the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Evil Denialist Blog Polls

Posted by Jeff Id on February 26, 2010

I’m curious what the readers here think about the effect of CO2 on global warming.  Writing a poll which will please a bunch of natural skeptics is about as likely as the moon exploding tomorrow but I’m going to write one anyway.  The purpose of this isn’t to pick which item exactly fits your views but rather to pick one which is closest.  Blogger Tim suggested a petition for skeptic bloggers to sign onto which stated a belief in some warming.  It left me wondering just what the makeup of this group of a couple thousand people is like. Polls stink, but I wonder if there aren’t a bunch of lurking believers, skeptics or evil deniers running around.

113 Responses to “Evil Denialist Blog Polls”

  1. HotRod said

    ha ha. I just voted, and find the previous 4 chose exactly the same 3 options.

  2. HotRod said

    btw in the sentence “What Should we Currenlty Do Today” there is a spello.

  3. Earle Williams said

    hey HotRod, I was #4

    last item didn’t have my preferred choice: study it more. I figured Do Nothing was close enough

  4. Earle Williams said

    By the way Jeff, it looks like I can vote again on the comments page.

  5. PhilJourdan said

    Up to 8, and I was with the majority on all 3.

  6. JohnWho said

    Where’s the choice:

    “OMG, OMG, we are all gonna die! We are all gonna die!”

    Oh, wait –

    we are all going to die.

    Never mind.


  7. DeWitt Payne said

    We could stop closing nuclear power plants like those idiots in VT.

  8. BarryW said

    I had some heartburn with the phrasing of the questions. I don’t think the total understanding of the interrelationship between CO2 and how the atmosphere reacts to it it understood enough to make a determination. How are clouds affected for example? Maybe there will be cooling overall from cloud cover or convective changes. Will the atmosphere warm in such a fashion to increase or decrease storms? It’s not just the energy it’s also the differential from polar to tropic regions.

    Some may benefit by increased rainfall or milder temps, some may experience drought. How can we tell what the weather patterns will be given the state of the modeling?

    When you say begin preparations for GW what does that mean? If it’s an Al Gore/IPCC style grab for power the answer isn’t no it’s HELL NO!. Mitigation, if necessary, should be an ongoing adaptation to an climate changes no matter what the cause, not this cap and trade garbage.

  9. Tim said

    Every time I have looked at the costs of building the emission free infrastructure required to significantly reduce emissions I find the cost rediculously expensive and the technical risk very high (none of the required technologies have been deployed on a large scale).

    This means it is not possible to justify CO2 mitigation even if one believes that CO2 causes a lot of warming. The only possible justification for a kyoto style agreement is a desire to transfer huge sums from money from middle class taxpayers to corrupt despots in the third world.

  10. JAE said

    Well, I’m in the majority except for the last one. I say drill, baby, drill!

  11. Chris said

    On the third question about what we should do, perhaps another possible answer would be “Strengthen climate monitoring and ensure data and algorithms are freely available.”

  12. RomanM said

    In the third category, I would have liked to see the choice:

    Find some reasonable people to figure out exactly what’s going on without shouting “the sky is falling”.

  13. Terry Jackson said

    Climategate prompted me to look at the various sites pro and con the AGW hypothesis.

    There is agreement that CO2 causes a warming effect based on the absorption curves. Call it 1 degree C. After that the arguments begin.

    I have been unable to find any definitive evidence or proof linking CO2 to anything other than plant growth response as a function of concentration. Everything else seems to be supposition, assertion or hypotheses.

    What am I missing? I lack the math skills to follow too technical an explanation, but do ok on an If-Then-Else logic exposition. Anyone know were to find one?

    Also, I seem to able to ask this type of question on sites that question one one or more aspects of AGW, but get banned or flamed on sites that do not? Is this common?

  14. HotRod said

    Terry Jackson – er, yes, that is common. Why? Have you tried RealClimate?

  15. Lisa M said

    Climategate seems to be overblown. There isn’t any evidence here actually changes the basic science of global warming and the overwhelming conclusion of the IPCC.

  16. KimW said

    Question one gave me heartburn as well. Any CO2 warming up to now will have just about reached saturation point with respect to ability to absorb more IR radiation. As to drill/mine,we need more energy and if we do not hurry, the needed lead times may kill the economy.

  17. AEGeneral said

    Have to vote for “no effect” until someone proves otherwise. I’ve yet to see an ounce of evidence that even rises to the level of compelling.

    As far as what to do today, to do nothing is idiotic. The global economy runs on energy, and the demand must be met in order to keep prices down.

    We haven’t had much of an energy policy since Star Wars debuted in theaters. Not holding out much hope that we’ll do anything until 2012. We could be reaping the benefits from ANWR by now….

  18. papertiger said

    Someone try and convince me that endless summer is a bad thing.
    I dare you.
    There are 250 million Mexicans who didn’t bother hopping the border. I figure there’s a good reason, and it ain’t because of border patrol.

  19. Geoff Sherrington said

    Lisa M said
    February 26, 2010 at 11:27 pm
    “Climategate seems to be overblown. There isn’t any evidence here actually changes the basic science of global warming and the overwhelming conclusion of the IPCC.”

    Lisa M, write on the blackboard 100 times “Climategate does not deal with the basic science of global warming, it invents it”.

    Would you like to tell us why and how the IPCC had an overwhelming conclusion?

  20. Drill/Mine for More Fossil Fuel to Take Control and Drive Prices Down seems to be a very American approach to a problem. What non-existent problem does this solve?

  21. frankbi said

    Jeff Id, you forgot to ask these questions:

    Do you believe that science is best done by opinion polls?

    ( ) Of course not! Consensus isn’t science!

    ( ) Probably not.

    ( ) I’m neutral. You know, just like a journalist.

    ( ) I think science can sometimes be done by opinion polls. After all, Clinton did it too.

    ( ) Opinion polls all the way! Topple the Ivory Tower!

    Do you believe in the validity of the poll just above in deciding a scientific issue?

    ( ) Oops.

  22. michel said

    Terry Jackson, yes that is correct. However, it is if anything worse than you thought. The problem is that doubling CO2 will not produce a warming of 1C.

    It will produce a forcing which, if nothing else happens, will result in a warming of 1C. The statement is identical to the statement that drinking a jug of hot coffee will produce a warming of 1C. It will, if nothing else happens. But as we know, when I drink hot coffee in the morning, something else does happen, I sweat, blood vessels dilate, I lose that heat, and my temperature stays the same.

    It is entirely possible that the application of a forcing sufficient to warm the planet by 1C if nothing else happens could, in the real world, result in no global warming whatever, but rather, increased losses to space or decreased solar heat absorption. It is also possible that it could be amplified by feedbacks and result in a warming of 4 – 6C, which could come from decreased losses to space, or increased solar heat absorption.

    We do not know. What evidence there is suggests that the multiplier effect is, if it exists at all, very small, and is non-linear. If there really were a constant multiplier effect which multiplies any small increase in temps by 4 or 6, it seems very unlikely that the climate could revert to the mean from both cooling and warming episodes, as it has over the last 2,000 years.

    But it is not true to say that increased CO2 produces global warming. It produces a forcing. Whether this forcing, or any other, results in long term warming, is a different question.

  23. Tonyb said

    Hey Jeff

    I’m with the consensus (so far) on all three votes. As this poll is obviously funded by Big Oil please send my share of the proceeds by international money transfer urgently (I have a very big power bill to pay) Americans will get a huge shock if you allow power costs to escalate to UK levels through taxes and green levies.

    I had a problem with question one, as that assumes Co2 levels have risen over and above what is ‘normal’ and prevalent in the past. I have written a post on this that I will send separately for your consideration.

    Lisa M said;

    “Climategate seems to be overblown. There isn’t any evidence here actually changes the basic science of global warming and the overwhelming conclusion of the IPCC.”

    Presumably this was a freudian slip and you meant ‘overwhelming CONFUSION of the IPCC.’


  24. kmye said

    All of the questions need “Dunno/Other” options…

  25. Chuckles said

    I’m not so sure about the focus on fossil fuel development in the final question. I think large scale expansion of viable sources (e.g. nukes) is very important, as well as funding development of future sources e.g. Polywell fusion.

    With available cheap power, anything is possible

  26. radiantsmile said

    I put a comment under the CO2 poll as cementafriend. It would be interesting to get some idea about the qualification of the various voters (hopefully they would tell the truth). I have a perception from people I know that the majority of believers in AGW are a) younger than 40 b) live in cities c) have no science or technical qualifications.
    I have found the following to be strong sceptics a) all geologists I have met b) older people (over 55) from the land (farmers, graziers) c) older experienced pilots and gliders d) retired engineers who have operated their own business.

  27. […] Evil Denialist Blog Polls « the Air Vent […]

  28. frankbi said


    I have a perception from people I know that the majority of believers in AGW are a) younger than 40 b) live in cities c) have no science or technical qualifications. I have found the following to be strong sceptics a) all geologists I have met b) older people (over 55) from the land (farmers, graziers) c) older experienced pilots and gliders d) retired engineers who have operated their own business.

    So you’re saying that people who write novel, original material on climate change and environmental issues under-40s who live in cities with no knowledge of science…

    And meanwhile, Real Men such as pilots, gliders, farmers, and businessmen, show off their great ‘skeptic’ knowledge by mindlessly cutting-and-pasting articles from other places?

  29. Ted Carmichael said

    I was with the majority in the first two questions. On the last, I voted for “Begin preparations for Global Warming,” but I almost didn’t. Worded that way it sounds too extreme, I think. I would suggest something like “Investigate technologies that could cool the planet, if needed.”

    At least, that is what I was thinking when I voted for it. Global warming is unlikely to continue, and the human contribution is so far undetectable. But just in case that is wrong, a cheap back-up plan would be nice.

  30. j ferguson said

    That we live in the best of all possible physical worlds seems to be an innate human assumption.

    Change, then, must always be bad.

    Loss of species which should have been better protected, changes in annual rainfall, changes in winter temperatures, etc.

    All bad.

    Since the “badness” of change must be an assumption, why does it have to be the prevailing one?

    Maybe we should be looking at the orgasmic qualities of hysteria.

  31. Kafka said

    I am not happy with the third question. Even though warming (if any) will likely be minor and mostly beneficial, i still thing it’s worthwile to promote energy efficiency and fund research in renewables and improved energy storage systems (for entirely different reasons than the global warming scare). I answered “Do nothing” instead.

  32. Jeff Id said

    Poll results are telling already. The least convincing arguments from the consensus seem to be around the extreme claims, strong warming, disaster, doom and mitigation strategies. All the things the IPCC and UN needs to keep big $$ flowing through the system.

    Most of you guys aren’t skeptics, you are shoulder shruggers. Oh look a little chunk of ice broke off of Antarctica, so what. haha. Summer came a little early, that used to be a good thing right?!! Look at the cute fuzzy man-hunting polar bear swimming around the middle of the ocean, where’s jaws when you need him. Interesting.

  33. Jeff Id said

    I’m just kidding around of course but now I wonder what the same poll would do on RC. Anyone have a password?

  34. harrywr2 said

    You needed more options on the ‘Do What Now’ question.

    I think – begin moving away from dependence on fossil fuels in an economically prudent way.

  35. mitchel44 said

    I would like to have said “do nothing” for question 3, but can’t.

    Like it or not, fossil fuels are the cheapest and most available means of power generation available to the “whole” of humanity. World Bank and IMF are already tying “green strings” to funding approval in the third world for development projects.

    May as well just sentence them to live in squalor and die young.

  36. GRR said

    I became aware of the issue years ago and initially believed the premise to be plausible. I started reading scientific papers and the blogs, and that resulted in becoming an agnostic. I make no claim that any opinion that I may form would have value, only that I have no opinion on the matter as that opinion requires facts either not in evidence, unknown to, or not understood by me. I seek enlightenment.

    This is my problem. If I believe as I am told that the earth has under gone various glacial periods, then it is reasonable, but necessarily correct, to assume that the average earth temperature warms between the periods, with climate variation riding on the trend. If we are in a warming period now, how do we determine what part of the warming is the human contribution? The question of whether or not a significant AGW signal exists must first be answered, before decisions concerning possible threats are warranted.

    While I will consider good faith arguments, I resent and reject coercive means to inculcate opinion. The means, by which the proponents of AWG typically attempt conversions to and maintain compliance with their positions, strike me as coercive. This is also the case for some, but not all, on the opposing side. If this is the approach that is being labeled consensus building, know that I find it more fitting to the realm of the belief systems associated with politics and religion than with mounting an appeal to reason. As such, I reject those arguments.

    While the recent revelations concerning the methods of the CRU and others provides prima facie evidence of the need to be even more skeptical about the prognostications, ethics and agenda of the CRU, the IPCC, and others, the revelations do not in and of themselves falsify the hypnosis of AWG. However, this observation carries little weight and much suspicion when used by an AWG proponent, post scandal, regarding the veracity of and the conclusion drawn from their body of work. On the AGW matter, I still maintain an open mind, not to be confused with a gullible one, to reasoned arguments.

    I was trained as an engineer, and am quickly approaching retirement. I have been following this debate since becoming interested in Anthony Watt’s Stevenson screens paint experiment. I have read RC but no more, and continue to read CA, WUWT and many others. I tend to favor those with some semblance of civility and having some scientific content. I read scientific papers (peer reviewed and otherwise) as entertainment. I am apolitical and fearful of the unintended consequences resulting from good intentions. I provide this because I took the poll and one commenter mused about the biographies of respondents to the poll. I hope this helps.


  37. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I voted your poll, Jeff, but my real position is that there is much uncertainty about AGW and its consequences and that without more certain evidence I do not see why we would want to proceed with mitigation.

    Also my response is tainted with my awful suspicions of government actions in cases like this one and the ever occurring unintended consequences.

  38. Chuckles said


    There exist methods to cool the planet, they are called ice ages. I think we should fear them far more than a bit of warming.

  39. JAE said

    26, Radiantsmile: I think you will find that the prevalent distinguishing characteristic between AGW-fanatics and the “lukewarmers” and skeptics is simply political persuasion. Same with most “environmental” issues (except conservation (as in “wise-use, not protection), which almost everyone agrees with). Socialistic minds just love the idea of squelching freedoms, wherever and however possible. AGW WAS the absolutely perfect cause for these monsters. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for freedom, the scam is being revealed. And so are the scamsters. It might be fun to watch the future civil lawsuits, relevant to RICO laws.

  40. JAE said

    Relative to my last comment, see:


  41. Tim said

    #37 – Kenneth Fritsch,

    You are assuming that mitigation is an option. It is not. The technology to make a difference does not exist at an affordable cost. Estimates for converting only the US to renewables by 2050 start at 1 trillion per year and go up from their depending on how pessimistic you are. If we spend what is affordable (i.e. <50 billion per year) it would only provide <10% of our needs from renewables. Using nuclear would reduce the cost estimates – but not by that much.

    If CO2 is a real risk then adaptation is the only option and money spent on mitigation is wasted.

  42. JAE said

    15, Lisa M:

    “Climategate seems to be overblown. There isn’t any evidence here actually changes the basic science of global warming and the overwhelming conclusion of the IPCC.”

    I think you will find that the more you learn about climate science, the more you will appreciate how important climategate is. It is important to realize that there is virtually NO empirical evidence for AGW. There are computer models, most of which have now been falsified. And there are statements that say that “such-and-such” “may” be (co)related to CO2. There is also the basic hypothesis of greenhouse gas warming (which is also unproven). Michel in 22 made a very accurate statement which shows why this proves nothing, also, even if it is true.

    The hockey stick crap was as close to empirical evidence as the “science” had, because it supported an “unprecedented warmth,” which supposedly could only be explained by AGW (that’s illogical crap, but many fell for it, anyway). Of course McIntyre and friends had already proved conclusively several years ago that the hockey stick diagrams were junk-statistics and fradulent science. If science was working as it is supposed to in the field of “climate science,” McIntyre would have turned everything around years ago. But it took a scandal–something people love to read about–to vindicate McIntyre and cause hundreds of thousands of people to pay attention to “skeptics.” Now that they have seen the absolute disgusting corruption, “climate science” will have to become a real science, perhaps.

  43. bob said

    Looks like I am out of step with the majority, again. I am not a raging AGW advocate, but I do think CO2 causes some warming, and I do think we should consider mitigation efforts.

    Mitigation, of course, does not mean destroy the world’s economies to decrease emissions. Mitigation means to take responsible steps to lesson the effects of any (if at all!) negative effects of warming. At this point I am not sure we need to take any mitigation steps.

    Somebody has to show that there are negative consequences to the mild warming cased by mankind’s CO2 emissions. That has not happened to my satisfaction.

    It does make sense to wean ourselves off foreign oil because of the security issues. But, oil in and of itself is not responsible for the bulk of the CO2 emissions. Coal takes that prize.

    The USA is energy independent in the generation of electric power, with our use of coal, hydro, nuclear, and other generation. It is physically impossible to stop using coal and maintain civilization at the same time.

    It will take decades of concentrated construction of nuclear plants to replace the current coal fired capacity, and to keep up with the demand for new energy. Interestingly, the very people who want to ditch coal fired generation resist the construction of nuclear power plants. This is hypocrisy at its finest!

    So, yeah, we have some warming because of our CO2 and yes, we probably should figure out how to lesson those emissions over time. It doesn’t make sense to go cold turkey.

  44. MrPete said

    I think all of the questions should allow answers that fit a “we don’t know” paradigm. NOT “I don’t know” (as a survey respondent) but WE the people don’t know. I.e., more research needed, cautious steps, be careful about your actions in the meantime, etc etc

  45. On the C02 = warming Jeff I’ll suggest the following:

    1. Doubling C02 will cool the planet
    2. Doubling C02 will have ZERO effect.
    3. Doubling C02 will warm the planet approximately 1.2C according to accepted radiative physics, feedbacks are zero over long periods.
    4. Doubling C02 will warm the planet 1.5C-2C, feedbacks are positive
    5. Doubling C02 will warm the planet 3C ( err whats the central estimate again)
    6. The Sky is falling.

    Either that or you need people to answer the threshold question about radiative physics.

  46. bob said

    Lisa #15:

    Climategate seems to be overblown. There isn’t any evidence here actually changes the basic science of global warming and the overwhelming conclusion of the IPCC.

    Lisa, I am not trying to pile on with your obvious misunderstanding of Climategate. Your opinion is not new, and is the result of a misinformation campaign of the Climategate personalities trying to divert attention of the real issues.

    Saying that the revelations in Climategate do not change the basic science of global warming contains a grain of truth, but has nothing to do with Climategate. Everybody knows that carbon dioxide can warm the atmosphere a little. No argument there.

    What Climategate does is to drive a stake into the heart of the Alarmist global warming AGENDA! The infamous Hockey Stick is the basis of that agenda, and has been falsified MANY TIMES.

    The Alarmist Agenda depends on the 20th century warming to have been unprecedented. Climategate emails show that without a doubt, the data behind one of the Hockey Sticks is inadequate to explain anything. The data is bogus!

    In other words, the Hockey Sticks are all phony, and the CRU players admitted such in the emails. That’s one of the revelations and admissions in the files.

    Climategate destroys the Alarmist Agenda. The 20th century warming is precedented, and therefore, no action needs to be taken because nothing bad happened in the past because warmer temperatures.

    That’s the story.

  47. Ben Maral said

    Could you add a category to the first box.

    I’d like to vote AGW is very dangerous but “I lost the data”.


    Come to think of it how about a category for NASA and NOAA: AGW is very dangerous and I can prove it but you can’t see my workings without a FOI request.

  48. timetochooseagain said

    1. Dunno-I lean between almost none and medium, but the truth is that I believe noone really knows, least of all me.

    2. Beneficial. Warming the coldest, driest air masses hardly seems a threat to me, and increasing precipitation is also mostly good. With regard to various alleged catastrophes, here is what I think:

    3. “We” shouldn’t do anything, so I say do nothing. Not because I don’t think there are actions individuals can take to capitalize on positive effects and minimize any problems, but because I believe they will do so anyway. See, I’m a Masonimist, and I say lose the “we”.

  49. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Tim @ Post # 41:

    I would not necessarily disagree with you about adaption versus mitigation, and in fact adaption would be my first choice. Even Jim Hansen would agree that it will take drastic measures to make a significant difference. Unfortunately, Hansen is very disposed politically towards drastic government actions.

    Also unfortunately the politicians in Washington will want to make gesture towards doing something and they will do this because they, unlike those like me, do not see any major detrimental and unintended consequences comming out of these types of regulations. In fact, they are comfortable with the regulations regardless of whether there is a need or even a better alternative that does not involve government regulation.

    What I say above about politicians goes very much the same for those climate scientists in the consensus, in my opinion.

  50. BarryW said


    I would add the word “theoretically” to you’re third item and change it to read “the effects of feedbacks are unknown”

  51. Gary said

    I’m not happy with the choices for the questions, but then I’ve written poll questions and know the difficulties with being unambiguous. Even picking the closest isn’t satisfactory. One trick of the trade is to solicit answers for the questions from focus groups and then do pre-poll testing. Too much work, I know, unless you really want accuracy instead of a general sense of public sentiment. My guess is you’re looking for the latter.

  52. GRR said

    Ref Bob #46

    I agree generally with your statement, but disagree on this one point. I have concerns with the statement “drive a stake into the heart of the Alarmist global warming AGENDA “as it is not possible, with the information available to the outsider, to know to any degree of certainty what the agenda actually is. If it is AGW, then they have inflicted a serious but not necessarily mortal wound to their cause. If the agenda is something else and AGW is just a vehicle for the agenda, then it is likely that the wound is to horse (AGW), and that the rider remains unharmed and able to continue. As with eugenics, the rhetoric will change but the agenda still remains. We already have hints of this with the morphing of Anthropogenic Global Warming into Climate Change.

  53. JohnWho said

    I also have a problem with the statement:

    “drive a stake into the heart of the Alarmist global warming AGENDA“

    since it assumes a fact not in evidence, to wit,

    that they have a heart!


  54. GRR said

    ref: #53

    You may be jesting, but it is within the realm of possibly that you are correct. As for me, I continue to await the compeling pro or com argument on AGW.


  55. Carbon-based life form said

    How about this statement:
    True or False?
    Assuming the current trend of CO2 will result in measurable and deleterious effects, material mitigation of CO2 emissions are beyond scientific and political possibility.

  56. bob said

    GRR # 52:

    OK. I got caught generalizing a bit, but, the basic idea has truth to it. For example, I don’t have to know the details of the agenda, just like I don’t have to know the details inside a black box. If I look at the inputs and outputs, I can make a reasonable estimate of the purpose, and therefore, the key agenda in the construction of that box.

    I believe I can speculate on the AGW agenda with some degree of confidence.

    If the general public does not learn about this figurative “stake in the heart”, then all my opinions don’t matter.

    Like most well constructed propaganda, that particular phrase contains a grain of truth is effective whenever quoted. The statement is misleading, and presenting information with the purpose of misleading people is lying.


  57. Jeremy said

    Sean Houlihane said
    {Drilling/Mining for More Fossil Fuel} seems to be a very American approach to a problem. What non-existent problem does this solve?”

    Historically the cheaper energy is, the better economies run. Right now the U.S. and other nations have put their energies into expensive forms of energy in their attempts at mitigating what they perceive as a future disaster. This expensive brand of energy has hampered their economies and as a result hasn’t done them any favors with regards to keeping up with China, India and other developing nations.

    It’s amusing when I think that so many people use the adjective “American” as a bad word, and though I can’t tell that was what you intended, it did sound that way. It seems to easy for other people to forget that America’s unrestrained economic expansion through the 20th century is in many ways what created the now developed world. While it undoubtedly did cause problems with regards to planetary stewardship, the benefit-to-cost ratio is still incalulably huge.

    Is pollution bad? Yes. And America has done more than any nation in terms of raw cleanup in this regard. Should the progress of humanity stop until we’re certain we’ll never make a mess? No, that’s ridiculous. Such an attitude is akin to saying “I won’t build a nursery in my home or have a baby until I’m sure that the impact to the landscape is minimized.”

  58. Tony Hansen said

    Mosh #45, Did you miss a step between 2 and 3?

  59. Atomic Hairdryer said

    I was doing so well till the ‘what shall we do today’ question. But that’s the big money shot, so from a UK perspective, this is what pays for global warming art, £300m+ in cost savings (aka profits) to supermarkets for restricting carrier bags, £300m+ to our Carbon Trust and several £billion in CO2 trades. Oh, and the £200bn we might spend to sort out our energy grid so green Quixote fans can tilt at windmills and pocket subsidies.

    Pretty soon we’ll be talking about real money.

    Adaptation and mitigation seems to be where the problem lies, not to mention the big money from rent-seeking and implementing sucker taxes. There are more pragmatic solutions, but they’re much less profitable to governments and lobbyists.

  60. I placed a vote in the first two of the polls. The last one did not contain an option I felt appropriately related. I could have selected “drill”, but, that option really is not directly related to the AGW issue.

    My preference for the third: “Use this time to study and learn.”

    Modern science has had very little time to actively observe and study climate, climate change, and even the actual effect of additional CO2. Climate science at present is at a kindergarten level of actual understanding. There is far too much that we do not know, do not understand.

    In geological terms the last 100 – 150 years is nothing more than a day … a year at best. Hence the ‘climate change’ which has occurred during that time is really nothing more than seasonal variation in that perspective. Man has an unfortunate limitation of tending to see events as confined to his life span or a few generations at most. Geologic time, to most, is difficult to understand.

    Now is the time to learn. Now is not the time to pretend we understand. Understanding 1,500 year cycles, 10,000 year cycles, 40,000 year cycles is of the most import. They are far more influential than any little bit of twist or turn that man can generate.

  61. Phil A said

    All were fine except the last question which has to be “None of the above”.

    I believe we do need to conserve fossil fuels and we do need to reduce avoidable pollution. But not at painful cost of economic development, and especially not to the detriment of development of health, sanitation and power infrastructure in the Third World. Because it’s only those that will halt population growth, and that’s the biggest danger we face. IMHO.

  62. GRR said

    Ref Bob #56

    It was not my intention to catch you in a generalization. After all, I whole heartedly agree with the sentiments expressed your statement, in particular, that AGW is predicated on a warming trend greater than expected. Not said by you but said by the proponents, is that since they cannot conceive of any explanation other than for human influence, thus it must be AGW. The rest of AGW is little more than fish grabbing by hand.

    My purpose was merely to caution that the jubilation should be held only after the necropsy. I have a visceral distrust of these people and their motives and that manifests in me as a caution against believing it is over without due confirmation. I do not enjoy debating, but instead prefer a civil and cordial conversation where the ultimate goal is exposure to differing opinions as opposed to winning on points.

    With regards to your #56 we are again in substantial agreement.

    If I have given offense, please accept my sincere apology.


  63. Diana Miller said

    #1 Dunno – because I don’t have enough knowledge

    #2 Beneficial – because CO2 is ideal plant food, and warmer is better.

    #3 Drill for more fossil fuels – because we need cheap energy NOW, and until the fossil fuels are expended we have time to seek out better energy technologies.

  64. RogerCNY said

    For number four I would have preferred study it more and do no regrets efforts energy policy, i.e., more energy conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy research (not subsidies for implementing the currently non-viable renewable options).

  65. RogerCNY said

    Obviously I cannot count and obviously I meant the third poll question

  66. POUNCER said

    Re #3: Where is the option regarding “complete the nuclear fuel cycle”? Reprocess spent fuel rods for fissile Pu-239, glassify and bury the hottest remaining radio-isotopes, and build a pot-load of new reactors to burn /fizz the plutonium.

    Additionally, we should upgrade the electrical distribution grid. We should be laying gas pipe in suburbs that don’t, now have gas, to provide “backup” energy in times of electrical failure.We should re-engineer the 19th century technologies of making “coal-gas”.

    All this should be offset with efforts to de-salininate ocean water and irrigate desert coastlines –such that the newly irrigated lands uptake carbon in the form of forests and crops. We should disperse phosphorus and iron into the seas — we have for too long reaped where we have not sown. We owe the ocean a debt of minerals — which will in turn absorb more carbon in algae.

    Inshort, the problems of technology should be solved with new and better technology.

  67. chowgirl said

    This is a really nice chart everyone should see:
    (make sure you read the legend)

    Also, check out this parody:


  68. JAE said

    Shit. I just got in trouble at Discover by posting this:

    33. JAE Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 27th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    What is going to be especially damning about the Great Global Warming/Climate Change Scam is that most of the LEADING SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS HAVE SUPPORTED IT! How are the big-time associations, such as the American Chemical Society, going to “recover” from their stupidity? Well, they will be most embarassed to find that some of their counterparts are much smarter than they are:

    Sorry to put this here, but I want to record that the assholes at Discover might be doing the same kind of censorship that RC does. I posted many previous comments without a “moderation” warning. I’m just very sick of the communist pigs that want to control my free speech!

  69. JAE said

    Oh, here is the communist site:

  70. Re 58.

    Thought about that slightly negative feedbacks..

    I frankly dont know of any SCIENCE that supports 1,2. I know people who have speculations. But no science.

    on my view anyone who supports 1,2 is simply arm waving. Its a weak skepticism.

    throw tomatoes, cause there aint no science for 1 and 2

  71. michel said

    Mosh #70

    Yes. This is the entire and if you like the only problem. The only question we have to get the answer to is, how does the climate respond to inputs? I don’t know that there is any rigorous science to support any particular account of this. Maybe there is some, love to see it.

    Like, why exactly do we think that if we lower the warming inputs at this point, temperatures will either stabilize or fall back? Why will they not carry on rising? Or why will they not stop rising and start falling whatever we do? Or fluctuate in ways they always have? The question has nothing to do with radiative physics, and nothing to do with CO2, it has to do with the behavior of a complex and chaotic system in response to inputs.

  72. David Jay said


    Your answer should be “do nothing”, because if we don’t know what is happening then the null hypothesis should dominate our response.

    (no problem doing more research, as long as it is open)

    credo: In God we trust, all others show code and data

  73. Neven said

    I believe every blogger commenting on the theory of AGW, whether it’s an alarmist, warmer, lukewarmer or denialist blog (my categories), should answer a list of questions, some sort of certificate label, that establishes his or her view on AGW for everyone to see. Especially the ‘skeptic’ side of the debate could use some subcategorizing, to make it easier for people to discern between lukewamers and denialists, or genuine and not so genuine skeptics.

    Some of the questions are in the poll.

    Do you believe that over the last 150 years the atmosphere has been warming?
    Do you believe the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone up?
    Do you believe humans have an influence through their emissions of GHGs, and if so, how much?
    Do you believe AGW could potentially incur significant costs to the economy and society at large?
    What do you believe the consequences on your actions so far have been if your views on AGW turn out to be wrong?

    The questions of course would have to be rephrased in a significant way, but I would love to see them answered, especially by people such as for instance Watts, Morano or d’Aleo and then be placed on the About-segment of their websites.

  74. Neven said

    That should read ‘consequences OF your actions’.

  75. John F. Pittman said

    This may need its own quick post. I hope we they release the other emails that are indicated in the Yamal larch email.

    Most interesting is this quote:

    . In the following, I will outline the chronology of the CRU-Keenan affair as documented in the published CRU e-mails and according to unpublished e-mail correspondence between me and Dr Jones. 4. It should be noted that the CRU e-mails regarding the Jones-Keenan affair are incomplete. I am in the possession of e-mail correspondence with Phil Jones about the Keenan paper that is not included in the published CRU e-mails. The point is that the ‘unauthorised publication’ referred to in the terms of reference is by no means a complete publication. There is likely to be much more other CRU email traffic bearing on the question of the CRU’s scientific integrity, over and above the emails already disclosed. In the interest of veracity and transparency all correspondence by CRU researchers regarding the fraud allegations in question should be disclosed in full so the exact nature and extent of attempts to prevent the publication of Keenan’s paper can be established.

    h/t MGK at

  76. #75 A more readable link to this statement is this one from Bishop Hill’s blog:

  77. Cement a friend said

    Steven Mosher (45) I am not sure where you got the 1.2C for doubling of CO2. Physics maybe a start in working that out but the answer comes from a study of heat transfer which is not a science subject and it appears no one who points to physics has any understanding of the principles.
    There are two main possibilities a) that CO2 in the wavelengths it absorbs is saturated therefore doubling will cause no increase (there are reports of experiments see Hug & Barrett at b) there are equations using beam length, partial pressures, temperatures and absorptivity at various wavelengths to show the energy absorption of CO2, at the present level and double this, is insignificant (but experimental data relates mainly to combustion gases where CO2 levels are hundreds of times higher)and this is before considerations of re-radiation to space.
    Measured data showing that temperature leads CO2 on daily, monthly, yearly (eg W Kreutz 1941) and in excess of 500 years basis (ice cores), and no run away temperature at CO2 levels over 10 ten times higher would confirm either of the two possibilities above or a combination of the two.

  78. curious said

    75 – I’d like to see the documnetary evidence Lalu Hanuman claims in his submission 07:

    “3. From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations. Hence the CRU in distorting information was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices. There is an urgent need for a wider remit, namely to look into the institutional failings of the UEA itself.”

    If he can substantiate this claim then it is strong stuff indeed.

  79. Cement a friend said

    73 Neven. I will answer your questions
    1/ increase in atmospheric temperature over 150yrs – maybe by 0.1 or 0.2K but the data has to be confirmed. This would be due to increased radiation from the sun absorbed that the earth’s surface.
    2/ CO2 increase over 150 years – definitely not. The proxy icecore data is false and the measurements at Mauna Loa (an active volcano) are doubtful (Keeling needs to be investigated similar to Mann and Biffra). Assuming recent measurements at Mauna Loa are about right than CO2 around 1940 was the same or higher and similar also around 1850
    3/ Human influence -not through GHG as defined by the IPCC and US EPA. CO2 and CH4 have no or insignificant effect on climate. The other 4 gases are IPCC nonsense.
    4/ Influence of AGW -there is no AGW at present and there never has been in the past. Humans may have had a small effect (a few %) on 10% of the land surface (30% of the earth surface) through changed usage (2%*10%*30% =0.06%.
    On the otherhand if the believers in AGW prevail than everyone will be worse off and revolution and civil war will occur. Remember the Boston tea party, over taxation, which led to the war of independence. No one wants to be taxed for no benefit.
    5/ What if wrong about AGW – there is no AGW so can not be wrong. However, if there a meteor hits, or a few volcanos blow at the same time or something else happens to significantly suddenly change the climate people with the help of engineers will use their skills to adapt to the circumstances as they have since the Greek golden era.

  80. Neven said

    Cement A Friend, if you were a blogger on AGW and would include these answers on your About-page, you would greatly help me in evaluating your trustworthiness.

    It would be just as helpful if for instance Anthony Watts would do the same. Right now he has this on his About-page: “While I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues,” and “News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”. I would love it if he could be more specific on his views.

  81. Navy Bob said

    didn’t read all comments, so someone may have said this already. but the “drill/mine” answer, which I selected, for the third question is a non-sequitur. It’s not a response to what should we do about global warming. My preferred answer to that is “nothing.” But it’s even more important for the economy to drill/mine for more fossil fuel.

  82. Jeff Id said

    #81, I don’t agree that it’s a non-sequitor but you are the second commenter I noticed with that opinion. In fact it was my preferred answer. It has to do with driving down prices of every commodity worldwide to stimulate investment in technology such that suitable replacements for fossil fuels can be developed.

    We’ve recently proven (in the last century and a half) that the best path to technology is evil economic consumerism. IMHO, this is the only way to be able to limit AGW. Placing limits on CO2 or doing nothing will continue to limit technological development and IMO actually increase the net CO2 released before a suitable technology is developed to replace fossil fuels.

    As I see it, capitalism has a less simple message than draconian socialist style limitation, there is more than one step to the thought process so it’s not as easy to grasp. If the government gives me money, I’ll have more. Well – not really. If the government taxes CO2 to limit output, we’ll have less, — again, not really.

    I’ve seen no studies to these effects and wouldn’t likely trust them anyway. My point is that it’s not a non-sequitur though.

  83. H Hak said

    re 79 Mauna Loa has been active at times , but this effect has been removed from the data set. Please read . Volcanoes do not spew pure CO2 ever, there is always additional SO2 ( and other gasses,CN etc). Not only does volcanic activity have relatively little and only a temporary effect on the reading, the CO2 record from Mauna Loa shows a basically linear rise in CO2 concentration. How can you possibly explain this by volcanic activity? Is there a valve somewhere in the volcano that gradually gets cranked open more and more? No way.
    H Hak

  84. GRR said

    Ref #71

    The core of climate model used is likely some variation of a simplified model. In such models the transfer function acts on any value of excitation in the same way, the elements are approximations or ideal, and element dependencies are assumed constant. Real world systems tend to be more complex, and may include, but are not necessarily limited to, transfer function dependency on previous and current state, boundary conditions, initial conditions, bias, and stray effects. At best models provide an approximation over some range.

    Any effort to improve our models will always be limited by available funding, technology, and knowledge. Additionally, from the act of improving a model, it does not necessary follow that the model gains skill. I suspect the current state of the art has presently reached one, two, or all of the limiting factors with the dominant factor being knowledge. Consequently, it is wise to avoid undue confidence in model results.

    And so we come to the question of “why exactly do we”. We do so because we (interpreted to mean some quantity exclusive of all) claim to or actually believe in order to belong. In the absence of the contrary opinion, we tend to place undue confidence in what is left. Arguably, the greatest value of the contrary opinion is that it provides the opportunity for the “we” to evaluate competing opinions without resorting to esoteric skills, through a process of comparison; a process most of “we” are pretty good at it.

    With regards to climate, I am but one of the “we” and as such my opinion on the subject should be accorded little confidence. Like Michel, I also think that the best return on investment is yielded by an investigation into the actual behavior of the climate and its’ response to external excitation. I think that prudence dictates that we should refrain from dire predictions and action based on those prediction until such time as we truly have a clue. Else we will be in the same boat as the expert consensus that proclaimed the coelacanth (a fish) to have gone extinct millions of years ago. In 1938 a specimen was caught off the Comoros Islands. Now we have discovered a population off Indonesia, and interestingly enough they first found it in the fish market. Fortunately, this caused little or no harm and can be easily forgiven. On the other hand, climate mitigation has a potential for great harm. Shouldn’t we have more than a clue before we risk putting humanity in that position?


  85. Andrew_KY said

    Re: #80

    “Cement A Friend, if you were a blogger on AGW and would include these answers on your About-page, you would greatly help me in evaluating your trustworthiness.”

    Yes, Neven is anonymously compiling an Enemies List, so could all you guys put a little more effort into cooperating? 😉


  86. Neven said

    No, I’m compiling a list of people who are trustworthy. You’re not on it. :-p

  87. Andrew_KY said


    You can call it whatever you like. Why don’t you give me your real info, so I can put you on my list? 😉


  88. GRR said

    Even I don’t consider myself trustworthy. Unfortunately, I also don’t believe myself suficiently competent to be a worthwile enemy. Would consider creating a list fools, so that people like myself can feel included? 🙂

  89. Andrew_KY said


    I don’t think it matters to Neven what kind of person you are. You either regurgitate the party line or your don’t. You are either on the list or off of it. Cool list, huh?


  90. GRR said


    That is very distressing news but strangely familiar. Experience teaches that if you delay jumping to conclusion in favor of maintaining an open mind, the likelihood is that all parties that have already taken sides beat you up for the heinous crime of not-belong-to-us. As if the beatings are not sufficient, they then they take your lunch money. Of course in my case, I may be the exception and actually deserve said treatment. Or maybe it has something to do with my continual refusal to belong to any group that would stoop so low as to consider having me as a member.


  91. Cal said

    I thought I would explain my answers.

    1. Increased C02 Will Cause medium warming based on a no-feedback amount of ~2 C in a hundred years. 2 degrees may not be “medium” but it is far from “almost no warming”

    2. The warming would most likely be beneficial overall but I choose Mildly problematic for potential exacerbations of droughts in some areas.

    3. What Should we Currenlty Do Today is Begin CO2 Mitigation Efforts but only through adaptation strategies. Helping drought stricken areas is a good idea even if co2 caused no warming. I only support voluntary contributions though – no government enforced taxation of co2.

    A consumer driven/voluntary system that implemented public water and sanitation programs would be cool and easy for multinationals to implement. Of course they would rather entrench their monopolies by using a cap and trade system as an entry-level barrier to potential competitors while claiming to be green. Not to mention the enron-like frausters wanting to cash in on a new market.

  92. RB said

    “On the other hand, climate mitigation has a potential for great harm. ”

    Economic alarmism versus environmental alarmism – seems to be the debate in a nutshell.

  93. RB said

    Cal #91, sounds like you should have been voting strong warming because you are in the IPCC range.

  94. RB said

    Sorry, looks like i misinterpreted you.

  95. Hmmm said

    Go nuclear and continue research into alternatives.

  96. GRR said

    RB #92

    That is not what was meant RB. What was meant is that our current knowledge may be insuficient to properly gage the risk of harm to the enviroment. It is quite possible that with the best of intentions we wind up screwing the pooch. The statement was intented as a catution to carefully consider the consequences. The history of mankind is full of examples of good intention, executed in ignorance of unintended consequences leading to bad results. One example is banning DTT. The literature now apprear appears to be saying that the ban against the agricultural use of DDT has resulted in millions of deaths, mostly children, across the 3rd world. If true, a serious and deadly consequence.


  97. RB said

    GRR #96,
    Skeptics demand high level of proof of environmental damage while stating the risk of worldwide poverty with much less evidence. There may be no such catastrophic economic damage due to mitigation efforts – we have equally less strength of evidence of the economic risks, although it is stated to be highly plausible.

  98. Neven said

    GRR: “Or maybe it has something to do with my continual refusal to belong to any group that would stoop so low as to consider having me as a member.”

    Ah, a quote by Marx. Be careful, you’re toeing Andrew_KY’s party line now. At least, that’s what he probably thinks when he sees the name ‘Marx’. 😉

  99. Neven said

    GRR: “Or maybe it has something to do with my continual refusal to belong to any group that would stoop so low as to consider having me as a member.”

    Ah, a quote by Marx. Be careful, you’re not toeing Andrew_KY’s party line now. At least, that’s what he probably thinks when he sees the name ‘Marx’. 😉

  100. michel said

    I have no idea whether doubling CO2 will produce any rise in temps at all. I am certain it will deliver heating. But whether that heating will over the long term warm the planet, show me. Similarly whether reducing CO2 levels will cool the planet, show me.

    The default hypothesis, given what we know of history, is that as it warms, feedback to that warming becomes negative. As it cools, feedback to that cooling becomes positive. What we see is regression to the mean. With random fluctuations about it.

  101. Cal said

    Note: I should have looked up “mitigation” – my Vote should have been for preparation

  102. RB said

    There is an economic risk to under-investing in alternative energies relative to European countries, whose technological capabilities today in this market are driven by European government regulations:

  103. GRR said

    RB #97

    As I said up post, on the issue of the existence of a human signal in the warming trend, I am agnostic. That means that I am sufficiently ignorant on the topic to not have the definitive answer, and still smart enough to know that is the case. So instead of joining the school of thought with the most promiscuous ladies (use the word advisedly) or the one with the Friday beer bash, I instead sit out there on the periphery of the discussion waiting for the compelling argument to be made. So if you must label me, use a label that applies. I’m kind of partial to bastard.

    I use to call myself an environmentalist back in day when we actually thought it out, did the work, and got good results. However, since the advent of the current crop of environmentalist has managed to change the original mission to stress of activist and fund raiser, the term environmentalist has been debased for me. I no longer refer to myself as an environmentalist yet still hold to the same sentiments. That is why I caution as I do. I have seen good intentions result in bad outcomes.

    To your point about the economy and the environment, my view is that the two are codependent in the short term. The economy provides the discretionary resources to mitigate in behalf of the environment and the environment hosts the economy. Harm either one sufficiently and both will likely be harmed.

    To the point of “no such catastrophes economic damage”, we in one right now and all it took were a little greed, bad politics, and ignorance of the consequences. Can you image what we could have accomplished if we had added a little good intention to the mix? (Rhetorical) The truth is that one could argue that we did in the guise of B. Franks et al.


  104. RB said

    “all it took were a little greed, bad politics, and ignorance of the consequences”
    And to that, I would add “market failure”, “skewed incentives that bring about short-term thinking” etc. Both govt and market can be good or bad, its what we make of them, but I think at least in recent times, markets have not exhibited long-term thinking such as the ones issues such as resource depletion would require. [The B.Franks et al. argument also is a little more complicated than a common meme as seen in the banks’ (ongoing) disaster in the Commercial Real Estate market, but that’s for another discussion altogether.]

  105. Chuckles said

    GRR #103

    ‘all it took were a little greed, bad politics, and ignorance of the consequences’

    I would suggest throwing in some computer models, a dash or two of consensus, and some certainty?

  106. RB said

    “I’m kind of partial to bastard.”

    I think we can say that you are immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect 🙂

  107. Navy Bob said

    jeff-82. I take your point on the non-sequitur, but sounds like we agree on the larger issue – economic and technological development is the best solution we have to a host of problems.

  108. GRR said

    RB #102

    The current viable alternatives to power generation by fossil fuels (assuming that includes coal, petroleum, and natural gas, a school of thought disagrees that petroleum and natural gas are fossil fuels) are hydroelectric, nuclear, and geothermal. Did I forget any?

    Some developing alternative are: a) wind generation is not currently viable due to mechanical engineering problems and availability, b) photo voltaic has a cost and storage problem, c) biomass is not currently economical except in special cases, d) solar thermal has a storage problem etc.

    The reality is that the wind farm in Hawaii was abandoned by original owner and is being stripped by the current one. Similar things are happening in California. In the UK, wind generation is failing to meet promised quotas by significant amounts. The Germans are backing away from wind. It goes on and on. The point of this is that evidence would suggest that these technologies and others not mention while promising may not be ready for prime time.

    If there is an economic risk, it is to deploy systems in mass before they are ready. Need a reference? Please refer to the current Toyota recalls.

    #104 Wow we have reach a consensus in principle. And what was the probability of that. I agree about commercial real estate market. But not mentioned is the potential for post recovery inflation.

    #105 My Bad, I forgot that to really foul ting up requires a computer. I gess that post grad stuff did sink in.

    #106 The results of being raised by wolves.


  109. rogerthesurf said

    29.Ted Carmichael said
    February 27, 2010 at 9:41 am

    “I was with the majority in the first two questions. On the last, I voted for “Begin preparations for Global Warming,” but I almost didn’t. Worded that way it sounds too extreme, I think. I would suggest something like “Investigate technologies that could cool the planet, if needed.””

    Ted your comment fills me with horror.

    Yes there is probably a number of technologies around that might effectively cool the planet, but do you trust humans that much? Scientists who can’t even get tomorrow’s weather report correct attempting to cool the weather?
    A nuclear winter would probably be effective.
    What if they got that wrong? Is there technology that enables us to warm the world again? Horrors!
    Physically, politically and practically lets not give scientists or countries power over this one. Far better to risk frying from natuaral causes!

    Besides “preparing for global warming” need only consist of enjoying the better growing seasons, fertility, increasing wealth and enjoying ones trips to the beach.



  110. DOuglas2 said

    I was not with a majority on any question.
    If mitigation is required, the question remains what to do for mitigation.
    Most of the treaty efforts I’ve seen so far take the approach of “make carbon intensive industries so expensive in countries that are already very efficient that they (the industries) move to countries that effectively have no controls” The cost of shipping is more than made up in the avoidance of compliance costs. So we get a double hit. Value of economic output per ton of carbon emitted is higher in e.g. the USA than in all but a handful of countries, so if we move production elsewhere odds are that there will be more carbon emitted in net. Then we have to ship the “stuff” from the new places where it is made to where it will be consumed, emitting even more carbon.

  111. Bruce of Newcastle said

    Steven Mosher (70)

    I’d like a something less than 1.2 C option because every time I see a graph of clean rural station data I see maybe 0.2 C/century, with some PDO cycle variance. At least between 40 deg S and 40 deg N. Maybe a bit more in SST, though I’m not sure of the SST data quality. I don’t know why, maybe a mix of saturated CO2 and negative water vapour/cloud cover feedback. I can live with this being empirical data, especially when it says the world isn’t ending next week.

    My fave feedback effect goes something like this: 1. I move to city for nice job trading carbon credits, 2. and find city is hot, must be UHI, so 3. buy an air conditioner which 4. makes city even hotter, and blows out hot air which 5. down wind makes nearby rural Stevenson screen scream with heat and 6. causes AMSU satellite channel pop out furry hot kittens of data, which 7. makes Al Gore happy because 8. he can now get a Nobel and save the world from my air conditioner.

    More I see real non-GISSized data more I see remarkably little warming in good rural locations not downwind of hot urban places.

  112. Under the “what should we do today” category I wish you had a selection for “be better stewards of our planet – even though AGW is a scam”

    I think science will one day prove that our Earth system constantly balances itself. Mankind is but a blip.

  113. Ross McLeman said

    My rections to the three questions are something like the following:
    The official “Sceince” is a politicised dogs breakfast. I’m no scientist, just a humble lab tech who spent many years as a research assistant to people who were, which means that I can recognise science when I see it and this is’t it. Rusbbish like this would have got me fired, and rightly so. Its all just a mess, the published literature doesn’t seem to be worth using as lav paper, the editors of previously respected journals aren’t competant to work as doormen at a brothel in Kinshasa, our historicsl records have been mangled and “adjusted”, lost or so corrupted so as to become untrustworthy and meaningless. we dont know where the CO2 comes from or what it means. We dont know what the feedbacks are, or whether they’re positive or negative. We dont really understand the effects of solar cycles on climate. We don’t know why glacial periods start and stop. We don’t know what caused previous warm periods and why they stopped being warm. When will our current warm period stop being warm, why, and what will it do to people. There are plenty of theories out there, but an allmost total lack of solid, replicable evidence to support most of them. In short, any opinion would just be a best guess. We simply don’t KNOW!

    2.) Is warming good, bad or indifferent. Once again we don’t know, but we seem to have a bit of archelogical and historical evidence to guide us. In general, civilisations tend to flourish in warm periods and decline or collapse when it cools. In the earlier Holocene warm period the culture of the Orkney’s and northern Scotland flourished. Their decline seems to be linked to a cooling climate. The very names of other warm periods link them to sudden flourishings of particular cultures; the Minoan Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period. The MWP seems to have helped bring western Europe out of its colder, dark age chaos, brought increased agricultural wealth, and may be behind much of the Viking explosion out of the far north. (OK, if you lived a days march from the nearest navigable water having an exploding Viking around wasn’t musch fun, but the Norwegians, Swedes and Danes have settled down a lot and we probably don’t have to worry about re-runs:) Warmer weather might not be a party for everyone, there are suggestions that the MWP caused retreat of central african forests and some drought in east africa, but further down in southern africa crop growing sonditions seem to have been better, and there were trees in what is now the centre of the namib desert. Conclusion: probably good for us, but perhaps not everybody.

    3.) What to do? Nothing. Nothing in the sense of not destroying the global economy or building protective dykes around Mexico City. There are plety of things we can do, starting with flushing the superstar activist “scientists” and venal politicians out of the system and restoring climatotology to a minor but respected discipline within academia which rigorously follows the best scientific practice. Like the best of academic disciplines, its worth doing for its own sake, and I have a bunch of questions I’m really curious to find answers to.

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: