support your case, only actual real data that can be verified can do that, and you have not shown any.

  47. 47

    @32 @35 @38 @40, Eric,

    Now that you have taken free run in Climate Clash to satisfy your ego while contributing nothing to science in your listed comments, perhaps for “fairness” and “completeness” you would like to share with our readers the last two emails you sent to me?

    In case you forgot, they are dated Mon 2/7/2011 12:35 AM and Mon 2/7/2011 9:20 AM . As you said in @32:

    Why not simply let the Sun shine in!

    And in case you are not aware of court procedures, you have challenged me in your allegations above and that gives me the right of “discovery” to reveal facts you have hidden.

  48. 48

    @47 Ed,

    When you say “you have challenged me in your allegations above” what are you referring to that would have relevance to our interactions in the public domain?

    In our personal interactions, I hope that I have made it as clear as I possibly can how very little respect I have for you (essentially none at all, in fact). At the same time, of course, you are free to continue to call me whatever you wish in our private interactions, as you have in the past. But why would you think it appropriate to share those hostile personal interactions with others? I don’t get it and certainly do not share your sentiments.

  49. 49

    @45 Jim,

    You devote a large portion of our comment to the relative unimportance of having the label, PhD, behind one’s name. I agree with you. That fact alone does not mean very much. For example, I got mine when I was still a scientific adolescent at age 26, over 40 years ago. In retrospect, that minor achievement mainly provided me with an entrance pass into the scientific community where I was left to sink or swim.

    If there is any indication of one’s state of knowledge, it might possibly be found in one’s accomplishments achieved over the course of one’s entire life – as is the case in most professions.

  50. 50

    @48 Eric,

    You are delaying. Your emails are relevant to the public’s (jury’s) interpretation of your comments about me. What are you hiding from the public?

    Please produce your two emails as I requested in @47.

Speak Your Mind

captcha

Please enter the CAPTCHA text