the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

No Consensus (The Climate Underground)

Posted by Jeff Id on December 26, 2008

There’s been a bit of sanity in the news on global warming lately. The notion of consensus is being beaten down. Here’s a nice article I read earlier which describes my own thinking pretty well.

Global warming rope-a-dope

The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the name of saving the planet. Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope.

There is a little known fact about real scientists in the world. I have been repeatedly contacted by scientists in a wide variety of fields including meteorology and environmental sciences, whom have obtained my email from various methods including passing it between each other. From this I’ve been offered free access to papers through universities, ideas for other posts, offers of co-publication and a variety of other issues. Many of them don’t want their names mentioned and I will keep them confidential until hell freezes or they say otherwise. Most of the confidentiality revolves around the fear of consequences from taking an unpopular stance against AGW.

It has been pretty amazing the number of brilliant people who question the results of the IPCC. Despite all this the media still proclaims consensus. I remember my surprise at receiving one of my first emails on this, a polite PHD from a very famous university in England offered the use of papers and resources t0 further my blog. Another offered help in publishing some of my findings. Several just offered support stating they didn’t want to publicly declare their views. After a short time I’ve made contact with a fairly wide group of like minded people who exist in almost an underground, communicating behind the scenes each avoiding the public eye for their own reasons.

I’ve got news for Al, there is no consensus. What’s more, I’ve got $3.00 that says the backlash will be much bigger than he expects cause these guys aren’t callin’ him!

Still despite all our efforts to at least temper the extremism of trashing our economy for unproven weak science, scientists dissent won’t stop the forward movement of AGW. The only thing that can beat it back now will be the continuing cold weather provided by our highly complex climate system. The earth has already lost a substantial portion of the warming it experienced. This could be a short term effect, but you can tell by the ever more shrill cries for immediate action, that the politicians are concerned the cold won’t go away to quickly.

It will be continually disregarded as anecdotal but the US is being hammered so far with snow and cold weather. With the PDO, lack of solar activity and drop in temps, I am expecting it to be a harsh winter. I’m no meteorologist but we’ll see. If the coming years are cooler, I wonder how long people will stand paying real dollars to stop global warming while shoveling two feet of snow off their porch.

18 Responses to “No Consensus (The Climate Underground)”

  1. The latest Rasmussen poll found that in just the last six months the number of people who believe in AGW decreased from 47% to 43% while the number who believe in natural causes of climate change increased from 34% to 43%. That’s huge for a six month period. The numbers of realists are growing fast while those of alarmists shrink.

    The people increasingly know more about climate change than “climate scientists”, who live only in the virtual world of their models, and the clueless media, who only report model output hysteria.

  2. Matt Y. said

    Now that the true believers (in both AGW and global government) are in power it probably won’t matter much. Draconian restrictions and international “regulation” of economies is coming. In a couple of years the elites will declare the imaginary problem “fixed”… and demand our eternal gratitude.

  3. Raven said


    Do you really believe that the US senate would break it’s long standing policy of rejecting any international treaty that restricts the sovereign power of the US? Epecially one that would give major rivals like China a huge economic advantage?

    The end of the world will have truely come if the US senate did pass such a bill.

  4. DJ said


    With Obama in Office, don’t be surprised if they try and get very close to getting it done. It’s up to Americans like Us to speak up and take notice to what is right for this Country. There are Web Sites out there to communicate your views and send them to your Representative’s, most of them are free of charge. Americans have been too silent, too long.

  5. John F. Pittman said

    Obama, with the Supreme Court ruling that stated the EPA could regulate CO2 under existing laws, does not need to get Senate approval. As cheif executive, if he orders it, the only way it can be stopped is for Congress to table the proposed regulations as they did for the OSHA ergonomic regulations. Lawsuits, that have traction before, have dealt with technicalities such as “harm”, or specifically what the regulations state, or the actual law that was passed. Since CO2 is an emission, it can be regulated by Title V and CAAA. It would not necessarily be a good fit, but not outside possibilities.

  6. Jeff Id said


    I don’t know about Matt but I think that Obama and his new cabinet will unilaterally Kyoto America to the same effect as California is doing. What’s the one thing his new cabinet has in common besides the full support of the media? AGW. While the media paints them as extraordinarily scientific and middle of the road Clintonesque, the reality is they are all extremist AGW.

    I am a skeptic about the magnitude of AGW but with regards to the extremist predictions of disaster scenario’s and tipping points, it doesn’t make sense. Not so to Obama’s advisers. I think the Obama group will gladly prioritize critters and poor nations ahead of ours.

    One thing’s for sure, we’re going to find out.


    As a suggestion — If you use a stamp, they have to take the time to pick up and open the letter so you’ll have a better chance of getting read.

  7. David said

    Jeff Id,

    Every time you write you come across as a scientific illiterate but in recent weeks your desperation has begun to show. Big time.

    Could this have anything at all to do with the political reality … and that being … you lost!

    Republicanism collapsed for a reason. If you choose to remain stuck in the 19th century mindset the American people have no choice except to pass you by. And they have done so.

    The Global Warming Denialists are as relevant as the creationists, now.

    Make peace with political irrelevance, Jeff, because that’s your future whether you like it or not.

    And please do keep on crying! Conservatives should cry … at lot. It is a relaxing sound … and one which I highly recommend to liberals everywhere.

    When Republicanism loses, Nature wins

  8. TSH said

    I love how David came in at first pretending to be someone who actually had some argumentative clout, and now that his arguments have been shot down has been forced to adopt a more obvious trollish nature.

  9. David said

    Hello TSH,

    * “I love how David came in at first pretending to be someone who actually had some argumentative clout, and now that his arguments have been shot down has been forced to adopt a more obvious trollish nature.”

    There is nothing trollish in telling you people that you lost and that this blog constitutes nothing more than conservatives crying, moaning and complaining about their political irrelevance.

    Jeff ID is a liar, but all conservatives are …

  10. Jeff Id said

    A quote from david’s site.

    May the Day Come When All the People of the World Choose to Live in Peace with God, Nature and Humankind.
    Until That day Comes I Choose to Live at Peace with All and Refuse to Hate Anyone.

    Sounds like him, right?

  11. David said

    Hello Jeff,

    * “Sounds like him, right?”

    Living at peace is an ideal which a human may attain only imperfectly.

    However, rendering the Global Warming Denialist movement a politically irrelevant minority extremist group is quite easily attainable. Fortunately that goal is accomplished and it will be an absolute pleasure spending the next several years watching conservatives moan, whine and complain because of their opposition to Obama’s policies.

    Conservativism is a relic of the past which really does belong in the museum of failed ideas.

    Jeff Lies about a Lot of Things, but I live at Peace with Everything

  12. cmb said

    The sad fact is, there could be 10,000 people contacting this guy and it wouldn’t affect the real consensus – that AGW is occurring and will be a problem in future – one bit. People of all stripes can pretend that there is argument in sceintific circles about this – but there ain’t. There are a small number of scientists who have chosen to become involved with denialism for economic reasons, and a huge number of PR flacks and armchair ivestors, but no serious climatologists.

    While I might wish that David would adopt a more argumentative tone, his message is simple and true – those who argue that AGW does not exist, or will not be a problem, have indeed lost. Every reputable scientific organization and national government on earth now accepts AGW in some form. There are no longer any exceptions. And don’t just take my word for it. Go check.

    GRACE sat results are now quantifying ice loss worldwide and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory goes up in a few months. Once the denialist community gets off the denialist webring and finds out it is ten years behind the debate, most of this fossil-fuel worship will disappear.

  13. Jeff Id said


    Wow! If there is no discussion why are there still papers being produced by people like Christy and Dr. Loehle?

    The debate to me isn’t whether AGW is occurring it is about how much (it could be very small), how high is the upper limit of CO2 forcing (also could be small) and then how bad is a bit of warming. The debate is about the quality of climate models, and projections. The debate is about how much influence does warming really have on weather or the sea levels. Pretending it doesn’t exist might make you happy but it isn’t based on reality.

  14. Layman Lurker said

    Cmb, truth in science is what it is. It does not care about a proclaimed “consensus”. Are you suggesting that all skeptics (you seem to want to lump skepticism into the denialist category) should just shut down and go away? Scepticism is fundamental to science. There are many examples of PEER REVIEWED climate science which is the basis for skepticism. It will be followed up and eventually a version of the truth will be understood. It may be AGW or not.

  15. Sekerob said

    From the OP

    The earth has already lost a substantial portion of the warming it experienced. This could be a short term effect, but you can tell by the ever more shrill cries for immediate action, that the politicians are concerned the cold won’t go away to quickly.

    Who says? Others longer in the climate business think it’s for a large part gone into the ocean heat sink. Not only they think, they know!

  16. Jeff Id said

    IMO, Anyone in climatology who makes the claim ‘they know’ what caused warming or cooling, may not be the most honest person you have met. There is not much in climatology that is ‘known’. Even measured temp trends aren’t ‘known’, they are more like, suspected temp trends.

  17. Sekerob said

    So that generalization following, why should I trust U, aside the fact that no one is contending heat gets stored in the oceans else we’d have a highly unstable climate. Presume you heard where El Nino warm waters come from, lest there is a new science, yes of course, it must be the deep ocean volcanoes that purportedly are heating the WAIS and raising the air temps in that region by 20C. Seriously Jeff, paranoia aside, what do you know about ENSO?

  18. Jeff Id said

    I don’t recall telling anyone to trust me either. Read and get your own understanding. I give only my understanding here.

    If you look around my site, I don’t dispute anthropogenic global warming at all, anywhere. I do dispute that we know the magnitude and also the concept that the science is settled.

    Certainly the ocean heat dominates the short term cycles and possibly even the 30 year cycles. It keeps us flat temp when we experience a short term positive influx of energy and warms us when we have a shortage. Cycles in the ocean also create heating and cooling events like the la Nina which has made the US so cold this past December. IMO, volcanic activity is too small to create a heating effect, I haven’t done any calcs on that because it is uninteresting to me and life is too short for that sort of rubbish. You may therefore find us in agreement about ocean cycles.

    Here’s a list of things you can argue with me about to make it easier

    – The hockey stick temp graphs are rubbish
    – Tree rings as temp proxies – junk science
    – The quality of temp data
    – My new one- heating by direct usage of energy
    – Biofuels, solar and wind as alternative energy
    – The impartiality of the IPCC
    – Peer review
    – The false consensus

    And a few other things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: