Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS


What Doubt is There About the Science Behind Global Warming?

What doubt is there about the science behind global warming?

Posted by Washington Post Editor on October 14, 2009 11:00 PM

Make a Comment  |  All Comments (69)

akent07 Author Profile Page :

This is the panel of experts you have? Most of them aren't even scientists. Shenanigans!

dmoranets Author Profile Page :

It is sad when the first print edition of Planet Panel leads off with one of the big lies of our time: "the vast majority of climate scientists tell us that increasing CO2 casues higher temperatures over time. ... it is vital to emphasize the consensus on the most important scientific questions."

This lie has been repeated so often that most people think it is true. On the contrary, all of the surveys of true scientists I have seen show the reverse is correct -- most scientists do not agree with this claim. Dissenters include 90% in a recent survey of Japanese scientists, over two-thirds of respondents in a survey of Canadian scientists, over 31,000 degreed scientists and engineers who have signed the Petition project (, and the 700+ scientific leaders who have publicly attacked carbon hysteria and the claims of scientific consensus (,

These are but a few of the multitude of inconvenient facts contradicting the "consensus of scientists" claim and most of the other apocalypic warnings spewed by carbon hysteria proponents. I challenge everyone to look beyond the unsubstantiated claims that are constantly being repeated to further the hysteria and check the work that supposedly supports these claims. I have been reviewing this work for years. The good work following accepted standards for scientific evaluation does not support these claims.

This movement is a massive corruption of science and a huge share of the world's population has been suckered into the scam. The backlash will be ugly when people learn the extent of the fraud.

adoucette Author Profile Page :

Toasted1 wrote:

Global warming is a wakeup call to get cracking on developing alternatives to burning carbon, which people will have to do eventually.

Except we already have a LARGE scale source of energy that doesn't involve burning carbon, it's called NUCLEAR POWER.

Now some might object because of the issue with dealing with nuclear waste, but that makes no logical sense.

The issue with storing nuclear waste is all about the time we have to store it (thousands of years) and not about the quantity to be stored because the actual volume of nuclear waste is not the issue, since its relatively quite small (many orders of magnitude smaller than say our trash dumps).

So since we already have nuclear waste to store and we keep making more each year, the problem simply doesn't get much worse if we were to create ten times as much, because again, the problem isn't quantity, it's time and we have to deal with what we have already, so dealing with 10 times as much is really a non-issue.

While we are spending lots of money on Wind, PV, Solar Thermal, Geo-Thermal, Wave and Tidal research and development and subsidies they are all still bit players in the energy world, and don't look like they will graduate to levels where they will be a serious provider of energy for many decades to come. All suffer from no means of providing power when needed and no reasonable way to store power when it's produced but not needed.

To put it in perspective, Wind in the US, even after decades of govt support via hefty production tax credits, still provides less than 1% of our electricity,
and wind is easily 30 times what we get from Solar, but our electricity demand is growing at roughly 2% per year. So we are still many years away from even keeping up with our growth in energy needs via renewables, let alone displacing existing power plants.

Even more significantly, only half of our energy is in the form of electricity. The other half comes from burning oil or gas, and most of that is used in transportation.

But only 1% of our oil is used for transportation.

So if we want to move our transportation system to use renewable energy via plug in hybrids or battery powered cars, we are going to need a lot more electricity and again, only Nuclear provides the ability to do this in the near term, at reasonable cost and without generation of CO2.

When you hear Greens endorsing Nuclear then you will know they are finally thinking that CO2 is actually a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

If the problem is such that building more nuclear reactors is considered a bigger problem than Global Warming, then considering that we have many hundreds of reactors running safely each day, it can't really be that big of a problem.

Can't have it both ways.

adoucette Author Profile Page :

FredinVicksburg writes:

The present concern is arctic warming which might, for example, melt the Greenland ice cap and raise sea level significantly.

Except that the Medieval Warm Period, which for the NH still appears to be warmer than current, lasted over 300 years and it only resulted in slight coastal melting on the very Southern end of Greenland.

There is no danger at all of Greenland melting.

I know this is an easy lie to foist on people, since who the heck ever gets to Greenland?

So in case you are really interested in Greenland weather and if it's warming, here's a link to Greenland weather.

Now Nuuk is on the very Southern edge of this massive island, and its pretty coastal, so its temps are always quite a bit higher than the majority of Greenland, which is not only further North, but also further from the ocean.

Consider Kap Jessup, on the Northern Coast, it doesn't get above freezing on an average basis until late July to early August, but is again below freezing by Mid September.

Nuuk, on the Southern coast, the average daily temp drops below freezing, a bit later, around Oct 1.

It stays this way until about mid April when temps again barely climb above freezing.

So, net/net, even the Southern most coastal zones of Greenland stay below freezing for more than half the year.

FYI Nuuk only gets to about an average daily temp of 44 degrees in the middle of the summer, so it never really gets warm.

To grow the crops that the Norse did in the MWP, it had to be quite a bit warmer.

So, like I said, Greenland is in no danger of melting.

Note, when they went to recover the Lost Squadron (P-38s that had crashed in Greenland in WW2), they were under 238 ft of Ice.

gpp1111 Author Profile Page :

Observation shows the theory of man made global warming to be false.

Global temperatures are cooling

Ocean temperatures are cooling

Polar ice levels are about the same as the past 30 years when adding the ice volumes at both poles together. Antarctica has the most ice ever recorded in 2008 which has compensated for the reduction in Summer Arctic ice.

Global hurricane storms and intensity are at record lows

Polar bear populations are three to five times larger than the 1950s

There were three ice ages with more CO2 than today, one had ten times more CO2.

The Sun is the primary driver of the climate. Solar activity is today at a century low, and if the past is a predictor of the future we should expect several decades of cooling temperatures, in fact this has already begun.

See all the data on this website

jcmurphy3 Author Profile Page :

I dont get it....11 years now we have been cooling ? Yet they say CO2 levels continue to rise ? If....CO2 levels are on there way up and the earth has continued to cool then i think we have found our answer for global warming....We need to continue to increase the amount of CO2 onto the atmosphere to have any chance of surviving the warming of our planet !!! Besides.....Ice is the enemy....Global warming never crept from either arctic pole and burnt the planet up ??? That was the ICE killed thousands, dispaced millions....Can you imagine if that where tohappen again ??? Well crap we would actually have to start heading SOUTH over the border..... !!

FredinVicksburg Author Profile Page :

Climate has been changing for about the last 20,000 years, i.e., since the end of the last ice age. It has not always been uniform as there have been mini ice ages, but the general trend has been warming, and the general trend of eustatic sea level has been upward (local sea level is affected by many factors including tectonic effects, so sometimes local relative sea level may go down). The correct term is actually climate variability, as variations are not uniform across the globe. The present concern is arctic warming which might, for example, melt the Greenland ice cap and raise sea level significantly. There is an underlying problem with changes in rainfall patterns that affect agricultural production. I would note that the so-called global warming does not mean that it is warm everywhere. I told my friends that fall went by in a flash this year. I think that I blinked and missed it. We now seem to be getting colder weather early, at least in this area (but Internet correspondents tell me that is also true in other areas).

SteveofCaley Author Profile Page :

Out of the many, Katavo's post hits the point. We are saddling broad-spectrum politics of the most ignorant sort onto the question.

We might as well try to moderate a battle between Sunni and Shi'a of the true role of Ali as Imam.

It's not a role where people will give you the benefit of the doubt. They are not there for discussion; rather, for combat on the side of the Virtuous.

Toasted1 Author Profile Page :

Many great scientists are telling you that you are driving 100 miles an hour toward a cliff, and it may be prudent to slow down. Besides, the oil, gas, and coal are not going anywhere, and will still be there if we want to use them. Global warming is a wakeup call to get cracking on developing alternatives to burning carbon, which people will have to do eventually.

adoucette Author Profile Page :

EaglePeak writes: Here in Alaska, one of the fastest warming places in the world, I have seen the warming with my own eyes over the past 30 years.

Which although true, misses the point that the climate in the Arctic CYCLES, mainly based on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). If Eagle was a tad older he would know that the previous 30 years were on a fast COOLING trend, from their peaks in the 30s, which were as warm as today.

The initial warming last century had nothing to do with CO2 so why does he think this current one does?

Oh, and by the way, the warming trend is OVER.

Minimum Ice has increased 23% in the Arctic for the last 2 years, and we just set 4,475 RECORD low temp and snowfall records last week in the US.,lowmax,snow

physicianexec Author Profile Page :

So what? The climate has always changed. The earth's climate is not static and never has been. Stopping "climate change" is like stopping diastrophism. Tell the earth's crust to just stop moving and volcanos to stop erupting. The poles have previously been tropical rain forests (ever wonder why there's oil up there?)at times while at other times, the ice caps have extended to nearly the equator. The earth's weather will continue to change. The notion that man can "stop climate change" is simply anthropoligic and meterologic narcissism. The earth will do what it is going to do long after homo sapiens is gone.

james_m_reilly1 Author Profile Page :

I hope they do something about global warming, I'm freezing my butt off here in NYC. Speaking of the impending disaster, it may give me an opportunity to finally buy one of those 25-60 million dollar apartments I've had my eye on for years at a bargain rate..The apartments will be under water within the next few years and these dopes don't have the brains to haul their multi million dollar art and French imported furniture to higher ground. After the water subsides I bet I will be able to buy one of these Fifth Ave apartments, French furnishings and art for maybe 10,000 dollars. I mean why not. The City will pretty much be deserted.

eaglepeak Author Profile Page :

It's amazing to me that deniers continue in their fantasy world. Here in Alaska, one of the fastest warming places in the world, I have seen the warming with my own eyes over the past 30 years. The measurable evidence is astounding. Things I designed for colder weather don't work so well. The real challenge is moving to rebalance things now. The payoff may not arrive for 3 to 5 more generations, which I will not be around to see. Yet I'll do my part while I'm here.

askgees Author Profile Page :

More DEM BS. One would think that after repeating their mistakes time and time again they would learn. But no they continue to trip over their own d$%ks. If you try creating industry out of made up issues you only set your self up for failure.

WilliamJW Author Profile Page :

It's really simple. What we are seeing is the same trash as we saw with the leaded gasoline and CFC controversies. Industry, orchestrated by the republican party, denies there is anything serious going on. They fish out some scientists willing to prostitute themselves and they engage the loud assistance of pundits to fire up the morons which constitute 90% of the republican party to battle the infamous liberals on this issue. After a while the evidence for a serious problem becomes so strong that no amount of lying and manipulation of facts can change the facts and action is taken. In the meantime we've lost years of opportunity to address the problem and eliminate it. What is wrong with these people? I don't get it.

WilliamJW Author Profile Page :

It's really simple. What we are seeing is the same trash as we saw with the leaded gasoline and CFC controversies. Industry, orchestrated by the republican party, denies there is anything serious going on. They fish out some scientists willing to prostitute themselves and they engage the loud assistance of pundits to fire up the morons which constitute 90% of the republican party to battle the infamous liberals on this issue. After a while the evidence for a serious problem becomes so strong that no amount of lying and manipulation of facts can change the facts and action is taken. In the meantime we've lost years of opportuity to address the problem and eliminate it. What is wrong with these people? I don't get it.

pjdl1 Author Profile Page :

The way the question is posed is incorrect in my opinion. The question should be "the science behind man caused global warming"


janwhite30 Author Profile Page :

I wonder what all the scientists and doomsayers would be saying at the beginning of the melting of the ice age?

gabordobay Author Profile Page :

We can not influence climate-change. As advocates get into a frenzy pitch trying to sell their agenda, over the last 10 years the earth has actually COOLED! In fact, many level-headed scientists forecast the beginning of the next small-ice-age, with very cold winters. Solar activity is at its lowest point, bewildering even our best scientists as to its effects to world-climate. It also is a fact that average ocean-temperatures are lower then they have been for quite a while. THESE ARE FACTS!!!

gneubeck Author Profile Page :

If the Global Warming enthusiasts were sincere in their intent to reduce CO2 emissions they would be actively promoting the significantly expanded use of Nuclear Power. Greg Neubeck

ajstrata Author Profile Page :

There are plenty of proven problems with the 'science' of global warming due to CO2 levels. Too many to list in one comment. All of which sum up to the conclusion that global warming is a very shaky theory, not even close to proven fact. I work with NASA and some of their top scientists, so I can say with confidence the source of global warming and its future path is completely unknown.

For instance, anyone who thinks we can use a sprinkling of unverified and uncalibrated thermometers on land (which is only 25% of the Earth's surface) and derive a planet wide 'normal' temperature to tenths of a degree is basically clueless to science and math.

And if you think we can extrapolate this kind of sensor network back 100 years and derive a global temperature each month within tenths of a degree all I can say is you will never grasp the limitations of sensors and mathematics.

The idea that we can create a historical global record of 'normal' temperatures to this level of precision is pure science fiction - as real as the transporters and trans-warp drive of Star Trek.

Think about it - we cannot even produce a daily temperature for the US within a tenth of a degree and determine it is 'normal'. When you look at the temperature ranges of deep cold in Alaska and unbearable heat in the deserts of the Southwest - what is 'normal'?

Americanus Author Profile Page :

The AGW alarmism, as it is presented to us by the left wing media, including WaPo, is a FRAUD - a SCAM, based on political desires of the international financiers and other globalists. Among other things, Man does NOT have the knowledge, nor the expertise, to CONTROL world climate in any way whatsoever. One eruption from Mt. Pinatubo, or any other significant volcano, can do more to temporarily change temperature than anything man can accomplish by holding our collective breaths and cramming butt plugs into cows. If AGW was a REAL problem, we would not be talking about SOLVING it with a worldwide carbon tax, by whatever name.

kathymac1 Author Profile Page :

yeah sitting in the outer banks of north carolina and it is 39 degrees. Penn State had 10 inches of snow on 10/16, a record, but we have global warning

jayhakes Author Profile Page :

For skeptics genuinely willing to look at the science, you might note that the early studies on the links between emissions and warming, now decades old, have held up very well. In the late 1970's, peer reviewed reports were saying the first impacts would be seen in Arctic areas, the effects of oceans and other factors would make temperatures rises nonlinear, etc. In all, the vast bulk of the data support the theory linking emissions and warming.

sophieora Author Profile Page :

I remember "global cooling" in the '70's. Doesn't anyone else? And the silencing of hundreds of professors who have disagreed. We exhale CO2. Does that mean we will get taxed? What junk science!

edbyronadams Author Profile Page :

Ignore the science. There is hardly a member of the public that understands it. The politics are much easier. The population of India and China want our standard of living and we are unwilling to make significant sacrifices in ours.

More fossil fuel will be burned and there is no conceivable way international politics will stop it. "It's the economy, stupid" triumphs in democracies and keeping potentially restive populations quiet triumphs in non democracies. You can line up scientific pronouncements from here to the moon and it won't alter the politics.

vballboy60 Author Profile Page :

There is no doubt that the Earth's six or seven billion humans are contributing compounds into our water, air and land reservoirs and that these reservoirs are not limitless dumping grounds.

What may have tarnished the "doubters" side of the discussion was that early "doubters" were linked to corporations that benefit from no change to emission management.

Global climate change attributed to our crowded Earth is likely. Predicting the exact changes is difficult.

To suggest that there will be no change to our environment from emissions from billions of humans (and that population is rising still) is absurd.

Toby1B Author Profile Page :

It is the phrase 'will be catastrophic' that is so mischievous.

Do all scientists say this? They do not.

And of all the scientists in the world - the only ones actually qualified to make any kind of prediction at all are statisticians who model possible outcomes of vast and complex statistical models - that even they themselves admit are hopelessly inadequate to the task.

What will the future actual rise be (if it does occur as predicted) and what would the effects of that be?

We do know now that Al Gores drowned Florida is predicted by no one at all - for example. As are many of the doom scenarios luridly painted on the worlds wall by a hysterical media - predicted by no one at all.

What the effect of placing a crushing and crippling burden upon the economies of the world will be, is, on the other hand, easy to predict.

I ask you this: what is more valuable - the future prosperity of the western world - or the maldive islands. ( you must be over 9 years old to answer this question )

jdadson Author Profile Page :

WaPo can pick a panel that says it's settled. I can pick a panel that says it's bunk.

What I want to see is a real debate, with academic debating rules, between well-qualified climate scientists on both sides. And yes, there are well-qualified climate scientists on both sides.

Does it bother anyone else that Al Gore refuses all debate challenges?

adoucette Author Profile Page :

What's Ironic about EnemyOfTheState's post is it presumes that skeptics are holding up anything.

What a laugh.

The Warmers have CLEARLY WON.

They have the major govt agencies, the UN created IPCC and the media all singing from the same hymn book.

Take a look at the US, Obama has the presidency and the Dems control both houses, but even so they can't come up with a solution that will do ANYTHING of any substance.

Then there is the upcoming UN/Copenhagen love fest, where Warmers will burn thousands of tons of jet fuel to gather together, spend a few weeks on our dime, dining and living lavishly, consuming thousands of bottles of whine, while deciding what our fate should be.

Guess what, it will also be a big nothing.

adoucette Author Profile Page :

Once again someone posts what they claim are FACTs, but with NOTHING to back up the claims.

Robert James claims that we put billions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere.

Except that CO2 is not a pollutant. It's the basis for all life on the planet. All the food that Robert has ever eaten started out as CO2.

To call CO2 a pollutant, one would have to call Wheat a pollutant as well.

Then Robert claims that the sunlight reaching the earth has dropped by 25% since the 60s.

Where does this misinformation come from?

In a NASA study, they found that we have not in fact, "fouled our nest", but that the Net Primary Productivity of the planet, the amount of terrestrial plant growth, is going UP by 3% per decade.

This is A STUNNING amount of greening of the planet.


Because plants LOVE Warmth, Sunshine, Water and CO2.

From the NASA study:

Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.

Importantly, increasing incident solar radiation was evident over radiation-limited regions of Western Europe and the equatorial tropics.

Most of the observed climatic changes have
been in the direction of reducing climatic constraints to plant growth.

EnemyOfTheState Author Profile Page :

The one question that remains to be answered by the small community of skeptics who believe that global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated on the business community is this: What if you're wrong?

Wouldn't a true conservative plan for the worst, even if he or she wasn't certain of the outcome?

dnjake Author Profile Page :

First of all, nobody but a small number of specialists can really evaluate the quality of the scientific knowledge about global warming. I do have a large amount of professional scientific training but not in the specific subjects that apply to global warming. But, as best I can make it out, the situation is fairly clear. There is good reason to believe that greenhouse gases can cause climate change. There is also good reason to fear that human impact the Earth could change the climate. But there is no simple relationship between the average level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the average temperature on Earth. Apparently there have been times when the carbon dioxide level was the same as today and the Earth was much warmer. The realistic consequence of this situation is that the quality of the scientific evidence on global warming seems to be relatively poor. There also appears to be a large amount of political motivation on the part of scientists on both sides of the issue. That reality makes it particularly difficult to evaluate the evidence. The bottom line is that currently it does not appear possible to adopt any particular policy and have any real confidence in its specific outcome. I strongly doubt that anyone is going to adopt policies that require major sacrifices in living standards without the certainty of science that can say both that those particular sacrifices are absolutely required and also that they will be enough to do the job. We need to be investing heavily in better science and also in potential technology to control the climate without sacrificing living standards.

robertjames1 Author Profile Page :

For a moment we can put to one side the notion that Climate Warming is man-made or part of an independent cycle.

We do know that we put billions of tonnes of air pollutants into the atmosphere every year and that the fouling of our nest accelerated when the Industrial Revolution commenced.

We do know that: (i)the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface is 25% less than it was in the 1960s; and, (ii)that the Green House effect stops the warm from cooling down.

Why do we dirty the air that we breath and accept the complications that flow from excessive polluting when we keep our own houses clean and we fine people who drop litter in the streets or pour contaminants into rivers?

I say that all of us should take steps to clean up the atmosphere.

kesac Author Profile Page :

History tells us that we have been there before and done that, and humans have improved their lot in life because of their need to adapt to the Medieval Heatwave, and the Little Ice Age, whose effects lasted from about 1350 AD to very recently. The earth is returning to it's most normal historical condition. In the Northern Hemisphere, that will mean that the temeperate grain belt migh be able to expand north into Mongolia, Russia, Canada, etc, and provide us an opportunity to be able to feed the soon to be 7 billion souls who will inhabit this earth.

alwaysAlabama Author Profile Page :

Global warming can be reversed, but it will require an international effort. Starting from what an indiviual can do. As is I definitely believe global warming will see us into the next century. Until we clear the sky of so many planes we need to consider funeral expenses before the cost of hospitaliztion. Cancers of the lungs, throat, increase in asthma etc. should be reason enough to jump on the problems. Stop building parking lots and placing forms of concrete where it is not needed, allow the earth to remain in its' natural form. I apply a minimum of this reasoning to the fact concrete at my back door,now I am closed in by heavy blinds/ curtains to escape this heat. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure what we are doing wrong, there is a need to apply rulings to disable those in whom are doing this and this in order to profit, to stop these hazardous conditions.

DavidWojickPhD Author Profile Page :

BELOWREY presents the scientific basis for the hypothesis of simple AGW as though it confirms that hypothesis. This is the recurrent pattern. It's like you people don't understand the science at all.

Let's make this real simple. Simple AGW says that CO2 is a GHG, so if CO2 goes up temperature must go up. But from 1940 to 1978 CO2 went up and temperature went down. Since 1998 CO2 went has gone way up and temperature has been flat. There is strong evidence, though not compelling, that it was just as warm 1000 years ago as today, when CO2 levels were much lower. So simple AGW simply does not work, period.

This is why the USA has spent roughly $30 billion on climate change research since 1990, and the rest of the world has spent about the same amount. This is why we have climate models running on supercomputers all over the world.

We are trying to figure out why the global temperature does what it does. CO2 is only part of the answer, and we so far don't know which part. Perhaps the missing point is that the temperature changes we are talking about are very small, much smaller than the year to year changes, which we also don't understand.

The simple fact that CO2 is a GHG proves nothing, it is only the basis for research.

David Wojick

adoucette Author Profile Page :

Comparing Venus to Earth shows how much you want to bend the science to make your point.

Forgetting that Venus is quite a bit closer to the sun than earth, the atmospheres of the planets are in no way shape or form at all similar.

The Venetian atmosphere has a mass that is 93 times greater than that of Earth's atmosphere giving it a pressure at the planet's surface that is likewise about 93 times that of the Earth.

As far as composition of this massively dense atmosphere it's virtually all CO2, at roughly ~97%, while CO2 in the earth's atmosphere is a puny .04%

Finally, Venus is hot, not from the greenhouse effect as BELOWRAY alludes to, because in fact the atmosphere is so reflective that Venus is the brightest object in the night sky besides the moon, but because it's DENSE atmosphere retains the heat being given off from the interior of the planet.

In fact Venus RADIATES 15% MORE heat than it receives from the sun (in effect, it's a little star, although not of the typical Hydrogen variety)

Venus is generating far more heat than it should. Note too, that this is estimated to be some 10,000 times more heat than the Earth. This might not necessarily require 10,000 times more radioactive elements. It might merely mean it has an Inner Sun which is more active than the one inside the Earth, and that Venus is better able to retain its heat. The source of this heat is a mystery. Clearly it is of internal origin and has nothing to do with the Sun, or the Greenhouse effect.


silencedogoodreturns Author Profile Page :

And what makes these people an "expert"?

If the earth hasn't warmed any at all in the last 10 years, yet we continue to stuff carbon emissions into the atmosphere, I guess even an idiot can see all this global warming nonsense is just that - nonsense.

EtaoinShrdlu50 Author Profile Page :

Except for Lomborg, It looks a lot like your "Panel" consists mainly of cheerleaders who are in favor of global warming. Some panel!
So to correct your apparent bias, how about choosing and adding a like no. of scientists who are NOT cheerleaders from a list of over 700 that you can find at

CapnRusty Author Profile Page :

What a farce. You provide a panel of nine to opine about "scientific doubt," choosing eight true believers who chant the mantra, while being sure that the one panelist who suggests that consensus is not science had a previous connection with the oil companies so as to discredit his opinion in most of your readers' minds. You don't want them to think; you just want them to keep chanting the mantra. This biased presentation reflects the modus operandi of the entire global warming movement.

belowrey Author Profile Page :

Never Scientific Doubt about What, Uncertainty is When

The ability of greenhouse gases to warm and modulate the earth’s temperature has been understood since John Tyndall measured the ability of ‘coal gases’ to absorb heat radiation in 1859. This is why the earth is not as cold as the moon, which is the same distance from the sun.

Carbon dioxide gas modulates our global temperature like a thermostat. Small amounts, about 270 ppm in the air, resulted in the warm earth of the last few thousands years. We’ve now added ~40% more CO2, which is measurable heating the globe. The effects of this increase are measurably underway now and get worse in this century.

The uncertainty is not what will happen but how fast. I first heard of greenhouse gases in 1964, after the Mariner discovered Venus is hotter than an oven. At that time I was told the consequences would show up in my grandson’s old age, so we had time to get a handle on the problem. What has changed the prognosis is per capita consumption of fossil fuels has grown markedly and the number of people has increased. Much more CO2 is being added to the atmosphere, and serious effects of global warming are showing up in my father’s old age.

The extra 40% CO2 in the air has not finished ‘cooking’ -- coming to the new equilibrium in the earth’s heat balance. We are adding more CO2 every day. The scientists’ predictions have understated the effects of increasing CO2. As an example the ice is melting faster than expected.

There is a noisy cottage industry of people who deny the science with disingenuous arguments. The intent is to spill out nonsense to the press to confuse the issue. For example, they claim it’s now cooling or plateaued. The science data shows our planet’s air is currently heating -- last month was the second hottest on record, in spite of the chill over the Eastern U.S.A. Who funds these deniers? A good story for the Washington Post to run!

People it’s time face this problem and get started taking action!

timscanlon Author Profile Page :

I wonder how many of these doubters & naysayers own oceanside burial plots? Might want to go with a foam filling for the vault, just in case.

On the other hand finding 'The Skull of Glenn Beck' worn by the sand, and grown green beards of seaweed might be the perfect `pirate treasure' for some little kid in the future.

timscanlon Author Profile Page :

Most of the problem stems from people wanting to persist in the idea that there is somehow an "away" they can throw things into without consequence for profit to themselves or their business. Making polluters act in an economically responsible way towards ecotoxins would take from them a sleazy profit. So they act like 2 year olds with an empire of overindulgent parents and nannies to throw fits, stomp their feet, and lie loudly with money to try to keep doing what they've been doing for so long.

NCindependentthinker Author Profile Page :

GNEUBECK's and others fear and hatred of Obama as president is evident in their opinions regrading climate science. The selective dismissal of science (e.g., chemistry and physics) to support political agenda is reprehensible. It is stupid and dangerous to ridicule the science supporting global warming and its effects because of politics. Who is agenda driven here? The science is overwhelming: earth's biosphere has dramatically risen in the last 150 years (arguing that this is natural based on earth's temperature record over the millennia is misleading, no other period has exhibited such temperature and CO2 level changes in such a short time), and 2) human-generated greenhouse gasses (such as CO2) are the best (indeed only cause supported by observation and theory) cause.

edgar_sousa Author Profile Page :

If you ask a washer person if clothes are dirty, the all say, yes, the clothes I see are dirty. Everyone here is an academician. Not one entrepreneur, not one person who is self employed, not one farmer, or rancher. All these experts make money if climate change actions occur. None has to make money with their own hands.

hlvandevort Author Profile Page :

The idea that man can control the elements that can cause a change in our climate is, in my opinion, not logical. The Sun, the ocean currents, the winds, the moon, the vegetation all work through a "Higher Power" to provide us with the elements that alow us to survive here on earth. We are but a "blip " in the grand plan that we live in. Don't fall for all the BS being said. Just follow the money.?

douglaslbarber Author Profile Page :

One inevitable uncertainty concerns the possibility that increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere - or global warming itself - will have some currently unanticipated effect which tends to counteract the warming tendency. Just to draw one out of a hat, suppose that a warming trend caused increasing cloudiness which in turn increased the planet's albedo, or reflectivity.

Such uncertainties about possible unanticipated consequences of known factors are, as I mentioned, always and everywhere inevitable in real science, and are no excuse for not acting on the current theories which enjoy the best evidentiary support. On the other hand, prudent scientists always bear the possibility in mind and keep an eye out for possible instances.

quirk Author Profile Page :

As I read them, every single bio sketch for this set of commentators includes one or more indicators of likely support for the environmentalist position. One is a Vice Provost for Sustainability; another works with an activist group; still another with the UN group promoting reforms. Not one is, for example, just a distinguished scientist, who even appears to be chosen at random. What are the editors thinking?

adoucette Author Profile Page :

Everything MSEALOC wrote that your teacher tought you, is in fact WRONG.

The jet stream meanders, but is no further South today than it was in the 40s.

The Sea Ice melts every summer in the Arctic and the Antarctic. Always has, but globally sea ice remains the same (it's a tad lower than normal in the Arctic and a tad higher than normal in the Antarctic), but in any case, the normal seasonal melting doesn't cool the coastal waters.

As to the Coasts, in fact, this year saw relatively warm coastal waters, particularly on the East coast.

The Gulf Stream hasn't slowed (beyond normal variations) and England hasn't cooled down (though recent summers weren't as warm as were forcast)

gneubeck Author Profile Page :

With the Nation in a deep recession, the Democrats in the House Of Representatives; and, now the Senate, without even knowing the content blundered thru Obama's "Cap and Tax Bill". Legislation that could well topple our economy into a depression. Pure fiscal insanity. For the Kool-aid addicts who believed Obama when he said that he would give a tax break to 95% of Americans, hold on to you wallets and prepare for the largest single regressive tax increase in American history. This "Global Warming" fraud will prove to be the biggest jobs killer ever conceived; and, simply ship millions of America jobs overseas to countries such as China and India. The next time you hear the ranting of an Obamanite, ask them why there is "NO" statistical correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures (the latter which actually have slightly decreased over the last decade) -and- why the temperature trend lines on Mars tracks identically with that on earth. ((Hint: the Sun is the only common denominator.)) In brief: global temperature variations correlate precisely with Solar activity. As for the sustained hype over Ice Cap melting and sea level rise, Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Davis Station in East Antarctica shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m. To emphasize the importance of these statistics, Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice pack. Now you know why the inventor of the internet, Albert Gore, refuses to debate the issue. The logic in this dilemma is exceedingly simple, our Dictatorial Marxist, Barack Obama, simply wants more control over your activities and lifestyle; and, the health of the American economy be dammed. It's essential that we clean house in the upcoming elections. Greg Neubeck

msealock Author Profile Page :

Way way back in the 40's I went to a small school in Maryland. Our teacher had the whole grade in one room. She was very knowledgeable...she taught us about GLOBAL WARMING...not by using that name but by telling us what would happen if the temperature warmed. First the jet stream would move further south...that would cause the northern tier of states to have a lot more cold..(gee isn't that happening now). Then the ice caps would melt and cool the ocean. This would cause the East Coast, West Coast to cool. It would also cause the Gulf Stream which carried warm to the European coast, especially England to cool. (Isn't that happening now). So no matter how the naysayers rant and rave about not being global warming, our wise old teacher taught us that were intelligent enough to pay attention and listen what would happen..AND AS FAR AS INTELLIGENT PEOPLE CAN SEE IT IS.

edbyronadams Author Profile Page :

The computer models are completely opaque to the average citizen. Trying to assert their "rightness" is not a matter of scientific analysis open to any educated member of society. Instead, it is an exercise in opinion surveys of scientists "in the know". The analogy that comes to mind to me is what the opinion surveys of economists and financial institution managers might have been if they were asked about the soundness of credit default swaps before the current financial imbroglio. Simply put, higher order analyses are little understood and prone to failure due to unforeseen influences.

Ignoring the science is actually the easier route to looking at this problem. Here is a simple political analysis that proves that doing something significant about the level of human ghg emissions is impossible. The Chinese hierarchy holds power not by any theoretical validity. Neither closer to god, nor closer to Marx, they hold power by delivering the goods to the people of China. They will not threaten the only basis they have to legitimacy for some global problem. Humans simply do not abandon the perks of power for such obscure notions. Therefore, Chinese emissions will grow unabated for the foreseeable future.

Let the great shouting match continue.

rreinecke1 Author Profile Page :

The hubris of the climate change or global warming debate is the assumption that man can and should live on earth without having any effect. Of course man affects climate, and all the rest of nature, in many ways, just like every other creature on earth. Man is a part of nature, not apart from it. Where did the belief that man should not affect climate come from anyway? Is this based on a religious premise that the world was created in one way and there should be no deviation from it? We need to accept that nature and earth are ever changing, that species come and go, that mountains are formed and erode, that man on earth was not always and here and will not always be here. Let's give up on this idea that man can somehow stop the earth from changing because of his presence. Earth is an ever changing ecosystem and to believe it should be otherwise is a futile effort.

bluetiger Author Profile Page :

The science appears unclear because it is an ongoing experiment. What they are left presenting is statistics. No one likes statistics, which stems from everyday life. "Why is it so hard to draw to an inside straight?" This is the age old dilemma since that excited scientist ran into the Vatican and said, Guess what I found out about the Sun and Earth."

Quite simply the argument needs to be repackaged. Say for example they say, "I've come up with a plan on how to deal with Miami when it goes under water. Or here is my plan to move all of New Orleans to higher ground. Or here is my plan for keeping 60 % of Washington DC above water and only loose the State Department and a few other buildings. Putting the results in real everyday terms will put those against you on the side of I don't want to do that lets find another way to handle the problem.

dunnhaupt Author Profile Page :

Of course there is no doubt that the Earth's climate is in flux and has always alternated between tropical and arctic periods. Petrified palm trees in northern Canada are proof of that. We are merely concerned whether an increase of CO2 can actually affect these natural climate changes.

katavo Author Profile Page :

This has become a political football in the culture war being waged by the liberals and conservatives.

Each side is absolutely certain they are right, bringing out charts and diagrams, having seminars, with x National Committee memos going out to the faithful showing how evil and stupid their political opponents are for believing as they do.

If we could free ourselves from the liberals and conservatives - you know, the kind of people who don't exist without some external identity attachment, perhaps we'd get to know some real objective facts in this debate.

The liberals see it as a moral issue, the conservatives as an economic issue. Somehow the science of it all is gone from the arguments ... although one hears each side using the word "science" it's really only being used as a rhetorical device

As things go, I don't expect we will know anything based on total reality until it's too late - or until it's not.

adoucette Author Profile Page :

WILI claims that while the CO2 levels were far higher, the sun was far cooler.

He states this like it’s a fact, but it’s not. The change in the sun's output over time is a hypothesis based on how we think the sun evolves, but we really don't know what its actual output was at various times in the past. Further, while the standard solar model does suggest that the sun gets brighter over time, the time frame for significant change is measured in Billions of years. But CO2 levels were far higher in the Eocene and that was just ~40 million years ago, when the sun's output, for all practical purposes, was the same as it is today.

Further, this simply brings up the unresolved paradox that while we think the sun should have gotten stronger over time, we know that the planet has been cooling down over time.
Roughly 3 million years ago, the planet really started to get cold, with most of the last 3 million years spent in an ice age. In fact today, we are currently in an interstitial, a brief warm period between massive glaciations.

A more pressing question might be how soon before the glaciers start covering the planet again?

adoucette Author Profile Page :

WILI claims that while the CO2 levels were far higher, the sun was far cooler.

He states this like it’s a fact, but it’s not. The change in the sun's output over time is a hypothesis based on how we think the sun evolves, but we really don't know what its actual output was at various times in the past. Further, while the standard solar model does suggest that the sun gets brighter over time, the time frame for significant change is measured in Billions of years. But CO2 levels were far higher in the Eocene and that was just ~40 million years ago, when the sun's output, for all practical purposes, was the same as it is today.

Further, this simply brings up the unresolved paradox that while we think the sun should have gotten stronger over time, we know that the planet has been cooling down over time.

Looking at this view of climate we can also see that roughly 3 million years ago, the planet really started to get cold, and if you'll notice we are currently in an interstitial (slightly above that dashed zero line), a brief warm period between massive glaciations.

A more pressing question might be how soon before the glaciers start covering the planet again?


Well this was the extent of glaciers just 18,000 years ago.

DavidWojickPhD Author Profile Page :

Panelist Donald Boesch's "Doubts About Us, Not Warming" once again presents what we may call the Simple Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis or SAGW (but with an oceanic twist). SAGW says CO2 is a GHG and is rising, the climate is warming, so CO2 is the cause. This is the beginning of the scientific debate, not the end. We have spent $60 billion trying to figure out if this hypothesis is true, so far unsuccessfully.

To do this he first says "However, even a Skeptical Scientist would have to conclude without doubt that -- based on evidence, not just theory -- humans are raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 traps heat, and the planet is accumulating heat."

That is it as far as presenting the science, simply SAGW. He admits that there may be some uncertainty in predicting the future (no kidding). He then suddenly says "Nonetheless, blatant disregard of the robustness of climate change science continues in some quarters." That CO2 is a GHG and is rising is not what today's climate science is about, for we have known this for a century, nor is there anything 'robust' about today's climate science. Climate science is trying to figure out why climate changes and so far has failed to do so.

Boesch claims that "The heat content of the Earth has continued to rise, with most of it stored in the ocean." He probably, hopefully, does not mean the heat content of the entire, mostly molten, Earth, but rather of the thin film ocean-atmosphere system. That ocean heat content has risen over the last 150 years is at best conjectural. (There is some systematic evidence that it has risen recently near the surface.) If it has this is no different from the fact that the atmospheric temperature has risen. The question is still why (see my prior posts on this)?

Just as with atmospheric temperature, or heat content (which is different), changes in ocean heat have to be explained as they occur. Waving one's had and saying it must be the CO2 is not science, it is conjecture. It is SAGW disguised as science. In fact we know very little about heat in the ocean over the last century, far less than about heat in the atmosphere. We have only a handful of studies, based on very poor data. If we can't explain relatively well known changes in the air, how can poorly known changes in the water resolve our uncertainty? They can't.

David Wojick

DavidWojickPhD Author Profile Page :

WILI's simple version of the AGW hypothesis exemplifies my point that "The fact that CO2 is a GHG and that computer models can be made to show human induced warming are starting points for the scientific debate, not end points."

Unlike WILI, science needs to go further and test this hypothesis against specific observations. So far that test has failed. Despite 20 years and $60 billion in research we still cannot explain the observed data via AGW. We have dozens of climate models, running on the world's fastest supercomputers, and they can't even agree with one another, much less with what we see happening.

Foe example, in the generally accepted surface temperature record it has only warmed for a single 20 year period during the last 70 years, roughly 1978-98. But CO2 levels have climbed steadily for the entire 70 years. The disconnect is obvious and elaborate theories have been proposed to explain it, but all are still conjectural, because there are too many.

Even worse, the far more accurate satellite record shows the warming in that 20 year period to consist of a single two year step up, flanked by flat temperatures. In other words, all the warming in the last 70 years appears to have occurred in just 2 years. This is completely inconsistent with the AGW hypothesis, and no one can explain it.

Under normal scientific circumstance these anomalies would be more than enough to falsify the AHW hypothesis. But belief in AGW is ideological, not scientific. This is why we see the leading science trade associations endorsing it, in concert with their governments. Fortunately, many members of both are still skeptical, as they ought to be, for the science is completely unsettled.

adoucette Author Profile Page :

WILI leaves out a few critical points.

One, Most of the CO2 we have produced has been absorbed by the plants and the oceans on the planet. Human's are resonsible for about 3% of the annual CO2 cycle. The importance of this slightly increased atmospheric CO2 has been an increase in the Net Primary Productivity of the planet by almost 3% per decade. A stunning amount of greening of the planet.

Two, that CO2 absorbtion of outdwelling IR is already near saturation and thus the relative impact of more CO2 decreases as the concentration rises.

Three, that the computer models of future warming use an unproven feedback mechanism where warming causes an increase in atmospheric water vapor and it is this increase in water vapor that is the hypothesized reason for the higher temps projected by the models. It's equally plausible that increased water vapor will lead to increased clouds which have a cooling effect. You just can't treat the models as if they are infallible, in fact the current temps fall below the lowest of the previous IPCC projections.

Four, that the IPCC only claims that it is likely that most of the warming of the last 50 years is due to anthropogenic reasons.
Most is not all, in fact it need not be more than 51% to meet their criteria (they declined to put a number on it), and so we are talking less than 1/2 of a degree over the period and the forcings also include Land Use Changes, Soot, Aerosols, NOx compounds, CFCs and Methane. To attribute ALL the warming to CO2 is simply wrong.

Five, That the climate began to warm well before CO2 began to rise and only shows a modest correlation to levels of CO2. Clearly there are a lot of factors at play that influence our climate, but ignoring all the other factors and focusing only on CO2 makes no sense.

Methane, Soot, CHCs, NOx and other aerosols are all known pollutants with no redeeming value and further each has much higher warming potential per unit than CO2.
Plans which focus only on CO2, and ignore these other pollutants, appear to have an ulterior motive.

CO2 is not a pollutant but is the basis for all food on this planet. It is also a byproduct of our use of energy and there is a clear correlation between human well being and access to energy. One can't just say, let's make energy more expensive (via subsidies for inefficient energy sources) or via cap and trade tax structures, without also showing how these very regressive policies will affect the population.

Limiting energy in the West, as is the plan, is a fool's errand, since the rest of the world, because of its growing population, is well on its way to be the dominate user of energy and producer of CO2 and further has no intention at all of curtailing their use of energy.

If you want to see where this is going, China passed the US several years ago as the largest source of CO2 and just passed the US in annual car production as well.

funareco Author Profile Page :

So, what’s in doubt behind the science about climate? Well, first of all it is “behind” the global warming issue, not supporting it from underneath. It is just pushing science towards imposing policies that have not “support from underneath.” We could say that climate scientists have been walking the pirate’s gangplanck and now are unable to go back to sanity and rethink what they’ve been doing –in view of the newest development in science and the news about how flawed are most studies supporting the AGW science .

There is no arguing about the fundamental laws that applies to climatology or atmospheric sciences; what’s in doubt is the opinion advanced as “evidence” from both sides of the issue. As in law trials, evidences are subject to scrutiny and if they are found not strong enough or have been falsified, they those presumed evidences must disappear from the debate. When there is strong refusal from one side to analyze the “evidence” presented by the other side, and they block almost constantly the access of that side to mainstream peer reviewed journals as Science and Nature, and then claim “there is no peer reviewed science against AGW hypothesis”, the picture becomes very clear, indeed. What are “warmists” afraid of? Losing their research money? Losing the opportunity to impose those taxes and destructive laws in their own interest?

I would say this belongs more to politics than science, and that’s the bottom of the issue: it is a more a geopolitical movement instead of a scientific issue. And most of all, the catastrophic warming issue disappears as soon as we take a look through the window and see that there is no catastrophe out there, and a look through history and see that there has been much warmer times before and thing were much better, not worse.

And, of course, the quiet anomalous state of the Sun and this long, long solar minimum that brought the cooling period we are entering in right now should be considered very seriously by governments instead of a nonexistent warming that has gone into the realms on ancient history. As a metaphore, Warmth is life: all living beings are warm; Cold is death: all dead creatures are cold. Let's have our planet warmer.

wili Author Profile Page :

The details may be complex, but the essentials are stunningly simple and completely uncontroversial:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, well known for well over a century

2) We have dumped hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution

3) Over that same time period atmospheric levels of CO2 have increased from 275 parts per million to about 390 today

4) Over that same period global temperatures have increased by about a degree F.

5) Every major, established scientific body in the world that has considered the matter has come to the (obvious) conclusion that these facts are related; specifically that there is global warming and we are causing it.

Those commenting to the contrary here are either A) ignorant or B) complicit in a well funded effort to misinform the public about this most important issue.

That they cleverly include half truths in their arguments suggests the latter to be the case. For example, while it is true that CO2 levels have been higher in the very distant past (though not, from latest research, for at least 15 million years), it is also obviously true that this was very long before any humans (or most other current species) existed on the planet. Even more important, this was when the sun was much cooler, so a higher level of CO2 merely kept global temperatures from dropping below survivable temperatures.

I don't enjoy being lied to about important issues that affect me and my children. I would ask those doing so here to desist at once.

MarkWill Author Profile Page :

There is nothing I love hearing from educated pundits more than, "The science is clear!" Especially, when their science ignores the fact that earth's climate is always changing. There has never been a time when the earth's climate has not been changing. The focus on reducing Co2 levels as the key to reducing climate change is akin to reducing ocean levels with a tea cup. There are too many other factors, to include that huge ball of fire in the sky, affecting our climate. Based on science, earth's history has included periods of extreme climate change. What caused the ice ages? What caused the global warming that ended the ice ages? How do you explain the science that indicates that earth's Co2 levels have been exponentially higher than they are now? I agree that it is imperative that humans stop polluting our planet. We can do better. However, I'm old enough to remember in the late 1970's when the clear science indicated we were headed to another ice age due to humans polluting the atmosphere. Lots of scientists ensured their economic status by a call to arms then. Now with the global economy sputtering and grants and funding drying up, scientists are again sounding the Armageddon alarm. Got to ensure that funding in these tough times huh? It makes me wonder if this is all about money. Going green sure seems profitable. Finally, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, why haven't we seen an increase over the past decade? Where are the coming super storms? Where are all the devastating earthquakes and disasters? How many out of the predicted hurricanes occurred in 2009? We've only been measuring earth's temperature for about 118 years. Is that really a good sampling on a planet that is 5-6 billion years old? Would we conduct scientific studies on the 6 billion or so humans on earth by sampling only 118 people? The bottom line is we have no idea how to predict earth's weather and climate change. However, we do know how to make money. ;-)

adoucette Author Profile Page :

Interesting that in all the comments, pretty much only CO2 is singled out, while other causes of warming such as land use changes, methane, black soot, Nitrous Oxides and CFCs are virtualy ignored.

The fact is there are a lot of "no regrets" changes we could make that would not harm our economies and also help to remove warming influences from our climate system. So why are these not mentioned. These others are all pollutants, but CO2 is considered evil even though it is the basis for all food on the planet, and as NASA scientists showed, the Net Primary Productivity of the planet is increasing.

And we know that the planet has had periods where CO2 levels were over 10 times higher than now, and yet the planet remained habitable, in fact it was quite lush, so to presume that it will be a dry burning desert, as some suggest, is sheer folly.

Then there is the call to reduce CO2 output to a tiny fraction of what they are today by 2050. But these calls are JUST to the industrialized contries. China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Packistan and Africa have no such intentions. They all were specifically left out of the Kyoto agreement.

When these discussions started, the US was the largest producer of CO2, but no longer, China passed the US years ago and indeed that corner of the world is increasing its use of fossil fuels at a prodigious rate, while the West is already stable to decreasing.

The fact is that harsh cuts in energy use in the industrialized west will simply hasten the transfer of manufacturing and technology and energy consumption to the developing countries, because when the population of the world grows by about 50% by the middle of this century, the energy use will not be any less than it is today.

Finally, if scientists REALLY thought that CO2 was such a dangourous gas, then they would actively support increased use of Nuclear power, since we have it today, it produces no CO2 and we could rapidly ramp it up to displace coal. The fact that Nuclear is almost never mentioned as a solution certainly makes you question the level of danger we face, since no one seems ready to grab that obvious and available solution. Instead they promote a disproportionate slashing of energy use by the west along with a massive wealth transfer from the the US and Europe to Asia, SA and Africa.

SteveSchulin Author Profile Page :

The alarm about CO2 and climate has always been based much more on what we don't know than on what we do know. David Wojick is right in portraying the calls for CO2 limits as unscientific. The climate science community has been lax in allowing the alarmists to run amock. Almost 40 years ago, the editor of Readers Digest published a book titled "Military Justice is to Justice what Military Music is to Music". In recent years, climate science has been related to science in the very same way. Some of the biggest companies in my own industry - nuclear power - have jumped on the alarmist bandwagon. That's a real shame. -- Steve Schulin (founding editor,

imcqueen Author Profile Page :

No knowledgeable person disputes that the world has warmed. It has. Maybe 0.6°C / 1°F since the Little Ice Age ended in the 1800s. What is disputed is the cause. Carbon dioxide has been portrayed as the demon, but anyone who looks beyond the glib assertions in the media realizes that climate is influenced by radiation from the earth, vast amounts of heat transported upward by evaporating water, temperature oscillations in the Altantic and Pacific, and many other influences. Blaming everything on the gas carbon dioxide, which is indispensible to all life on earth, is like passing off a child's finger painting as a Rembrandt.
There is NO scientific proof that CO2 has more than a minimal influence on climate. Anyone quoting the IPCC as a reference is demonstrating first-class naivete because they reveal that they know nothing about the shenanigans (for lack of a more elegant word) indulged in by that organization. Their reports were prepared by a small number of political appointees, not by scientists, and are full of intentional errors and omissions.
We must investigate the true cause(s) of climate changes (it is always changing) before governments in all countries bind us to actions that will do nothing for climate but which will severely damage our economies.
Ian L. McQueen
Glenwood, NB {Canada}

DavidWojickPhD Author Profile Page :

The science is now completely uncertain, because warming stopped about a decade ago while CO2 levels have risen steadily. We simply do not know how much of the past warming was due to natural variability and how much was due to human emissions, if any. The fact that CO2 is a GHG and that computer models can be made to show human induced warming are starting points for the scientific debate, not end points. Until these uncertainties are resolved we can make no firm statement about future climate nor man's role in it, if any. There may be no danger whatever. There is thus no scientific basis for action at this time.

Contact Us
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company