the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Incredible Libertarians and the Skeptics Creed

Posted by Jeff Id on July 11, 2010

While reading around the internet I was directed to an article by Bart Verheggen who makes some observations about different sorts of climate skeptics.

Climate skepticism comes in many shades of grey

It might make you giggle a bit but here’s his reasoning:

  • Ideology can be a strong driver of how people view the science: Mitigation of climate change is seen as threatening by many libertarians, because they associate mitigation with government intervention, which they oppose.
  • Psychology can also be very powerful: To some it feels good to be the underdog and get celebrated by anonymous fans on the internet and phoned up routinely by newspapers, TV and other media (that counts for the ‘spokespeople’ only). Many people have a psychological predisposition to side with the underdog (that counts for their fans). The mitigation challenge is very great indeed, which means that it is psychologically favorable to downplay the problem (so as not to get depressed or feeling guilty about everything you do and don’t do). Recently I hear more often that people side with skeptics because they are ‘nicer’. A little odd, but if that plays a major role with presidential elections, than it’s only to be expected that it also plays a role in trusting scientists (or not).
  • Still others suffer from what I call professional deformation: Some well educated people from other disciplines view the science through the lenses of their own specialty, which, if they’re unable to take a bit of a helicopter-view of the situation, could skew their vision.
  • And of course some are just confused. With not a little help from the media, who, in an effort to provide ‘balance’, bias the coverage towards the “skeptical” compared to the mainstream view.
  • Then there are organized efforts at muddying the waters, which bear a resemblance to tactics used by e.g. the tobacco lobby. It is based on manufacturing doubt amongst the public regarding science that produces “inconvenient” results. This mainly applies to certain thinktanks and a few handfuls of individuals, but they exert a disproportionate influence on the media and public perception of the issues. The ‘tactics’ used are in more widespread use, whether consciously or not.

Well I’m a conservative who is often labeled Libertarian, who doesn’t care about being an underdog,  I’m an engineer who works in optics , I do spend a lot of time being confused about climate science and besides showing up at the Chicago ICCC conference am unassociated with any organization for climate.

Bart ends his post with this:

The more contempt they show for science, the more they argue the big picture of what’s known, the more they rage against emission reductions and talk about ‘world communist governments’ and other paranoid ideas like that, the less serious I take their criticism. Because to me, these are not characteristics of sincere skepticism; to the contrary.

So I read the comment as, the more that we recognize the socialistic aspects of the climate science community, the less the climate science community will take us seriously.  My conservative viewpoint of their politician puppetmaster’s goals, their widespread and willing compliance to accept those goals makes my views less credible to ….um…. the socialists.

hehehehe.  Ouch!

What’s going on here is that the environmental activists of the world, ignore the signs on the walls, because they like them.  They don’t pay attention when Hugo Chavez gives a speech blasting capitalism in favor of his brand of socialism at Copenhagen and ends with the room in standing ovation.  They were the ones clapping.

Us conservatives weren’t, because we remember our history better than that.  We understand what ‘wealth redistribution’, and help the poor really means.  We’ve seen where that path leads, over and over across the whole globe and it’s a bad bad idea.  Evil in fact, but we’re the ones with no credibility on climate science because of our political views.

But wait, isn’t science separate from political views?  Doesn’t the data determine the theory and outcome?  Why would a conservative view make one unable to read data?

And if a conservative view of the governmental environmental solutions proposed, makes one less credible, doesn’t it follow that the leftist view which is so pervasive in the environmental climate science movement, makes climate science less credible???

I must be confused again.

So I’ll remind Bart (who is obviously a leftist) of a few quotes from the original copenhagen document which was leaked prior to the convention.  Link here – un-fccc-copenhagen-2009[1]

Here is one of many important quotes from the document:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.

The COP was the totality of nations,  they vote to determine how much money they get from the few nations considered wealthy.  We, the wealthy, pay for everything deemed necessary by these poor impoverished ‘developing nations’ – who have many many more votes. In addition, we transfer all technology they require, all administrative support they require and set up an office building to help transfer that information.  This has every aspect of a socialist program for wealth redistruibution to corrupt defective, Muslim, communist and socialist governments across the world.   Of course they wouldn’t need help if they had functional governments but guys like Bart, consistently turn a blind eye to that little detail – because they are leftists.

The original Copenhagen document quoted above, set up a global organization called ‘government’, including systems of taxation, organization, for the purposes of wealth and technology distribution from a few functional countries to hundreds of non-functional ones.  Systems of verification, reporting on compliance would have little meaning without a mechanism for enforcement.  If China ever signed this document, you can bet your asses that they wouldn’t have followed it, however it was China, who in the end saved all of our butts and refused.  It turns out that communist China is in love with Capitalism, including cell phones, tv’s, movies, cars and air conditioning (which means heat and cold over there) – most don’t have both.

The point is, that despite what some in climate science would say, Copenhagen was about setting up a world government.  A worldwide wealth distribution government with self determined taxation, compliance and the whole breadth of expected wonderful services.  Pretending to ignore that fact, as Bart appears to,  can serve no purpose.  If we science minded people are going to ‘save the earth’ perhaps we should be allowed to discuss the political mechanisms for doing so without being disparaged for a differing (and correct) political view.

So I’ll return Bart’s favor and let him know that not one single negative effect of climate change has been verified.  Not one single problem has occurred.  So the more climate scientists deny the socialist, global government nature of the UN, IPCC and environmental community and the more they argue that immediate ’emission reduction’ is necessary, the more they argue for global taxation and CO2 limits, the less credible I find them.

In my opinion, freeing the economy to build coal and nuclear plants is the best possible way to reduce emissions.  Arbitrary limitations through taxation do nothing but slow technological development, create stress on economies causing increased populations which are always the result of poor countries and you get — more emission.  They claim to be experts in science, how come they are also experts in politics.

I’ll finish with the skeptics creed:

I believe in the radiative capture of CO2

I believe radiative capture creates warming

I believe in climate feedback to warming

I believe the rest is unknown


109 Responses to “Incredible Libertarians and the Skeptics Creed”

  1. Gilbert K. Arnold said

    I totally agree with the “Skeptics Creed”. I have a number of friends in geology who have totally bought into the “doomsdayer’s” argument. I myself remain in the skeptics camp. I have to keep telling some of these people. That what they are buying into (CACC) is just the output of a model and not actual data. Somehow they refuse to listen… the Greenland ice sheet, etc. Anyway, I believe if we keep hammering on the last point eventually people will listen.

    A final suggestion. Find someone with the requisite skills and create a poster both down loadable and possibly a print version. I’d buy one. Thanks

  2. Jeff Id said

    #1 thanks, maybe Josh will do something. I was really hoping he would draw a thermometer tree though too.

  3. TerryS said

    Personally I’d change

    I believe in climate feedback to warming

    to

    I believe in both positive and negative climate feedbacks to warming

  4. Jeff Id said

    Terry,

    I see your point but like the ambiguity. If people can’t see it, they aren’t educated enough on the subject to have an opinion and need to do some reading.

  5. Jeff Id said

    Maybe the last line should be – I believe the future is unknown

  6. Brian H said

    I disbelieve in all, though the last is almost meaningless. GHGs intercept some of the incoming IR and prevent it from reaching the ground. This shadowing must produce net cooling, regardless of bouncing dispsy-do minimal fractions of what reaches the ground.

  7. Brian H said

    Imagine if there was a gas in the atmosphere which intercepted and rejected part of one visible color. The result would be that the objects on the ground would be duller in that apparent color than otherwise. And the sky would be colored by the bouncing light.

    But there would not be enhancement of the color on the ground by “backradiation” of the color from the atmosphere.

    The sky is blue. Isn’t that interesting? 😀

  8. Brian H said

    Correction: “intercepted and redirected (in random directions) some of the bands of one particular color”.

  9. Jeff Id said

    Brian, you need to read this:

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/it-is-what-it-is-and-the-god-of-physics-will-have-it-no-other-way/

  10. Jeff Id said

    And this

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/

  11. Cement a friend said

    1. Gilbert are these friends true geologists who have field experience and are members of an Institution that has ethics? I have met hundreds of geologists from many countries. No true geologists I have met believes in AGW. They all indicate that there have been past climate changes much more significant that what is occurring at present (very little). I have done a little geology enough to recognise past sea levels, unconformities, inland limestone deposits with fossils etc but my rejection of AGW comes from study, experience and measurement in heat exchange technology. I adhere to the ethical standards of the Institutions of which I am a Fellow. I do not accept that CO2 plays a significant role in climate. I note that Miskolczi has a paper published in the August edition of Energy & Environment.

  12. M. Simon said

    I think this is anecdotal confirmation that engineers are “over represented” in the ranks of libertarians.

  13. kim said

    Bart is one of those lowing for the stampede of the mad crowd over a policy cliff.
    ===================

  14. mt said

    The more contempt they show for reason, the more they overstate the certainty of unknowns, the more they rage against questioning their work and talk about ‘oil-funded skeptics’ and other paranoid ideas like that, the less serious I take their results. Because to me, these are not characteristics of sincere scientists; to the contrary.

  15. kdk33 said

    I believe humanity is in no way endangerd by current climate – catastrophe is only a forecast

    I believe the cost of decarbonize modern society would be staggering

    I believe that any decarbonization must be global to matter

    I believe the MARKET incentive to develope cost competitive alternative energy is enormous

    ==============================================================================================

  16. B.Kindseth said

    I would like to see something in the skeptic’s creed about advancing the science through sharing of data, methods, code(if applicable)and whatever is necessary so that other scientists replicate, build on or disprove the theories advanced. To me, the critical issue of climategate was freedom of information. The person who released the files named it FOI2009.zip. Granted, there was a lot of unprofessional and unethical behavior displayed in the emails. The Muir Russell panel repeatedly mentioned the failure of the UAE conspirators to withhold data and we should take this opportunity to build on their recommendations.

  17. kdk33 said

    Several posts like this (Verheggen’s) seem to be making the rounds. And on the heels of a PNAS paper purported (I’ve not read it) to have measured the superior authoritativeness of warmists.

    Appeals to authority (we’re smart)
    Appeals to ignorance (you can’t prove us wrong)
    Argumentum ad homenim (and your mother wears combat boots)

    Seems establishment climate science has formally adopted the logical fallacy as their framework for inquiry.

  18. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Jeff,

    I’ve been back and forth with Bart a number of times. While I think he is honest and well intentioned, I also think he is just not capable of understanding that the political uniformity among most climate scientists (liberal-left-progressive-green) presents the real possibility of a skewed analysis of the technical issues.

    He admits freely that there is widespread serious concern in the climate science community about future human influence on climate (and on the environment in general), but he completely rejects the notion that there is a self-selection process involved in becoming a climate scientist: that is, nearly all of those entering the field enter it already holding a strong desire to protect the Earth form negative human influence. Further, he completely rejects the possibility that this self-selection process means climate scientists necessarily hold views on global warming which are not representative of the views held by the general public. He insists that climate scientists are very concerned about global warming based ONLY on what they know about climatology.

    It is to me so obvious that climate scientists are remarkably liberal-left-progressive-green, and in no way representative of the general public, that I am simply astounded Bart does not see this. Bart’s analysis strikes me as naive and lacking self-awareness. I find that this same kind of naive analysis is common among those who classify themselves as liberals….. “I hold my views simply because they are factually correct, not because they are the result of my political desires.”

    These people are mostly well intentioned, but are simply mistaken, just like Karl Marx, the eugenicists, and the Holy Inquisition.

  19. Bart said

    Jeff,

    I think you’re confusing politics and science at places. E.g. when you talk about ” socialistic aspects of the climate science community”. What is socialist about the physics of radiative transfer, or about other aspects of climate science?

  20. kim said

    Steve, Bart has had it explained to him on numerous occasions that the challenge to the authority of the consensus IPCC alarmist view is not a claim that there is a conspiracy behind it, but rather that that view is an ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd’. Nonetheless, he seems unable to adopt this view of the conflict, preferring to see skeptics as conspiracy fiends, which, given the funding and tightness of control of the alarmist message, seems mostly like projection, to me.
    =============================

  21. kim said

    Well, hello Bart. Tom can certainly testify that I’ve tried to explain the skeptic dynamic to you repeatedly, to deaf ears. Your authorities are mistaken, fella. You gotta show me the sensitivity.
    ================

  22. Matt Y. said

    Bart seems to be stating the obvious. Of course there will be more resistance to socialist policies from conservatives and libertarians. I have liberal friends who believe in AGW almost as a matter of faith. They don’t care if the science behind it is shaky and have said as much. The reason is that all of the proposed solutions fit their worldview and are “nice” things we should be doing anyways. They already “know” that humans are destroying the planet, capitalism and unconstrained growth are bad, people should live simpler lives more in tune with nature, etc.

    And isn’t it funny how all of the proposed solutions to this undetectable catastrophe further the leftist agenda? Could it be because the UN, IPCC, and the environmentalist groups that support them are all leftists? Why is cap-and-trade so important while expanding nuclear gets lip service? Wonder if these questions ever occur to Bart. Somehow I imagine if the solutions involved more free enterprise and less international government / wealth redistribution Bart might be a little more curious.

    As for me, I see the US way of life in particular as unique in history and worth protecting. From the start, our government was designed to maximize the rights and freedoms of the individual while keeping the government in check. History tells us this state is the exception and not the rule. Expanding government always seems to be a one-way ratchet. Our fathers and grandfathers fought wars and spilled blood to earn these freedoms for us and we hold them dear. So if you expect us to surrender them based on a scientific argument, then yes, you better damn well have all your ducks in a row. Scary graphs created from shoddy mathematics and scary computer models that are completely unproven won’t cut it.

    If Bart says that science demands we surrender our hard-won freedoms to the state, I say: Prove it!

  23. Jeff Id said

    #18, You may be right but I find it difficult to understand. I know very good and well when I propose ‘solutions’ to whatever political problem that it comes from that stupid conservative view I hold. How is is so hard for a progressive greenie to realize that their socialist tendencies exist? I mean Bart even went so far as to claim that the intent of global government didn’t exist and he’s not the first climate guy I’ve heard that from.

    You have to be flat blind to say that kind of thing when the original Copenhagen document forms a ‘government’ (their word), covers the globe and has all the same features you would expect from a global government. The purpose of the proposed government is to redistribute wealth from ‘rich’ countries to ‘poor’ countries so just what the ‘ism’ is that supposed to be called – not capital___ for sure.

  24. Gilbert K. Arnold said

    #11:

    I should clarify. I have a Bachelor of Science in Geology and nearly a Master’s in Geological Engineering, And I grew up in glacial terrane (Northern Mich) so I can recognize ancient shorelines and the other things you mentioned. Most of my friends have equivalent degrees to mine and are members of AEG (Assoc. Eng. Geologists) AGWSE, and other prof org. The interesting thing is some of my mining engineering compatriots take the same attitude that M&M do regarding the statistical rigor of the reconstructions. Might have something to do with their training and data analysis skills. I firmly believe that the rocks do not lie. The evidence is too clear that the earth has been much hotter than it is now.

  25. Jeff Id said

    #19, I think the article answers your questions.

    “What is socialist about the physics of radiative transfer” – nothing.

    “or about other aspects of climate science?” – Just the preferred and demanded solutions and the continued support of organizations with socialist tendencies, IPCC,UN, Copenhagen etc.

  26. GHowe said

    Another great Sunday morning read. Thanks Jeff.

  27. Sam said

    Wanting conservation is not inherently socialist, but there are many different ways to help “save the planet”. When the solutions – always – involve government, then you must ask yourself: is there a socialist aspect to this? I personally believe the best way to protect nature is to raise the wealth of the world through international trade and extend the ownership of private property, for a myriad of reasons. When environmentalist groups place all their weight on the coercive part of society – government – and more or less ignore everyone else (or only use them to push government as well) you can see socialist trends. Some have even claimed the environmental movement is fascistic, being based on a youth cult of action and occasionally displaying a penchant for violence (or at least the rhetoric). Labeling the skeptics as beyond-the-pale ideologues seems to ignore the bright green elephant in the room.

  28. GregO said

    Jeff,

    Sign me up for the Creed!

    Furthermore, I second the notion that “not one single negative effect of climate change has been verified. Not one single problem has occurred.”

    Keeping that in mind, where is the justification for the view that those of us opposing radical governmental and extra-governmental intervention in the interest of pointless and infinitely costly programs (that would aimed at a non-existent problem) are automatically either nutty conspiracy types, mental incompetents, or motivated by some-sort of pitying-the-underdog psychological pathology? Show me the problems and I will sign up for being part of the solution. It might, maybe, could be a problem but not yet and maybe never? Sorry, I have actual real problems. Right now. I’m busy. Not weird, stupid or crazy. Busy.

    So the professional intelligentsia in the CAGW camp want to make up new names and categories for people like me? Great. Have a nice day. Which publicly funded institution did you say you worked for? I started a company; pay taxes; and my employees pay taxes. I vote, and support my local candidates.

    And what newspapers and radio stations do the warmistas read and listen to? I have yet to see any kind of balanced reporting on AGW from MSM – just about all reporting I have seen is a never-ending non-critical acceptance of CAGW. I canceled my subscriptions to Newsweek and Sci Amer after their slanted, one-sided, and incomplete reporting on Climategate.

    The CAGW hose of cards is collapsing – their assertions and conjectures intellectually bankrupt – they are left cooking up new names and insults. Pathetic.

  29. HotRod said

    Next week I will write the companion piece, ‘Climate Scientists come in many shades of Grey, or do I mean Green’.

  30. Jeff Id said

    #27, I agree, in fact I am president and owner of a green company and all we want is for government to let us keep our money and do our work. These guys won’t let us do what we do best, they want to make it even more difficult to sell product that is already slightly more expensive.

  31. TimG said

    #19 Bart,

    China responded to scientific concerns about overpopulation with a one child policy. Enforcing this policy required some rather brutal actions including forced abortions.

    How would you describe someone who categorically rejects this policy as a solution to overpopulation because it goes against their value system? An anti-science ideologue in bed with big tobacco?

    Science does not trump values. If someone says they reject binding international treaties as a solution to the stated problem of climate change because they do not believe in giving power to unaccountable and unelected supra-national bodies then that is a perfectly legitimate view. Just like opposing forced abortions is the perfectly legitimate view.

    If there is any group worthy of contempt and ridicule it is the smug and self-righteous CAGW activists who are incapable of distinguishing between what the science actually says and their political ideology.

  32. bob said

    Bart said, “The more contempt they show for science, the more they argue the big picture of what’s known,…”

    Bart just doesn’t get it. Skeptics don’t show contempt for science, but for scientists who don’t understand what they are doing, and ignore the facts in favor of their own POLITICAL agendas.

    If you read Bart’s article it is east to understand that the man is out of his depth.

  33. bob said

    correction to #32:

    east = easy

  34. Matt Y. said

    Still others suffer from what I call professional deformation: Some well educated people from other disciplines view the science through the lenses of their own specialty, which, if they’re unable to take a bit of a helicopter-view of the situation, could skew their vision.

    This one is particularly hilarious. Apparently it is wrong for those of us who use math and statistics in our daily lives to expect climate scientists to use them in same (i.e. correct) way.

    They are usually well educated and skilled people, who investigate specific issues of climate science (hockeysticks, anyone?) in more detail, and find them wanting. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it’s getting problematic if they conflate these details with what is known about the bigger picture, or if they started out with a deep suspicion that the science as a whole is faulty

    So the fact that the hockeystick graph is BS is a “detail”? The only bit of evidence showing doom and gloom not spit out by a warmist computer model isn’t important? If it is so insignificant, how come the alarmists don’t just concede the obvious (the graph is crap) and move on. Could it be they think having at least some shred of actual physical evidence of “unprecedented” climate change might be important? If CO2 isn’t causing excessive global warming, the rest of the big picture doesn’t matter. Not that the science there seems any better.

  35. Sam said

    MattY, that last quote is even more revealing:

    Nothing wrong with that of course, but it’s getting problematic if they conflate these details with what is known about the bigger picture, or if they started out with a deep suspicion that the science as a whole is faulty

    He almost seems to assume that since someone starts with the mindset that something is faulty, that whatever they conclude must be faulty. This is obviously wrong, if the science is flawed then it is flawed whether or not the person investigating it expected it to be or not. When I looked at the AR4 and the TEEB reports, I fully expected to find errors (with the quality of these reports, it really is just a matter of time). I did find errors, and what I found isn’t less of a mistake because I expected to see it than if a ‘un-biased scientist’ had found it instead of me. Statements are either true or false, and a false statement is false regardless of who brings this to light.

  36. DeWitt Payne said

    Somewhat OT, but the Obama recess appointment of Dr. Berwick to head Medicare and Medicaid is worthy of comment. Berwick thinks the UK National Health Service is the greatest thing since sliced bread and is a proponent of rationed health care in the US.

  37. harrywr2 said

    I’ll add.

    I believe all human activity carries with it potential risks to society as a whole.
    I believe the societal cost of mitigating many of these risks outweighs the potential risk.

  38. greg2213 said

    #37 Right on, though I’d change the 2nd line to “…greatly outweighs the…”

    #1 & 2 – regarding making a poster of the creed. Go to CarePress.com. You can set up your own basic poster store, free, and make your own “Skeptic’s Creed” poster (and sell it.) It helps to have decent graphics skills, which I don’t.

  39. Kenneth Fritsch said

    “Ideology can be a strong driver of how people view the science: Mitigation of climate change is seen as threatening by many libertarians, because they associate mitigation with government intervention, which they oppose.”

    I fully agree with this statement as it would be referenced to me and probably a number of other libertarians (and conservatives) – but they can speak for themselves.

    What I think the writer of this article and list forgets or ignores is that most of the consensus on immediate AGW mitigation and including most of the consensus scientists/advocates is of the mind frame that looks at mitigation (by the government) as something that the government should be involved in anyway. There are those who do not fit these patterns but in general I think that the dividing line has much to do with what an individual thinks about government mitigation. Those who see that government intervention frequently has unintended consequences that are much worse than the problem being attended are, of course, going to much more skeptical of the science/advocacy that would normally lead to government intervention. Those who favor considerably more government involvement in this area (and others) see government generally as benign and something required to properly contain this problem and others.
    Either group can attempt and succeed in keeping the science separate from their political leanings, but I think this has not been the case generally and particularly with the consensus of scientists. I would almost guarantee that the vast majority of the scientists in the consensus come down on the left when considering government intervention.

    Given the lack of available probabilities of occurrence on what the climate scientists predict, and here the critical predictions are not so much climate change but the forecasting of detrimental changes and few if any beneficial ones, I judge that it is rather easy for the scientist to make a subjective probability guesses that come down in favor of government mitigation because in their minds they are risking nothing.

    I do think that it would be easier for a libertarian/conservative against government intervention to admit (if the evidence were there) to a probability of climate change and its consequences, beneficial or detrimental, because they would require and rely on other solutions than those involving government intervention, like adaptation with which the market place is better suited to deal.

    I do think that throwing terms such as communist and socialist at those favoring government mitigation for AGW muddies the waters because to take that position for AGW one only has to be moderate to left leaning Democrat or Republican and certainly not a professed socialist or communist. The PR battle would be much less of a problem if that were the case – but it is not.

    On, the other hand, I see an even greater naivety on the other side when they see the skeptics as the products of brainwashed fossil fuel interests or totally uninformed yokels who are anti science.

  40. jeff id said

    Kenneth,

    It’s a global discussion and the Copenhagen solution above had every aspect of what in the US would be considered extreme leftism. Certainly too many democrats consider themselves moderate and would vote for ignorant things like cap and trade but it is not a ‘moderate’ policy – by any means.

  41. Brian H said

    Chavez got the largest ovation at Copenhagen. Guess what he was demanding?

    Jeff: Sorry. IMO, you can’t demonstrate lowered outgoing heat radiation from Earth as a result (direct or indirect) of GHGs. In fact, they INTERCEPT/block a part of the incoming radiation. That’s called a “shadow”, and causes net cooling. Irrespective of trivial and exponentially convergent recycling of a few joules of heat energy near the surface. (They add no heat, and any small temperature rise coming from slight delay of their re-emission to space is too small to measure: “Never forget that climatology is not even a field, much less a science:
    “Rather, the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism … may be proved or disproved already [= previously] in concrete engineering thermodynamics [95{97]. Exactly this was done well many years ago by an expert in this field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical text-book on this subject [95]. [In] 1972 he showed that the radiative component of heat transfer of CO2, though relevant at the temperatures in combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures. The influence of carbonic acid on the Earth’s climates is definitively unmeasurable [98].”

    “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23, n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf.”

    The 1.2°K increase to date cited is not only unproven and unprovable, but seems to derive from a half-arsed back of the envelope calculation by one climate “scientist”, endlessly recycled (back-radiated?).

    Itz all boguz.

  42. Peter B said

    “They are usually well educated and skilled people, who investigate specific issues of climate science (hockeysticks, anyone?) in more detail, and find them wanting. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it’s getting problematic if they conflate these details with what is known about the bigger picture, or if they started out with a deep suspicion that the science as a whole is faulty”

    If the hockey stick is just a “detail” and it does not matter for the “bigger picture”, then why (1) was it given so much proeminence by the IPCC; (2) did it lead to Mann’s meteoric rise in his academic career, making him a lead author just after completing his PhD; (3) do so many “climate scientists” bend over backwards in refusing to concede the obvious, that is is statistical junk?

    The answer, of course, is that the hockey stick was and is very useful as a marketing tool, never mind its importance, or lack thereof, for the scientific discussion. And all those “climate scientists” are at least as interested, if not more, in selling specific policies as in actual scientific understanding.

  43. […] of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics Found on The Air Vent Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of […]

  44. jeff id said

    #41, I don’t believe the 1.2K is accurate because of other factors.

    The reason that greenhouse gas warming IS NOT in ANY doubt is the frequency shift caused by the emission temperature of the sources. Planck is well known physics, light from the sun comes in on a planck curve which is shifted to high frequency short wavelength light, non-reflected light emitted by the surface of the earth is shifted heavily to the low frequency. Since all light which is absorbed is re-emitted at longer wavelengths, the earth is just as bright in deep wavelengths as the absorbed sunlight on incoming. Therefore some additional absorption of outgoing energy vs incoming is guaranteed.

    Unless you want to argue with Planck.

    I’ve read the link you provided many times in the past and it does a lousy job addressing the primary heat capture mechanism of global warming. If I’m wrong and you know more than me (I’ve worked in optics since 1989) I’d appreciate being pointed to the particular section which proves I’m wrong. I’ve only worked part way through his multiple integrations myself because it’s really uninteresting to find a problem in this work. If you can point me to the section which proves my error I would appreciate it. Please explain how the proof works because there are ambiguities in his results in the pertinent sections that I would be interested in hearing how they result in proof. It wouldn’t be the first time here that someone showed I was wrong but this one would be a particular surprise.

    My point in the links I sent to you, which I’m not sure you read, is that there is no reason to battle the scientifically obvious fact that CO2 captures heat. The battle is not there, the battle is in the feedbacks, the danger, the certainty, and the preferred political mechanism for addressing the problem. The initial battle of whether CO2 captures heat is scientifically obvious. How much heat and the result of how much are not…

  45. Craig Loehle said

    What I find ironic is the asymmetry of acceptable coercion. The greens find it acceptable for China to have a 1 child policy, but would freak out if it applied to them. They favor forcing bad people (industry, consumers) to do things to save the planet, but if the government has a policy they don’t like, they think it is ok to protest, and sue, and sabotage, and disobey.

  46. steven Mosher said

    jeff>

    I believe in the radiative capture of CO2

    I believe radiative capture creates warming

    I believe in climate feedback to warming

    I believe the rest is unknown

    EXACTLY.

  47. Brian H said

    Erratum: “increase from CO2 doubling”.

  48. Brian H said

    Jeff;
    GHGs cut down on incoming energy compared to a totally IR-transparent gas envelope. Thus there is more heat reaching the surface.

    You can’t warm more with less incoming. Regardless of finger-print recapture, etc. The surface radiates as a blackbody, not significantly focussed in the finger-print bands, and most of that goes straight out.

    Since total outgoing=incoming, you are in effect arguing for a one-time warming which is maintained despite the increased b-b radiation of the overheated surface, mostly in frequencies not finger-print “blocked”. I think this is one of G&T’s main points: you can’t get free heat like that, and it does violate the 2nd Law. The over-warmed Earth / surface MUST radiate more than the cooler GHGs above it can possibly send back. There ain’t no free ergs.

  49. Brian H said

    Addendum: the back-radiating GHGs thereby cool themselves, of course; they are dumping their heat. The energy involved strikes the ground, and causes it to re-radiate across a broad bb spectrum; only a miniscule fraction returns to the GHGs, which thereby recover a miniscule amount of their warmth. That is finger-print re-radiated in all directions (re-cooling the gas), so only a small portion of that re-re-strikes the ground, and then a miniscule amount goes back as f-p frequencies, etc. It is a rapidly self-quenching insignificant cycle.

    There ain’t no free ergs. The net shading of the ground by GHGs reduces the energy budget available for warming; there’s no back-radiating around it.

  50. Bart said

    Jeff,

    “What is socialist about other aspects of climate science?” – Just the preferred and demanded solutions and the continued support of organizations with socialist tendencies, IPCC,UN, Copenhagen etc.

    That’s not climate science, which is exactly my point: You find the solutions proposed by politicians “socialist”, and then you claim the science is socialist as well? I don’t see how the latter logically follows from the former. There is nothing socialist about the *science*.

  51. Brian H said

    P.S. It is crucial that the ground cools itself with each erg radiated as bb or f-p IR, so there is no net gain from having previously absorbed it. It is this 1:1 radiation:cooling relationship which back-radiation somehow claims to circumvent, which leads to the G&T accusation that it is a perpetuum mobile conceit.

  52. Brian H said

    Bart;
    only in how it is performed and reported and the selection of recommended solutions. The IPCC is explicitly a political advisory body, and its advice is to take over the Earth’s energy production and consumption and manage it for our own good. Which is pure quill socialism.

    As the Climategate emails made very clear, all the results and publishing filters and controls are slanted and managed to achieve those goals. That is why the science is socialist, and hence not “science” at all, but faux-science advocacy.

  53. Brian H said

    If you insist that climate science exists apart from the IPCC gravy train working group, then it is a field which borrows and bastardizes chunks from about a dozen real sciences, and uses cartoonish oversimplifications to construct “scenario” computer models which are persistently and insistently referred to as though they were evidence of something other than the intentions and biases of their creators. They are not. They are, as G&T state, “video games”, and have the same scientific value: none.

  54. Brian H said

    In any case, the whole issue is a straw man. CO2 helps plants grow http://cosy.com/Science/CO2-pineGrowth100120half.jpg. Warm times are boom times; year-round open water in the Arctic would be a great idea, as would renewed agriculture in Greenland and vinyards in Scotland.

    And it will occur, or not, despite any of the climatologically trivial and but economically foolish shots we fire into our own feet by submitting to the guidance of the socialist watermelon greenies.

  55. Brian H said

    Correction: “trivial but economically”.

  56. Kenneth Fritsch said

    It’s a global discussion and the Copenhagen solution above had every aspect of what in the US would be considered extreme leftism. Certainly too many democrats consider themselves moderate and would vote for ignorant things like cap and trade but it is not a ‘moderate’ policy – by any means.

    Jeff ID, that moderates can push bad ideas and ideas that have a basis in socialists and even communistic philosophies is my point exactly. A bad idea is a bad idea regardless of who is pushing it or why they are pushing it. The problem with throwing around the terms communist or socialist is that the discussions then turns to showing that those pushing those ideas are communists or socialists and you will be accused of pushing conspiracy theories. Those arguments go nowhere and very quickly get off the point. As a matter of fact if the skeptics were lobbying for the fossil fuel interests that in itself would not make their ideas and views right or wrong.

  57. Jeff Id said

    #56 do you recommend that I work harder to convince people?

  58. Jeff Id said

    #50 where did I state that the science is socialist?

  59. Douglas Haynes said

    Jeff,

    I greatly appreciated your post balancing out Bart’s political world-view, and especially agree on your observations of the unfortunate linkage of much of the science in the anthropogenic global warming milieu with support of a socialist world-view, a scenario very much in evidence here in Australia. I would expand your skeptic’s view, though, to add (1) science only advances through systematic, free, and open confrontation of ideas, and never by consensus; 2) the basic physics of radiative heat trapping by CO2 is sound science, but climate science is currently incapable of defining the sensitivity of climate systems to atmospheric CO2 increase; and (3) in view of this high uncertainty, we oppose government regulation negatively impacting the economics of energy production, but we support regulation aimed at supporting the free market to strengthen our economies so that we can readily mitigate the effectes of climate change as they occur in the future.

  60. stan said

    Jeff,

    Haven’t read all the comments, but I hope someone points out that Bart has been round and round on this (to the point of going round the bend). Over at Tom Fuller’s a while back, I made the point that climate scientists of the alarmist bent were guilty of hubris (especially given the lack of quality control of their work). His response was to say that I, as a non-scientist, was actually the one guilty of hubris because the scientists are experts. (I don’t think I could have asked for a response that would be any funnier.)

    One doesn’t need to be an expert to know that scientists who don’t check their instruments are incompetent. Or that real science requires transparency and replication. Or that the first principle of forecasting with computer models is that they must be verified and validated. Or that Mann, Steig, Rahmstorf, and Briffa have shown us just how pathetic climate ‘studies’ can be. Or that the CRU and the IPCC are error-riddled laughingstocks.

    We aren’t the ones trying to change the world (on the basis of shoddy work that the authors refuse to allow to be examined). Bart doesn’t get it, but mostly because he doesn’t want to.

  61. stan said

    #50 Bart,

    You wrote “There is nothing socialist about the *science*.” We can certainly debate that, but what is not subject to debate is that all too often there is nothing scientific about the “science”. When (or if) climate scientists learn to use the scientific method, we might have something to discuss.

  62. timetochooseagain said

    Being a right winger should not disqualify you from having an opinion which differs from the “mainstream” although the entire point of Bart’s post is essentially that.

    Lately I’ve been becoming a cooky Randian, and I am starting to think that left wingers are in capable by their nature of doing science. More accurately, I think that subjectivists jackasses are incapable of doing science. I mean, really it’s like, by definition, subjectivists reject rationalism and even reality, how can they do science?

  63. BarryW said

    What I find amusing in a macabre sort of way is that if you replace conservative/libertarian with liberal/progressive you see the pathology that he is attempting to place on the right on the left.

    Because you have the some conservatives that are creationists the rest are smeared as being anti-science (think of how many pyramid/crystal power, taro card leftists you’ve known).

    Consider the number of leftist science fads such as eugenics (Margret Sanger of birth control fame was a proponent, and a racist to boot). The Alar scare, the vaccine scare,. Junk statistics used to support junk legislation.

    Consider how the left denigrates the Tea Party Movement and says that they are afraid that it will lead to violence. Funny thing is that all of the violence I’ve seen is on the left, from the anti war movement to the protests against the G8/10/20.

  64. Matt Y. said

    Bart claims that the “science” itself is not socialist. The problem with that statement is that the scientists have decided to be policy advocates as well as scientists. Or at least allowed themselves to be used that way. Remember this little gem?

    So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

    Or any of dozens of climategate quotes by the hockey team. There is no such thing as unbiased, objective climate science IMO. The scientific method has been perverted by the UN, the hard core environmentalists, and leftists who see a political opportunity. We now have special interests manipulating science to justify their policy preferences. It won’t lead anywhere good.

  65. Jeff Id said

    Let’s not forget this beauty from Trenbreth

    I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

    He wasn’t as thorough at deleting IPCC emails as Jones was.

    Putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions is an essential first step to responsible management of our planet. The United States needs to show leadership on this critical environmental issue.

    You can see examples of this kind of statement throughout climate science. It is absolutely unscientific and in my opinion disastrously naive but this is exactly the kind of thing leftist climate scientists regularly state. They flatly don’t consider what happens to the poor of the world. They underestimate and ignore the damage their policy will have while overestimating the damage by their own future warming predictions.

  66. Brian H said

    Oh, they know perfectly well what the consequences will be. But they buy into the de-population agenda, and visualize themselves as aristos paternally guiding bucolic collections of serfs in the coming de-industrialized Eden. With, of course, fully equipped and staffed laboratories on their estates, subsidized by the State.

    It’s a vision to die for! ;P

  67. JS said

    Your supposed credo for skeptics does them no favours, being a mixture of the banal and the fatuous. I liked the rest of your piece, though, and I think you have highlighted important things there which I thank you for. But please, work on that credo thing a bit more!

    ‘I believe in the radiative capture of CO2.’ All atoms and molecules enjoy ‘radiative capture’ – so this is banal. Perhaps you mean infra-red capture? Triatomic and higher molecules have energy transitions capable of absorbing infra-red.

    ‘I believe radiative capture creates warming.’ Whenever and wherever the captured energy is converted to kinetic energy. Mere re-emitting the energy will not do the trick.

    ‘I believe in climate feedback to warming.’ The climate system is an immensely complicated network of interacting influences. Is this what you mean by feedback? Easy enough to ‘believe in’ – it happens all over the place.

    ‘I believe the rest is unknown.’ We have moved from the banal to the fatuous. We have learned a lot about the atmosphere and climate over the past 150 years or so, in particular. The knowledge seems woefully inadequate compared to the complexity, but there is knowledge. Much of relevant to the AGW debate, such as the plainly and demonstrably wrong evocation of glass greenhouses, and energy flows which contradict the laws of thermodynamics.

  68. Bart said

    Jeff,

    In #25 you wrote:
    ———-
    “What is socialist about the physics of radiative transfer” – nothing.

    “or about other aspects of climate science?” – Just the preferred and demanded solutions and the continued support of organizations with socialist tendencies, IPCC,UN, Copenhagen etc.
    ———-

    These are not aspects of climate science.

    Your value system guides your thinking of how good/bad you view policy options, but it has not bearing on the science, and therefore should not influence your thinking of how good/bad the science is. If it does, your criticism of the science is ideologically driven and therefore not taken seriously by those who respect science.
    ===========================================================
    Your value system guides your own thinking as well. Again we agree it has no bearing on the science. However, climatology exists in the political world also, as evidenced by your own proclamations for the need of a carbon tax. I can provide literally hundreds of examples of the same kind of policy advocacy from climate science. Yet you use the word ideologically to describe my views….. perhaps a really BIG mirror is in order. –Jeff

  69. Peter B said

    #67 Bart,

    Then you agree that climate scientists who are also activists in favor of specific policies (James Hansen, Michael Mann, etc) should not be taken seriously the moment they step into lobbying for specific policies?

  70. Bart said

    Peter,

    It depends on the direction of the reasoning:

    Is your opinion on the science (partly) based on on your opinion of the proposed policy measures?

    or

    Is your opinion on the proposed policy measures (partly) based on your opinion of the science?

    Read Jeff’s quoted reply in my comment just above again and see what that tells you about the direction of his reasoning.

    Plus, what sense would it make to support a carbon tax or zero emissions if it weren’t for the science? Just for the sake of liking higher taxes? I don’t think so. Argueing in that direction (that the vast majority of scientists really want higher taxes and therefore exaggerate the dangers of AGW) leads to utterly implausible conspiracy thinking.

  71. tertius said

    “Good” and “bad” are indeed value statements(and at root profoundely subjective in nature). It follows that any such statements about “the science” are just as indicative of a belief/value system as when used in regard to policy. This will not stop any of us from making value judgments – that’s what being human entails; but for Bart to then appeal, with an apparent straight face, to the authority of some nebulous body made up of the subjectively identified and assessed “respecters of science”. is a particularly tragi-comic, even farcical, conclusion to his meditation on good and (lack of)evil in “climate science”.

  72. Peter B said

    #69 Bart,

    Would you mind answering my question? What do *my* views have to do with *your* views with regard to Hansen, Mann, etc?

  73. Jeff Id said

    #69 — “Argueing in that direction (that the vast majority of scientists really want higher taxes and therefore exaggerate the dangers of AGW) leads to utterly implausible conspiracy thinking.”

    Why???

    The vast majority of climate scientists do want higher taxes, they do benefit directly from those taxes, so where is the implausible conspiracy theory?

  74. Andrew said

    Huh, funny, that last post included what I thought would be the most controversial statement I’ve ever made, here or anywhere else, I kinda expected more disagreement, but maybe nobody noticed it. I said “leftists shouldn’t do science” even that they can’t.

    Well, anyway, turn this around the other way, everyone-are not left wingers likely to embrace these notions just as illegitimately? All signs point to HELL YES.

  75. Bart said

    Jeff,

    Can you describe a coherent picture of how you would get the vast majority of climate scientists on board to support a scientific theory that they know to be false? If you wouldn’t call that ‘coherent picture’ (kindly assuming you can come up with it) a conspiracy theory, then how would you call it?

    How would a carbon tax and dividend benefit climate scientists (apart from the shared benefit of reduced future risk from climate change)?

  76. TimG said

    #74 – Bart

    You are engaging in a bait and switch. The assertion was ‘scientists exagerrate the dangers of AGW’ yet you changed it ‘scientists knowingly promote a false theory’.

    The former is plausible and quite likely since scientists are like free lance journalists. They have keep producing stuff that catches the attention of the editors who, in turn, care about what catches the attention of the voters. This means the principle that sex (sic) sells is as true in science as it is in journalism.

  77. Jeff Id said

    I don’t recall ever saying that scientists support a theory they know to be false. In fact, I don’t believe that even one of the scientist supporters of global CO2 doom theory think they are simply doing something for political reasons. I do think that their solutions support a consistent leftist political viewpoint of industry and they are nearly unanimously trying to force that political system down our throats.

    “How would a carbon tax and dividend benefit climate scientists?”

    Really???

    Well, let’s see. Research funding first as every tax has that embedded, global policy control, prominence amongst peers in lesser sciences.

    Your concern about climate change is understood but in my opinion misplaced. My concerns about industry and cost of goods and services outweigh any 5C temp change over 100 years — which I don’t believe in. Climatologist policies will lead to immediate starvation of impoverished people but nobody on your side seems to be able to work that out. There is no technology other than Nuclear that can even partially achieve your goals, yet nobody seems to be able to work that out either. We’re sold biofuels, solar, wind, wave and water, none of which have a chance in hell of solving the issues with todays technology. Yet nobody on your side can seem to work that out either.

    It’s just numbers Bart, I would much prefer to have abundant pollution free energy, but it simply doesn’t exist. Where you go wrong is assuming we can simply live without energy, or simply force conservation to pave the way to the top. If you’re right and we are facing global DOOM (which I flatly am unconvinced of), the best way to solve the problem is to implement nuclear energy on a massive scale and work toward new technologies for energy storage and production — in that order.

    Of course the only viable solution to the problem posed by envirowhackos is the one which is ignored.

    So it leaves us reasonable minded people with the question, is the ACTUAL goal to save the world from CO2, or is it to implement the socialist global government these scientists are so heavily biased toward?

    The concept that industry can save big money through efficiency is naive, climatology’s concept that ‘all of the above’ energy will save us is naive, your plan for the Earth and view of a clean future is beautiful, but we need power and we need a hell of a lot of it to stay healthy as a society. If your plan for taxing carbon is enacted in the US, all it will do is increase the cost of goods across the world. Why is that a good thing? You want the poor to do without or the middle class to do with less?? Do you think that will speed technological development.

    The very concept of a tax on carbon means that you’ve missed the fact that gas prices have skyrocketed globally in the last 5 years to a level far above any proposed tax. Capitalism took care of it for you and then some, yet still we need tax?????

    Why Bart, why?
    ——–
    So AGAIN it leaves us reasonable minded people with the question, is the ACTUAL goal to save the world from CO2, or something else?

  78. Jeff Id said

    something went wrong in approving this comment, I’m not sure why it was considered spam but when I freed it it vanished and is reproduced from email.

    JS

    Your supposed credo for skeptics does them no favours, being a mixture of the banal and the fatuous. I liked the rest of your piece, though, and I think you have highlighted important things there which I thank you for. But please, work on that credo thing a bit more!

    ‘I believe in the radiative capture of CO2.’ All atoms and molecules enjoy ‘radiative capture’ – so this is banal. Perhaps you mean infra-red capture? Triatomic and higher molecules have energy transitions capable of absorbing infra-red.

    ‘I believe radiative capture creates warming.’ Whenever and wherever the captured energy is converted to kinetic energy. Mere re-emitting the energy will not do the trick.

    ‘I believe in climate feedback to warming.’ The climate system is an immensely complicated network of interacting influences. Is this what you mean by feedback? Easy enough to ‘believe in’ – it happens all over the place.

    ‘I believe the rest is unknown.’ We have moved from the banal to the fatuous. We have learned a lot about the atmosphere and climate over the past 150 years or so, in particular. The knowledge seems woefully inadequate compared to the complexity, but there is knowledge. Much of relevant to the AGW debate, such as the plainly and demonstrably wrong evocation of glass greenhouses, and energy flows which contradict the laws of thermodynamics.

  79. Andrew_KY said

    “Can you describe a coherent picture of how you would get the vast majority of climate scientists on board to support a scientific theory that they know to be false?”

    Deception? Bribery? Coercion? Any/All of these are coherent possibilities.😉

    Andrew

  80. Brian H said

    Andrew;
    Group pressure? Withdrawal of privileges and funding for dissent? Rejection of proposals? All these have been documented.

  81. Andrew_KY said

    Brian H,

    You are correct, sir. I just went back to the basics because The Climate Science Crowd likes to think they have some magical defense against their own human nature. It’s good to remind them that although they may fancy themselves better or smarter than the rest of us, that’s just them being fanciful.😉

    Andrew

  82. B.Kindseth said

    The entire idea of “Creed” and the statements, “I believe” are typical of religion, not of science. If you consider scientific fact something that can be physically measured and replicated by others (I’m not sure what the accepted definition of scientific fact is) then you could come up with a similar statement of the science:
    1. Carbon dioxide captures infrared radiation over specific wave-lenth bands.
    2. Solar infrared radiation is of a shorter wavelenth than that which is captured by carbon dioxide. Outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface is of a longer wavelenth and some of it is captured by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    3. Theoretically, the capture of the outgoing infrared radiation adds to the warming of the earth and increasing the amount of carbon dioxide increases the warming.
    4. Various physical and biolobical processes may respond to changes in temperature and further impact temperature either negatively or positively.

  83. cohenite said

    Jeff @ 44, “the scientifically obvious fact that CO2 captures heat.” Isn’t the issue whether extra CO2 captures more heat?

    Craig @ 45, “the asymmetry of acceptable coercion”; I believe the word you are looking for is hypocrisy.

  84. Matt Y. said

    Re: conspiracy theories, the majority of climate scientists are probably sincere. The UN(IPCC), with the help of politicians like Al Gore, are the ones who have really corrupted the science. They control the money and the agenda. They control who gets funded, who gets published, etc. Climate scientists have families to provide for just like the rest of us. The structure is set up to manufacture a consensus (the one they want), with the same handful of true-believing lead authors always leading the way.

    Bart needs to open his eyes and see that politics has more to do with climate science than actual science does. The IPCC exists for one purpose, and addressing climate change is not it. The IPCC exists to provide justification for a political power grab. You have to wear a tinfoil hat to see that.

  85. Kan said

    #78 Post from JS

    “Perhaps you mean infra-red capture? Triatomic and higher molecules have energy transitions capable of absorbing infra-red.”

    Sorry, but I have to go off on this one (cause I spent all day reading RC, where they were trying to decide how to improve the AGW message, so idiots like me could understand it all).

    O2 is a diatomic molecule. It absorbs electromagnetic radiation in the infra-red region. Its in the hitran DB. I know, I know, I know, it is small when compared to the gods of climatic infra-red absorption – CO2 and H20.

    However, every time I see this comment (like oh, 20 times on RC today in a discussion on the basic physics) it tells me that the author is not as knowledgeable as they want you to think.

    (and that fundamentally, is the message problem).

  86. kim said

    Meh, the heat captured by greenhouse gasses equatorially is freed more polar by those same heated gasses convectively conveyed poleward. What’s trapped in the tropics is lost at the poles. Those gasses vibrate more there than they would otherwise from the IR radiating from the cold surface. It’s the nature of the construction of the ‘greenhouse’ and how energy is pumped poleward.

    So all greenhouse gasses tend to trap energy toward the equator and release it toward the poles.
    ===================

  87. Peter B said

    Rather than conspiracy, what about this (actually Richard Lindzen said something similar – I can’t find the link):

    Students with second-rate scientific minds are more likely to migrate to climate science than to hard science and engineering, which attract a higher number of first-rate scientific minds.

    Climate scientits are mostly out of their depth in their own field, much more obviously so when they try to discuss engineering, statistics, physics, chemistry, etc.

    This explains everything in this post, and the next one.

  88. stan said

    Peter,

    That wouldn’t surprise me, but I have no personal experience evaluating the career paths of those inclined toward science. What I can evaluate is the quality of the arguments that prominent climate scientists regularly employ. We see these arguments in a variety of venues almost daily. From what I have seen, the day that climate science is staffed with a lot of second-rate minds will be a major improvement from the incompetents presently running the circus.

  89. Brian H said

    “Climate science” didn’t exist on the syllabus of any university until very recently, when a few decided to exploit the gravy-train. It operates as a mash-moosh of badly excerpted pieces of real sciences. It is a figment of CRU and the IPCC’s imaginations.

    Any serious attempt to apply mathematics or physics rigor to the issues quickly slams into intractable “hard” questions: i.e., those not subject to solution by any known or theoretically feasible means.

    The only true conclusion from all the thrashing about under that banner is:

    “Climate varies.
    Deal [with it].”

    Adaptation and mitigation are the only sane and worthwhile responses, and we will be forced to make them willy-nilly. That’s life on the big, busy, blue ball!

  90. […] discussion, I asked Jeff Id what he considered ‘socialist’ about climate science. His reply: – Just the preferred and demanded solutions and the continued support of organizations with […]

  91. taboo said

    And, then, there was James Lovelock saying and that humans are too stupid to prevent climate change. sarc/ Lovely interview it was. /sarc

  92. Scott B said

    In regards to the article in 91, I wouldn’t have thought I would ever say this, but I agree with much of what Lovelock said there. I don’t like the use of the word evolved in “I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,”. Evolved usually suggests an improved state and I’m not so sure that’s right. Let’s say CAGW was 100% supported by data and the science showed we were almost certainly in significant trouble unless CO2 emissions were drastically cut now. I do have my doubts that the world would be able to really go through with it. I’m sure there’s be Copenhagan like agreements, but politicians would still do what’s in their best interest to get reelected regardless of what such agreements stated. The world wide authoritarian government that would be required to deal with such an situation would cause many more problems than it would solve though. People need to be very afraid of those that would say ‘It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

    I agree with the rest though. Adaptation plans for the few problems we will face in the future is the best step. As an example, coastal locations should plan for sea level rise. I don’t think it will be near as much as the warm side would like us to believe, but the sea level will continue to rise. He does praise skeptics for criticising the science that’s out there and said he was utterly disgusted with the climategate emails.

  93. stan said

    Jeff,

    Warren Meyer of Climate Skeptic also has his Coyote Blog. A post today mentions that Obama is going to Michigan to celebrate that the US and the state combined spent over $280 million to create 400 jobs. At “only” $700,000 per job, this is a real victory for the president considering that his overall performance has been to spend trillions and LOSE millions of jobs. http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/07/green-triumphalism.html

    In the world of government efficiency, only 700 grand per job is a huge success.

  94. Jeff Id said

    #93, I checked it out briefly and can only say, I hope they are wrong in the numbers somewhere. Wow.

  95. Scott B said

    I read this link from the link in #93. http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/07/12/2010071200717.html

    If that article is right, a $151 million loan came from federal stimulus money. $130 million in tax breaks were given by the state of Michigan. Assuming the $151 million is really a loan (guessing no interest) that will get paid back, I have no problem at all with that. $130 million in tax breaks isn’t really money spent. If I assume that the plant wouldn’t have been built in Michigan in the first place if they were not given these tax breaks, then it was a choice between getting no taxes and having 400 people unemployed or getting some taxes and having 400 people with jobs. Absent more details, seems like a good use of government funds.

  96. Brian H said

    #95;
    The problem with that logic is that gov’t appropriation of funds and allocation to a chosen “winner” costs much more than just leaving it in place for private use. I.e., the 400 is the “seen”, and probably 600-1000 lost or never-created jobs elsewhere is the “unseen”. (Bastiat)

  97. If you have insurance, you are eligible to receive up to the maximum insurable amount stated in your insurance policy. Unfortunately, insurance companies try to save money on your own when possible, so the collection of insurance after an accident has occurred can be stressful.
    I hope you have been monitoring the maintenance of your vehicle, if so, please send copies of insurance company records maintenance.
    If after providing such evidence, the insurance company does not cooperate, you may consider useful research papers written about property damage and insurance claims.

  98. Chuckles said

    It doesn’t really matter whether it adds up or not, they’re just do it anyway –

    http://www.canada.com/body+value+planet+show+cost+damage/3290200/story.html

  99. Gilbert K. Arnold said

    Jeff: in re: my post #1: I offer the following: http://premium1.uploadit.org/GreyMouser//The-Skeptics-Creed.doc

    The quote is from Christopher Booker’s book: “The Real Global Warming Disaster”

  100. Brian H said

    Chuckles;
    There’s something very weird about that link. ( http://www.canada.com/body+value+planet+show+cost+damage/3290200/story.html ) I can open it in any browser (IE, Opera, Safari, Chrome) EXCEPT my FF clone, Wyzo. As soon as I attempt to navigate around on the page in that, it closes. Even if I set it up in a separate window, the browser shuts down instantly when I scroll, etc.

  101. Brian H said

    #99;
    As I mentioned elsewhere, I think only #4 in that creed makes sense. The rest of the items are granting far more than is warranted.

    Anyhow, as many have mentioned, a “Creed” is suitable for a religion, not a science.

  102. Gilbert K. Arnold said

    #101
    That is entirely within your right to hold that view. Although in this case I think the use of the word “creed” is entirely apropos. On this I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

    Or would you have preferred “Manifesto”?

  103. Gilbert K. Arnold said

    #101:
    Would you prefer this slight rewording?

    I acknowledge the radiative capture of CO2

    I acknowledge that radiative capture causes warming.

    I acknowledge that there are climate feedbacks to warming.

    I believe the rest is unknown.

  104. Brian H said

    Absolutely not. A “manifesto” is a political program.

    Try substituting “think”, “suspect”, “assume”, “accept”, “consider”, “doubt”, “agree”, or “disagree” for “believe”. Then the title might be “postulate”, or some such reason-oriented term. A “creed” or “manifesto” is designed and intended to exclude infidels and constrain adherents.

    Fuggedaboudit.

  105. Brian H said

    Crossed posts;
    #103:
    Acknowledge still goes way too far. The arguments, evidence, and science underlying all 3 statements are very much in doubt.

    The effects of other forms of heat transport within the atmosphere so overwhelm CO2 fingerprint effects that they “can be neglected”.

    To repeat,

    Never forget that climatology is not even a field, much less a science:
    “Rather, the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture [= preliminary guess without evidence, which may lead to a hypothesis with pass-fail proposals, which may eventually qualify as a theory], which may be proved or disproved already [= previously] in concrete engineering thermodynamics [95{97]. Exactly this was done well many years ago by an expert in this field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical text-book on this subject [95]. [In] 1972 he showed that the radiative component of heat transfer of CO2, though relevant at the temperatures in combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures. The influence of carbonic acid on the Earth’s climates is definitively unmeasurable [98].”

    “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23, n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf.

  106. Jeff Id said

    #103, I like where you’re going with that, how about I understand or I accept or I agree with.

    I understand the radiative capture of CO2

    I accept that radiative capture causes warming.

    I acknowledge that there are climate feedbacks to warming.

    I assert that the rest is unknown.

  107. Brian H said

    @106;
    “… the radiative component of heat transfer of CO2, though relevant at the temperatures in combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures.”

    Have you encountered an experimental or theoretical disproof of this?

  108. pppp said

    Thank Science Engineering

  109. My brother suggested I may like this web site.
    He was entirely right. This publish truly made my day.

    You cann’t imagine simply how much time I had spent for this information! Thank you!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: