I have always enjoyed reading your views but I would like to make a few points on where we differ.

Firstly you dismiss out of hand a socialist conspiracy on global warming. The word "conspiracy" is of course interpreted as a very strong word.

My observations have been that there has been significant political polarisation on the debate of anthropogenic global warming i.e. the further you go left and right the more rigid, mocking, or alarmist the opinion. Ask someone who holds an extreme view, "capitalist or socialist", and you will get consistent answers.

My other point is on Bjorn Lomborg. Right or wrong, Lomborg has bought a 'ton' of statistics together and has attempted to bring order from chaos, and that is to be commended. For if there is ever going to be effective decision making on major global or regional problems, then things need to be brought into perspective. Lomborg has also been able to justify and defend his views even after vindictive attack. Lomborg's responses on the Greenspirit website are evidence of this.

Cheers

I find it interesting that the liklihood of one being a supporter or sceptic of the AGW problem seems tightly correlated with a person's perception of the contribution of coal energy to their economic wellbeing. The most rabid sceptics are usually from coal-powered regions of the US, and the US though providing a fairly high median level of economic wellbeing to its citizens also provides them a lot more economic uncertainty relative to most other developed nations. I think the observation holds statistically, though with many exceptions. In France, Eastern Canada, Nordic countries, with little dependence on coal energy and reliable social safety nets, most people are prepared to accept what the scientists have found so far and are prepared to take rational steps to prepare to mitigate. Other developed countries with heavy coal dependence like Germany, Britain, etc. usually provide their citizens sufficient economic safety nets that they are also willing to follow the science rationally. I know, its not economics but its interesting. I expect that for a person on the far right that might mask onto the [QUOTE] "capitalist or socialist", and you will get consistent answers. [/QUOTE] phenomenon observed by Mathew above.

It also really is too bad that the AGW mitigation thing has at least in part been hijacked by "help the developing world" mevements, eg. inter-regional trading of very questionable mitigation credits, etc. I think that initiative should be required to stand on its own, as it can, largely on the basis of controlling future world population numbers on a planet with finite resources.

But Lomborg is worse than all of them. Bringing those academic parasites to Copenhagen and calling them a consensus, and worst of all - to me - denying that there is a shortage of oil. Anyway, lets forget about Lomborg and details and Paris and move to the bottom line: there shouldn't have been a Kyoto or Copenhagen, and there must be a way to deal with this global warming thing without turning it into a circus.

But before I do so I'll let the readers know where I stand on a few things.

I am a fan of Keynsian economics (as opposed to libertarian or fixed market economics) I also like the idea of a welfare state i.e. where a government looks after the poor and weak, and helps integrate them back into society. I also believe here is an important place in the world for progressives e.g. women's suffrage in poorer areas of the world, improving health and education etc.

On global warming I am on the fence. Land use, urbanisation, CO2 and other (possible/plausible) causes should all be investigated. It would however be nice if a single scientific paper actually proved man made CO2 emissions increased global temperatures. To date (and too my knowledge) no such paper exists. I would be receptive if such a paper became available at a later date.

I have found in the murk of politics, politiicans behaving in one of two ways. If politicians require a "change" they either "brandish the whip" or "dange the carrot". People resist the whip, but are drawn like a magnet to the carrot.

So with that in mind here is my idea.

In Australia during the 80's, the Australian Treasurer and Industry Minister introduced an Economic package called Micro Economic Reform. For several decades leading up to this Australian manufacturing had been contracting or was being outsourced. Over the next decade, we saw slow but steady growth in Australian Manufacturing as the sector recovered. The Microeconomic policy introduced subsidies to manufacturers if they upgraded their industries with newer and better equipment.

The policy was overall a success. So why not introduce something similar for greener upgrades e.g. government subsidy to assist with cleaner business sectors.

Dangle the carrot, people come on board. Brandish the whip e.g. with an ETS, people will resist.

Cheers

I also go for a mixed economy like they had in Sweden before the Social Democrats went crazy and started making fools the head of their party. (The great tragedy in Sweden of course was the assasination of Olof Palme). The same thing happened for Australia when they made Bob Hawke the head of Labour. Of course, the thing to never forget here is that Australia might be (in most respects) the richest country in the world, and Canada is or could be in the same category.(Note the words 'might' and 'could', because the richest are Switzerland and Norway). Unfortunately, the good people of neither Australia, Canada, Norway and maybe Switzerland realize how fortunate they are are and that's the problem. Most of them don't know the difference between a carrot and a stick, which is why the Swedish people went insane and voted this country into the EU. Accepting electric deregulation was another prominent act of stupidity.

As for Kyoto and Copenhagen, somebody should turn the fraud squad loose on the scam artists who sponsored that gig. If voters are going to resist anything, they should resist being made fools of. I'm definitely in favor of government subsidies, but where this topic is concerned, government subsidies are mostly for the birds. The only subsidy needed here are subsidies that will teach people how to think.

I have just finished doing my energy half of a new book, while the other half is handled by a Chinese gentleman, and mostly concerns environment. But, as American soldiers used to say during WW2, is this trip really necessary? I have been arguing/discussing the cause of the Iraq war with a very smart gentleman, and I think/hope that now he and I are fairly close to the same wave length. I mentioned of course your theory about what the voters would likely do if they were priced out of oil, which I accept - whether it is true or not ex-post - but I wonder if he finds it convincing. Maybe its not simple enough . Apparently some diplomat said that "terrorism is God's way of teaching Americans geography*, and so it is easy to conclude that an oil price of a couple of hundred dollars a barrel might help to teach them some economics, geography, psychology and grade school arithmetic.

I won't bother to speculate on what it would take to teach the TV audience about very bad climate news - regardless of whether it's AGW or non'AGW - but it almost certainly wouldn't be nice, which is why the Pentagon may have taken an interest in this topic.

One could argue that Peak Oil is a separate and separable issue from AGW, but I find that problematic. Reduced oil use means (at least at first glance) reduced CO2 emissions. Most of the AGW policy wonks are tied to energy, so why not discuss Peak Oil as well?

At the least, many efforts to mitigate peak oil will reduce CO2 emissions as well. so there is potential cost savings or cost sharing as well.

It's almost as if Peak Oil is so scary that no one even wants to discuss it, or acknowledge it. The global turndown has provided a brief respite so that we need not think about Peak Oil for a few years more. But it's been my experience that tough problems like this rarely disappear on their own accord.

However, when the price of oil can almost touch 150 dollars, peak oil loses a lot of its interest for yours truly, unless of course it brings some serious psychological problems in its wake. You see, OPEC KNOWS THE SCORE NOW. They know where the oil demand curve is, and how to exploit it. The non-OPEC production has definitely peaked, and Russia - the largest exporter in that group - is prepared to cooperate with OPEC. That mean that when this macroeconomic thing is straighted out, the oil price will go to $100/b. I don't look forward to that, and It may not be in OPEC's interest, but there you are,

My problem now though is shoveling snow.

There is a global market in energy. It may not be a "free" market, but it is a market nonetheless. Like all markets, it is responsive to supply and price. Like all markets, it is susceptible to manipulation. The world oil market has been subject to manipulation by OPEC and others for decades.

Markets are also routinely manipulated by governments, through taxation and incentives of various forms. Copenhagen was an attempt to manipulate energy markets on a global scale. However, there was no common purpose among the various governments: some sought to reduce emissions; some sought to avoid interference in their economic growth; and, some sought to finance their economic growth through reparations for harm which has not yet occurred. This did not create a climate (pun intended) for "happy ever aftering".

Markets naturally seek value in a combination of features and price. Oil distillates are currently valued as transportation fuels because of a combination of portability/flexibility and price. Governments have manipulated the transportation market by taxing gasoline and diesel fuel, building public transportation systems, implementing travel and parking restrictions, etc.

From the perspectives of both "peak oil" and "anthropogenic global weirding", these efforts have so far been inadequate to switch the transportation paradigm from gasoline cars and diesel trucks to electric vehicles, public transportation, increased population density, etc. Therefore, it is the perception of governments that the market must be further distorted until the desired result is achieved. Excise and road use taxes, CAFE standards, incentives for hybrid and electric vehicles, subsidized public transit, etc. are among the distortion mechanisms currently being employed.

Coal is currently valued as a power generation fuel because its cost and the investment required to generate power by burning it are attractive relative to the commercially available and economically viable alternatives. The market for power generation is currently manipulated through a variety of incentive/disincentive mechanisms, including: regulatory oversight; production tax credits; feed in tariffs; renewable portfolio standards, etc. From the perspective of "anthropogenic global weirding", these mechanisms have not been effective. Carbon taxes and/or cap & trade are alternative measures currently under consideration.

From a political perspective, it is desirable to distort the market progressively until the desired results are achieved, which leaves the politicians in the position to blame market failures for any resulting perceived inequities. The market must be distorted progressively, since the politicians are unable to identify the level of distortion which would achieve the results they desire; and, are unwilling to take the political heat for imposing massive distortions in "one fell swoop".

One positive aspect of a focus on a new energy economy, rather than on "anthropogenic global weirding", is that a single nation or sub-group of nations can proceed along a path to achieving that economy on their own at whatever pace they believe is necessary.

I didn't realize peak oil was an "effort". It is either real or it is not. If it is real, the implications are left as an exercise to the reader.

I agree that governments have manipulated the price of gasoline, but that's to make it cheaper, not more expensive. As near as I can tell, no oil company had to pay for Gulf War I or Gulf War II. The fact that you apparently have a diametrically opposed mindset is telling. The political price tag of cheap oil (giving lots of money to Middle East countries without concern about all the Madrassas they spent it on) may have been having two jet planes fly into the WTC. And even after that, our fierce Texan of a President is photographed holding hands with Saudi Prince Abdullah like two schoolgirls on a playground.

This is a leader of a country that has spent billions exporting Islamic extremism, turns a blind eye to horrific human-rights problems, and outlaws the very faith to which President Bush has been born-again to. So Bush coddles this guy for what reason? To keep the wells flowing. To keep the price LOW.

I guess you could argue about the wisdom of countries and gov'ts that both want the price of oil to be low and high at the same time -- but I don't think you should be waving your finger about the "distorting" of oil prices by the government. This has been going on for decades.

The point about peak oil (if you believe in peak oil) is that it means the END of price manipulation, at least on the low side. The price can still be manipulated upward, of course, but a hard supply limits the downside. From now until forever, unless and until we can displace fuel use through PHEVs, efficiency, or whatever. The point is, unlike your implications, peak oil is the END of business as usual, not a continuation of it.

"Governments have manipulated the transportation market..." "... these efforts have so far been inadequate to switch the transportation paradigm..." "From the perspectives of both "peak oil" and "anthropogenic global weirding", ..."

That is, government manipulation has not switched the transportation paradigm as it relates to peak oil or AGW, neither reducing oil demand or carbon emissions, so they will need to interfere further.

Does that help your understanding, or are the apparent facts still unclear?

Before we drive oil distillates from the US transportation market, it would probably be handy to have suitable replacements. We are not there yet; and, won't be for a decade at least.

Ed

By progressively distorting markets, governments foster research and development in alternatives, and provide signals to the public to start looking for alternatives because over time it will become more costly to avoid adopting them. Consumers cannot generally change their energy consumption habits very quickly or change the vehicles they drive instantly, it takes time to adjust for most consumers.

The other dilemma facing governments is how to prevent markets from boom-bust cyclic behaviors. With distorting mechanisms they attempt to smooth out these cycles to lessen their severity. For example, left alone the peak oil situation is likely to result in rapidly spiking oil prices again down the road, and more severe recessions. So by weaning consumers off gasoline now gradually, the growth in demand for oil is more likely to slow down and hence slow down any price escalations.

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress. ...

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain documents related to President Obama's Special Assistant on Energy and Climate Carol Browner and her role in crafting official U.S. climate policy. Ms. Browner, who was never subjected to Senate confirmation, reportedly served as the Obama administration's point person in secret negotiations to establish automobile emission standards and also participated in negotiations involving cap and trade legislation.

But where do we read that China used more coal in January than in any month ever? Where do we read that the line of ships waiting to load coal at Newcastle Australia has grown? That India is having a crisis buying enough coal to keep their existing plants going while building more coal burners? Not on the mass media nor do we see it on the TV news. We few see it because we are already converted and know where to look.

Above, even our own Bob Amorosi comes close to playing the Pollyanna game telling us Ontario is going to have closed down its last coal burner within a few years – let’s say three years. In three years world population will have grown by about 300 million (and all energy consumers) or about 25 times the population of Ontario. Ontario by a combination of good luck, a homogeneous people and being blessed with lots of hydo energy rather than by exceptionally astute politicians or pure altruism can do this.

“Other developed countries with heavy coal dependence like Germany, Britain, etc. usually provide their citizens sufficient economic safety nets …” Len, do these countries have vast kitties available for distribution – and here I instead thought they had huge debts.

And Professor, I wonder if we should throw all energy solutions in the pot. I should think that thermodynamics, supply (geology) and economics should first be applied to eliminate those routes least likely (or shown to be not viable) are as promptly as possible eliminated lest we ride off in all directions. Normally a free or relatively free market would sort this out but maybe this is different.

The business in Copenhagen was a farce - no more, no less. Fancy words from the vocabulary of economics are unnecessary to go into details. For reasons given by Jim Beyer, peak oil is a done deal. The suppliers outside OPEC have peaked, and OPEC has gotten its game together. Whether a global production peak is registered or not, when this macroeconomics unpleasantness is over the oil price will most likely move to $100/b, or above. The governments and people of the oil importing countries may no longer prefer more money to less, but the governments and people of the oil exporting countries have a different set of priorities. WAKE UP AMERICA!

Bill Payne, I'd definitely like for Al Gore to be forced to testify, and I would like to ask him the first question: HOW COULD HE BE SO DUMB AS TO LOSE THE 1980 ELECTION? Without that loss there would have been no WMD war in Iraq, and possibly no ruining of the world economy by George W. and his gang. Possibly.

Don, here is the story with nuclear and coal. The more nuclear used, the more prosperous and rich China will become, and therefore the most coal they will use. Nuclear will mean more prosperity, but there will not be enough nuclear to match the demand for energy that prosperity will bring about, and the gap will have to be filled by coal. Simple.

"Ontario by a combination of good luck, a homogeneous people and being blessed with lots of hydo energy rather than by exceptionally astute politicians or pure altruism can do this."

I agree Ontario is lucky enough to have lots of alternatives to replace coal. But the largest coal generator in North America is in Nanticoke Ontario, and by closing it our politicians can trumpet multiple achievements - they will have removed one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, and one of the primary emitters of other carcinogenic air pollutants, and they will have taken a path opposite to much of the rest of the world by abandoning coal all together. So our politicians can boast we are fighting the AGW battle plus we are saving huge sums of health care dollars in fighting respiratory diseases that have been proven linked to Nanticoke's emissions, plus we will avoid the penalties that may plague coal down the road that will come with cap and trade or carbon tax schemes.

So, Don, you are wrong in my view because I call this move quite clever by our very astute politicians, for not only does it win them votes but it has very likely economic merit too. So there.

Just a quick question from your ‘virtual’ Saudi student at Manchester University (UK): Would you still go up against a worldwide spread of the notion of ‘carbon trading’ if true measures are taken to both avoid over allocation of free carbon credits & limit spikes and wild volatility in carbon prices? I ask this because – to my humble mind – carbon trading, whilst not a universal panacea, is just a tool that could be used and misused, but it still could hold a promising potential to support our transition towards a carbon-conscious future that encompasses – among other things – “an optimal energy structure”... or is that just an 'academic' fantasy that does not relate to the real world?

While you may certainly believe that Climategate is foolishness, others are free to believe that the "Team" behavior was foolishness; and, perhaps even criminality under existing law.

I would suggest that Phil Jones is taking it very seriously, based on his suggestion that he considered suicide; and, his recent interviews, in which he "took one for the Team". His responses to some questions and his avoidance of other questions was quite "lawyer-like", suggesting he has retained legal counsel and is following counsel's advice.

It would appear that the Met Office is taking it rather seriously as well, based on its intention to return to square one and start over with analysis of the raw data.

Many of us have had enough of data that isn't and models that don't.

The greater economic success of free societies is largely the result of the members of those societies having the freedom to choose among the options available to them, with the minimum of constraints on those options. Regrettably, in some societies, the virtual elimination of the potential to fail has constrained the potential to succeed. The US is currently moving in that direction. Our bad!

Ed

The attempt is to base carbon trading on the more successful efforts of SOx and NOx emissions trading. But the problem here is there are (at least) two differences.

First, SOx and NOx emissions, while a common product of combustion, they are both nonetheless OPTIONAL ones. If you have more control of your temperatures, better scrubbers, more catalysts, etc. you can basically eliminate SOx and NOx from your emissions stream. CO2, on the other hand, is the INHERENT by-product of burning any carboniferous fuel. If you are burning such a fuel, you CAN'T limit your emissions unless a) you improve your overall efficiency or b) you capture and store them someplace. There are already economic pressures to do a) and b) will likely be very, very expensive (more expensive than doing more a) ) for some time to come. So carbon trades will mostly pressure companies to do, what? There's not much they can do! A coal plant eliminating SOx could, with scrubbers, virtually eliminate the emissions. Not so with CO2. Practical limits for the near term are what, maybe 10%? And we are supposed to achieve what, 50%?

Second, most emission trade strategies are LOCAL. So if some locale is stricken with high SOx, two coal plants can get together and figure out it's cheaper to reduce all the emissions from one plant than to reduce both by 50%. So an emissions trade can facilitate that and save money too. And the effect (lower emissions) can be seen and appreciated LOCALLY. CO2 is a global emissions problem. Even with all this CO2 trading going on, no one ANYWHERE would see a lick of improvement on the planet.

The problem, as I see it, is that SOx and NOx emissions mostly represent undesirable behavior on the part of the coal plants -- they should use better pollution controls. CO2 emissions, on the other hand, represent undesirable behavior on the part of consumers - they are using lots of energy. This argues more for a carbon tax based on energy use of the individual. When looking at the overall system, one can see that the prospect of improved efficiency at the consumer level is much larger than improved efficiency at the plant level. I think a tax would address this better as well.

Ed,

I find it odd that no government has used the manipulation tactic of simply telling their own people: "Hey, we are running out of oil. Maybe we should do something about it." I guess we can't handle the truth.

I think you mean the 2000 election. Perhaps some Reagan flashbacks?

All government has to do is impose a declining cap on oil imports, while maintaining current restrictions on domestic drilling. The "truth" of declining supply in the face of increasing demand would become obvious soon enough.

Of course, a few political careers might go "up in flames" in the process. In most cases, that would be an acceptable "loss".

1. The CRU never said Venus is heated by volcanoes. 2. The CRU never said CO2 levels bounced +/- 100 ppm within a decade (before 1958, after which they magically stabilized). 3. The CRU never dismissed the so-called "greenhouse effect" by comparing it to a pan heating on a stove. 4. The CRU never said that volcanoes are the source of added CO2. 5. The CRU never said a column of CO2 10 meters long (at STP) will capture all infrared radiation (despite IR photography which works quite well past that distance).

If the anti-AGW "scientists" were held to the same standards as the CRU people, they throw away the keys on them. Since science is on trial, perhaps the likes of Beck and Gerlich should be subpoenaed as well.

We didn't get it done.

We're doomed.

We're all gonna die!

It is called presumption of innocence and it is a hallowed principle of our legal system. In practice we hardly ever use it in the judgments we MUST make because only an infinitesimal percentage of our judgments are LEGAL judgments. Who invokes it about Al Capone and myriad others never convicted in a court of law? If we are to wait, as you suggest, Capone can be called a tax cheat but never a murderer.

In the case of serious crime such as homicide the number of crimes far exceeds the number ever charged and very much more than the number convicted. That is, for most murders nobody spends a day in jail.

In the present case my judgment is that laws have been broken even though I don’t think it will ever, or should, go to trial.

The circular logic of the "team" says, "Just look at the earth's temperature, this must be what is happening" but they NEVER set up an experiment to PROVE it. Then they fudge the data they DO get and REFUSE to divulge it, nor their "statistical" methods they used to cause it to always go up, even when temperatures are going down. Not to mention hiding the entire medieval warming period, hiding 1938 being the hottest year on record, the list goes on and on.

I have (unofficially) resigned from the climate warming debate. I say something about it in the book that I am doing with a Chinese gentleman, but that is only because I want to say something derrogatory about the Stern Report, which I call a 'poor man's Mein Kampf'. But it seems to me that the only thing that makes sense where attacking carbon is concerned is a carbon tax where all tax revenues are returned to the people who pay these taxes, only (somehow) carbon is made more expensive. How the details of that scheme would look in an international or a local setting is a mystery to me though, and I hope that I'm never tempted to find out.

Of course, where attacking carbon is concerned, Since - as Jim Beyer points out - CO2 is a global problem , it can't really be attacked except in the dreams of people like Gordon Brown and 'Sarko', and so that is pretty much that.

It is beyond belief that you can claim any qualification in physics and not know this stuff automatically. I also know that it has been spoonfed to you before on this forum, so must therefore conclude that you are simply being deliberately obtuse in hopes of sucking in newbies who haven't read any of the previous posts of Jim, myself or others who repeatedly try to correct you.

Venus is MUCH hotter than it should be according to S-B blackbody measurements. It's much hotter even accounting for horrific precision in measurement. Why is it hotter? Because it has a thick atmosphere (and not a bunch of active volcanoes). Atmospheric Warming - QED.

Gerlich makes Velikovsky look like a genius. (For the uninformed, Velikovsky thought Venus was so hot because it was a comet recently parked in the Solar System within the last few thousand years. This is not the case.)

Venus not only is hotter than it would be with no atmosphere, it is hotter than the IPCC formulas would even let it get, by hundreds of degrees Kelvin. That is why some have theorized that there must be volcanoes or some other mechanism to account for the heat. Some of those theorists were in the AGW camp BTW.

The IR absorption of CO2 is logarithmic, that's what Hug was saying and what he was able to experimentally prove. I'm not saying these things don't exist at ALL, I'm saying they CANNOT exist at the scale the IPCC gives them! Anyone who has seen a "mirage" in the hot desert knows that effect is confined to the first 30 meters or less of the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, it comes raining down from 30,000 meters, you know where the temperatures are already well below zero. That "missing signature" rears its ugly head again.

All I'm saying, all I've EVER said is the theory has holes, it was hubris that made them state the "debate was over" and hubris has led them to do the things the CRU emails showed and more that they didn't show. But the science is now tainted, because they didn't follow the proper scientific method. Whether you like G&T or not, they have Phd's in Physics and followed PROPER protocol. Unfortunately because this is such an emotionally charged issue for some, who believe they are latter day Joan of Arc's and need to "save the planet", they have taken to resorting to censoring, deletion and prevarication. I've personally seen sites where G&T were being criticized, they came and made posts and their posts were deleted by the "moderators". This isn't science.

Any ignoramus on this subject, like me, can also see that composition of the atmosphere surely affects its degree of warming and averaging. It’s fundamentally why the earth’s surface temperature drops much further on a cloudless night than on an overcast one, and fundamentally why a dry wind has a much greater cooling effect than a humid one. It’s impossible to believe that increasing CO2 and other GHGs over centuries haven’t had SOME effects on the global average climate, and SOME effects on regional climate patterns, the latter having been disrupted much more so over the last 40 years or so.

Scientists in general have a habit of deleting information that they perceive as bad data. Empirically measured data in any field of research is frequently subject to data manipulation techniques, especially when there are large amounts of data points, earth’s climate measurements being one of them. This manipulation includes discarding what is believed to be bad data points, and analyzing only the perceived good ones. So I am not overly surprised that even commentary by peers can be viewed as “bad data”, and subsequently censored. I'll bet some view this as normally accepted practice in the science community. If you think about it, scientists everywhere are taught to publish research papers that only quote references that support their papers, not refute it.

Don't get me wrong here, I disagree with the censorship. The whole fiasco of CRU emails has probably tainted the work of many honest scientists who played fair. But sadly the AGW debate has become globally politicized to the point the truth can very easily get distorted or exaggerated, much in the same fashion everyday news stories will get altered by the media, telling the public what they want the public to hear.

I'm not sure this is the best article to carry on our on-going debate w.r.t. AGW, but whatever.

I never said that the IPCC understands everything about how the greenhouse effect works. I merely said the the greenhouse effect exists, something which Gerlich and Tscheuschner wish to refute.

I cite as evidence the very hot planet Venus, which has a very thick, mostly carbon dioxide atmosphere. Your "counter-point" is to say "Venus not only is hotter than it would be with no atmosphere, it is hotter than the IPCC formulas would even let it get..."

That might very well be the case, but it still leaves Gerlich holding his pot over the stove wondering what the heck is going on. G & T are WRONG, plain and simple. There IS a greenhouse effect (of some kind) and Venus PROVES IT.

You pretend to be shocked that I might use glass as a simple example of imperfect transmissivity, but we know you're either just playing stupid (or maybe not playing?).

Emissivity of air is very simply calculated just as for any other material as the inverse of its transmissivity. Here's a huge oversimplification for you so you can perhaps understand. A large bulk of atmosphere has less than perfect transmissivity, especially at particular wavelengths. Well proven, eg. by the difficulty of IR telescopes getting decent images of celestial bodies in the particular IR band. So what are you proposing happens to the energy absorbed by the air when it reduces the transmission of the IR? Does the atmosphere hold on to the captured energy indefinitiely? Obviously not, else it would continue to heat up forever. Does it loose the energy by conduction? To what, in your proposed mythical world? By material exchange? If so explain.

No, it looses the energy by radiation. Of infrared, according to its blackbody temperature. To space. Just like the moons of Jupiter or the outer planets (VERY cold, recieving significant solar radiation, but stable average temperatures. The are still able to radiate sufficient energy to space to maintain a stable very cold temperature),

On exactly what basis do you claim that a gaseous atmosphere cannot radiate effectively? The atmosphere of Venus to totally opaque to essentially all radiation, so ALL radiation it makes to space comes from its atmosphere's gases and / or clouds. And for Venus that's a significant amount of radiation, since it is significantly closer to the sun than earth.

"Anyone who has seen a "mirage" in the hot desert knows that effect is confined to the first 30 meters or less of the atmosphere." -- Give us a break, please!

"The atmosphere of Venus to totally opaque to essentially all radiation, so ALL radiation it makes to space comes from its atmosphere's gases and / or clouds. And for Venus that's a significant amount of radiation, since it is significantly closer to the sun than earth." So let's try and parse that ahem, sentence. Venus is opaque to radiation, does that mean its albedo is quite high? Why doesn't it reflect more heat away from the planet then before it can even arrive at the surface? The math says it should. All I want is a model that says what is happening and then predictably demonstrates it. What I don't want is a model that comes to one conclusion, then there's a "missing link", and a large fudge factor that gets thrown in to make the whole thing work out. With 342 w/m^2 incoming, 324 re-radiating downward is a hell of a fudge factor. But since it is a new religion, miracles should be allowed

American Thinker indeed. And they're trying to take over control of school ciricula to "fix the problem"!

1) The world's climate is indeed heating 2) That heating trend is bound to accelerate 3) Mankind is the sole cause of this heating

I made this statement 3 years ago and nothing has changed since then. WE've gone around and around, but my position hasn't changed, I have just wasted a ton of time trying to reason with you, but you're a fundamentalist so re-read what I said to you THEN, it still applies NOW

The miracle here would be that you EVER get a clue. Too bad the wizard of oz can't deliver a brain.

How much will this shutdown do for CO2 emission reduction?

For estimation purposes I say 1 pound of coal makes a kwh. (Equivalent to using coal with a HHV of 10,000 BTU/# in a plant with 34% thermal efficiency - fuel to electricity)

So in its most productive year Nanticoke Generating Station used about 1x 24x10^9/2204 = 10.9x10^6 tonnes/year of coal.

World usage of coal 1990 to 2008 went from 3461 to 2008 billion metric tons. Delta/year is 5814-3461/2008-1990 = 131 billion +tonnes per year. Alas, the CO2 benefit of closing down the Nanticoke plant will be swamped by just an average month of increased usage elseware.

These “scientists” all had to keep bound logs. Logs with pre-numbered pages. No loose leaf notebooks, no loose sheets allowed, no erasures allowed. No blank pages allowed. Every page dated and initialed. If a lab results were involved, the run number of, says, the mass spectrometer run was given. If data was eliminated it was by crossing out the data with an initialed reason. No cherry picking allowed and no tracks obliterated.

No files ever deleted, no data ever “corrected.”

Of course this was before the PC. The Main frame was behind plate glass with separate air conditioning and the people tending them wore white coats and hair nets as if in a food plant. Input was by stacks of punch cards.

There were no embarrassing emails. Correspondence was by well considered letters typed by a stenographer with copies to all appropriate people and to central files.

World usage of coal 1990 to 2008 went from 3461 to 5814 (not 2008) billion metric tons. Delta/year is 5814-3461/2008-1990 = 131 billion +tonnes per year.

Not quaint at all.

A big downside to all this computer stuff is that it makes publication (in one way or another) very easy. That means crappy stuff gets out and there's little to time to assemble "well considered letters". I think the upside is that we are communicating better and discovering stuff faster. The downside is that the archive of our knowledge base has a great deal of extra chaff in it. And poorer organization.

:-)

My only objection to the above is the use of the word "hacked" regarding the CRU e-mails. It appears increasingly likely, though yet unproven, that the CRU e-mails and other materials were placed on a public ftp server, either advertently or inadvertently, by someone at UEA.

Using the term "hacked" is reminiscent of the Queen of Hearts: "Sentence first; verdict afterwards."

Ed :-)

Obviously, the dogs have stopped eating the dog food.

Ed

Dr. Schneider's quote: On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

and his long-standing grandstanding, prove that he and his brethren worked very hard to "offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have", while forgetting that part about being honest about any caveats. That's when the shoe on the other foot kicks oneself in the hind region, or goes into the mouth, or further twisted metaphors. When the line got crossed between science and advocacy, the devil's bargain was made, and the devil ain't none too good to bargain with, if you get my drift. ;)

Never release model code? Here you go:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Projekte.209.0.html?&L=3

http://www.nemo-ocean.eu/

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/fms

http://mitgcm.org/

dozens more here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

{copied directly from commenter Jackmot on The Oil Drum - The Endurance of University Data Records - Be Discouraged by HeadingOut

A little further on, JackMott chimes in with

The idea that climate data, is in general closed, or that vast pieces of it are lost is an invention of the fear-uncertainty-and-doubt campaign of the side of the media skeptical of it all.

Just some examples of raw data and methods that are available:

Dozens here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Free climate station data here: (I have this imported into a database on my laptop, and was able in TWO days to pretty much confirm what GISS and HADCru claim for temperature trends)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html

GISS also has all of their data and source code freely available:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

It really is much ado about nothing. Scientists in the last few years get spammed with FOIA requests, some of which don't even make sense, and the sole purpose of them is to create a story. A recent example of this is detailed here, where a climate researcher was given an FOIA request for data that was already public!:

Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind - Ben Santer - RealClimate.org

(In tiny part) -- "I served as the Convening Lead Author (CLA) of Chapter 8. There were three principal criticisms of my conduct as CLA. All three allegations are baseless. "

That's really the bottom line. Nothing else.

The Swedes were also upset with the CHANGING OF THEIR DATA done by the "scientists" protecting their gravy train. You were able to "confirm" on your notebook data that had been "processed" to produce a trend? You lose. Given that you are so gullible, I sincerely wish I could play poker with you and separate you from all the cash you carry. Just because there's a sucker born every minute doesn't mean you have to volunteer for the job!

As for the programs, another link you won't read specifies exactly HOW programs can be released so that it is IMPOSSIBLE to see what is going on, further obfuscating the methods and the manipulations taking place. If the science were legit, the data would be available for everyone to see, there would be no histrionics, this would just be business as usual. $15 BILLION per YEAR is a temptation too difficult for these "scientists" to ignore.

The idea that climate data, is in general closed, or that vast pieces of it are lost is an invention of the fear-uncertainty-and-doubt campaign . You haven't a clue.

My point about the computer programs is still that “providing the programs” can be interpreted a lot of ways. I have thought about this, and imagined if in one of my larger and more complex projects, I was asked to provide all the programs. I could do that just by sending the pieces with a summary file explaining what each piece was used for. It still theoretically allows someone to see how the programming was done. And I do think that is a far sight easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I am suggesting that one could do the minimum. Then the point is, one isn’t faced with garish headlines about “refusal to provide programs”. I think it is harder to come up with a garish headline about “refusal to provide completely documented programs with appropriate instructions files and hand-holding for running it.

Tell me again how they are so forthcoming with their models and programs again eh? Talk about clueless.

In the 14th line of my first 3.5.10 comment above, is

"{copied directly from commenter Jackmot on theOilDrum"

No wonder no-one believes you, you're clearly missing most of what you claim to have read.

I am also reminded of St. Thomas Aquinas' "Proofs of the Existence of God", which were sufficient to prove the existence of God to someone who believed in God. (Relax, Don.)

What passes for climate science today borders on "Nostradamus with a supercomputer and kluge software". The resulting "Blue Screen of Death" is interpreted literally.

We are asked to invest tens of trillions of dollars based on the Precautionary Principle, to avoid potential risks based on gross projections from inaccurate data.

The Team sat behind the curtain, flashing their lights and shaking their sheet metal panels to simulate lightning and thunder. Unfortunately for the Team, someone drew back the drape and exposed the game. Suddenly, the Great Oz did not seem quite so intimidating.

I'm not sure climate scientists are quite at the level of St. Thomas Aquinas. If one can prove God exists, then religious faith would be unnecessary, so perhaps poor Mr. Aquinas had an unconscious need to fail regardless.

I think the CO2-induced greenhouse effect has a better chance of being the interpretation of Venus's temperature as opposed to it being a recently parked comet (Velikosky). In very crude terms, it also explains the temperature profiles of the Moon and Mars as well. I think this tends to support "more CO2 = warmer temperatures" but the details of this behavior are not well-understood, at least in my opinion.

Ed said:

"What passes for climate science today borders on "Nostradamus with a supercomputer and kluge software". The resulting "Blue Screen of Death" is interpreted literally."

If the climate scientists are Nostradamus with a supercomputer, then the the skeptic "scientists" (a term used VERY loosely) the likes of Beck and Gerlich are voodoo witch doctors who use chicken blood and dried bones for their predicting.

Ed also said:

"We are asked to invest tens of trillions of dollars based on the Precautionary Principle, to avoid potential risks based on gross projections from inaccurate data."

We have to do this anyway, given peak oil. I suppose you don't believe in that as well? Although the investment is not a clear overlap, it's could be much worse. The main thing we can do for AGW would be to displace coal with nuclear. Due to peak oil, we will already need to displace oil with something else (probably electric). Given the likelihood of peak coal in the next 25-50 years, I fail to see how this investment will not be needed anyway. Combined, oil and coal represent close to 50% of AGW emissions. Improved efficiency (over time) could probably give us another 25%. Useful chart.

I don't care about a single theory on Venus' origins, I care why the GHC theory doesn't' even come close to accounting for its temperature, even using the same methods that are used here. Conversely, you can calculate Earth's numbers taking away ALL the CO2 and nothing changes, because water vapor by far is the dominant factor, as all true physicists know. And perhaps you and Len owe Bob an apology for his previous article about CFC's and climate change, now that he's joined by peer reviewed work stating same.

As long as we are in the mode of being reminded of things, Francis of Assisi greatly rejoiced upon learning that five of his friars had been murdered in Morocco doing his bidding. Seems he would have much in common with many Muslim clerics today –and whom (?) we are unlikely to canonize.

Jim wrote:” …perhaps poor Mr. Aquinas had an unconscious need to fail regardless.” I suppose he might be counted a failure for not getting himself martyred something he dearly wanted. On the other hand after 800 years he is a household word and beside present company he is spoken of in reverential terms.

If you were mislead, that's not my problem. I never thought the chart portrayed anything other than man-made CO2 emissions. (And no mention of sinks at all.)

And as to an apology to Mr. Ashworth, I don't think one is necessary. My first comment to him on his CFC article was (in total):

(Quote) Bob: It would be great if you were right, and I hope you are, as CFCs are much easier to manage than CO2 emissions. The next 10-20 years might illuminate the merit of this theory vs. the conventional CO2-based theory. Unfortunately, I do remain dubious at this point.

However, either way, its points to the frailty of our environment and how much man's efforts can affect it. (End Quote)

FWIW, I tend to believe Bob take on CFCs over the article cited by you, as the energy from cosmic rays seems like it would too small to cause significant added heating, whereas extra UV could make a difference.

And yes, water vapor is the dominant factor. But it doesn't reside in the air very long. That's why a CO2-depleted atmosphere could cause a snowball earth. (All the water freezes, making high albedo planet-wide, so most of the light energy reflects, so no heat to produce water vapor.)

There's a possible explanation in an article published by Nature in January. It shows that people tend to "take their cue about what they should feel, and hence believe, from the cheers and boos of the home crowd". Those who see themselves as individualists and those who respect authority, for instance, "tend to dismiss evidence of environmental risks, because the widespread acceptance of such evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce and industry, activities they admire". Those with more egalitarian values are "more inclined to believe that such activities pose unacceptable risks and should be restricted".

These divisions, researchers have found, are better at explaining different responses to information than any other factor."

The trouble with trusting complex science - There is no simple way to battle public hostility to climate research. As the psychologists show, facts barely sway us anyway - G. Monbiot

And I also note last time I checked that artic ice cover continued to recede. And methane bubbles are still coming up off the north coast of Russia. Hopefully this controversy can halt all that though, I guess.

Climate is tremendously complex and unpredictable. The "scientists" have been gaming the system for years, and there is NO EXCUSE for limiting the acquisition nor disbursement of data. On the acquisition side, for a planet as large as earth to now be down to 1500 or less weather stations going into the GISS database is absurd. To "interpolate" temperatures for the missing stations, likewise absurd. They are "averaging" the entire climate of Canada on the basis of THREE stations! There is no excuse for this.

Real scientists never speak in absolutes. Even in chemistry, which is basically cookbook, I had a prof who would say, "This is now what is SUPPOSED to happen, but one never knows with certainty". In chemical engineering, one step up from mere chemistry, what worked easily in the lab may not work at all in the "wild". My complaint about the climate science has always been that they never crawled, let alone walked, but proceeded to RUN and scream at the top of their lungs besides. They haven't proven their point in any lab and the earth is as wild as it gets. The IPCC never helped the process, although their obvious goal was to separate as many governments as possible from as much money as possible, and in that they have been spectacularly successful.

But the end is near.

That's just a start. No point reading your nonsense any further.

"we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels."

BTW, denier trolls are starting to encounter some severe backlash from intelligent posters on credible sites.

Back to using "denier" language aren't we? And for the last time, I've posted dozens of links, NONE of which you've bothered to click on, and you CONTINUE to claim I don't back my statements. You are a complete waste of time. I'm all done with you. Too bad, because I like the site and many of the other posters here, but you're just too much of a piece of work for me to stomach.

As to "disk crashes", naturally you couldn't bring yourself to click on the multiple links above, so let me just quote from Dr. Jones as specified in the links above And don’t leave stuff lying around on anonymous download sites—you never know who is trawling them. McIntyre and McKitrick have been after the Climatic Research Unit … data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.

I added bold so you can figure it out, Mens rea proof of intention, but of course to a coolaid guzzler like yourself, accidents CAN happen, right after you claim otherwise. So after you tell everyone you're going to kill your wife, we can all assume that nasty fall down the mountainside was happenstance, yup, happenstance. Hopefully the jury is just as stupid, for your sake. Game over, QED :)