Just wait, someone will come in here and say that Bush made them use a fake picture.

Posted by: Matt at August 5, 2008 09:53 PM

I have a better answer -- just plain laziness and contempt for the reading American public that actually cares about such things.

Posted by: Mescalero at August 5, 2008 10:23 PM

I really like the landscaping though...

Posted by: Mark at August 5, 2008 10:49 PM

Are people still buying into this global warming hoax?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 6, 2008 04:04 AM

There is this public law, Data Quality Act(DAQ 2001) or some call it the Information Quality Act, which is supposed to stop false and fake data from being fed to the public from federal agencies and their contractors. Not many know about it, my guess is it's going to get a workout shortly.

Posted by: bill-tb at August 6, 2008 07:56 AM

this just proves that there is no global warming. The lefty scientists have no clue what they are talking about.

hey - does that Data Quality Act pertain to the CIA too? was it a law in 2002/2003?

Posted by: wage slave at August 6, 2008 10:16 PM

"Are people still buying into this global warming hoax?"

Are people still stupid enough not to believe in global warming?

Posted by: Fred Jones at August 7, 2008 08:58 AM

Yes, Fred.. more than 17,000 scientists. There is zero long-term evidence of climate change outside of normal long-term temperature variables. The global warming truthers--which apparently includes you--are basing their claims on computer models, not actual science, and their models have been proven wrong time and again. Remember the increase in powerful hurricanes they predicted?

Most of your buddies in the global warming truther movement are political appointees, not scientists.

Instead of global warming, we've actually had a slight cooling over the past two decades, again attributed to normal climactic variations, not manmade activity.

We should always try to be stewards of our environment, and I agree we shoudl do a better job of not wasting resources and cleaning up after ourselves, but the global warming/climate change crowd we see now are simply the ignorant fools who predicted in the 1970s that we'd be living under sheets of ice now because of man's actions, or the children of those fools.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 7, 2008 09:13 AM

Oops. was citing old figures from 2007 above. The number of scientists disputing global warming has doubled to 32,000 as of May of this year.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 7, 2008 09:16 AM

Tell you what, CY, why don't you just quit with the debunked info and then we can have a rational discussion. More than once as a matter of fact, the information you cite has been debunked.

but as to my original comment, what is it about gw you don't believe in? that it doesn't exist, or that humans are responsible?

Posted by: Fred Jones at August 7, 2008 09:28 AM

What "debunked" info Fred? There simply isn't credible, peer-reviewed empiritical evidence of global climate change attribute to CO2 emissions. Can you tell me how global warming is a "rational" position without the cold, hard science to back it up?

As I thought I made clear, there is no scientific proof (local or regional anecdotes of recent variations don't count, Fred, we're talking long-term planetary warming) of long-term global warming. It has actually cooled a bit, though even those numbers are well within normal variations. The earth has been far hotter than it is now, and we weren't around to cause it. It has also been far colder than it is now, and we were around to caose that, either. As a matter of fact, there is no proof that long-term CO2 is anything other than a marker, truthers have only assumed is is a trigger (which is a loopy assumption, at best).

There is no evidence of long term warming, therefore, people could not have caused it.

Just as people once though the world was flat, that the earth as the center of the universe, global warming theory is based on man's ego, thinking he is the cause and center of all things. GW Truthers are gnats on the wildshield, convincing themselves that they are not just driving the car, but that they helped build it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 7, 2008 09:46 AM

Awesome sourcing! 32,000 scientists...

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz.

Dr. Frederick Seitz (born July 4 1911; died March 2, 2008)[1] was a former head of Rockefeller University, a former head of the National Academy of Sciences and the principal scientific advisor to the R.J. Reynolds medical research program. In 1984 he co-founded the George C. Marshall Institute with Dr. Robert Jastrow and Dr. William Nierenberg. He was later the Chairman Emeritus of the Board of the Institute, an organization that has long denied global warming.

Posted by: otto at August 7, 2008 09:48 AM

Great job Otto... just 31,998 more scientists to try to impeach! Good luck with that.

Or, you could save yourself some time and prove two simple things with scientific facts.

(1). That the temperature of the Earth has warmed in the past 10/50/100/200/500/10,000 years, beyond accepted climatic variations. This is the "showstopper" if there is no proven warming trend outside of normal variations, there simply isn't warming.

(2). That CO2 measured in the atmosphere is the trigger (cause) of global warming, and not just occurring in concert with warming.

That's all I ask, guys, two very simple things.

As tens of thousands of scientists are hotly debating these points and there is not agreement with the truthers, then I'd say that the claims are unproven.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 7, 2008 10:12 AM

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research.

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign.

The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

Posted by: otto at August 7, 2008 10:26 AM

You didn't answer the questions, Otto.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 7, 2008 10:32 AM

CY - please do us all a favor and admit up front that there is no amount of scientific literature or consensus that will convince you of GW, as long as it remains a steadfast liberal belief.

So stop trotting out the cherry-picked scientific points to back your position, and just admit your position is simply anti-everything liberals believe.

Posted by: jesus saves all at August 7, 2008 10:32 AM

I'll take the science, jsl. That's all I ask for.

Bring out your ad homs, your appeals to authority, everything you feel if that convinces you global warming is real.

I just want to see simple evidence that the world is actually hotter than normal variations allow.

Or is asking for even that very minimal scientific proof a conservative position now?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 7, 2008 10:39 AM

"In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, posted his first Global Warming skeptic petition, on the Institute's website (oism.org). It quickly attracted the signatures of more than 17,000 Americans who held college degrees in science. Widely known as the Oregon Petition, it became a counter-weight for the "all scientists agree" mantra of the man-man Global Warming crowd."

"...17,000 Americans who held college degrees in science"

I guess that would include Billy Bob with a bachelor's degree in Veterinary Science. My, how authoritative!

R.Mutt

Posted by: R.Mutt at August 7, 2008 11:20 AM

Still unable to answer the simplest questions of all, I see, trying to talk around these common sense, rudimentary questions, instead of addressing them like rational adults.

One more time for you global warming truthers:

(1). Prove that the temperature of the Earth has warmed in the past 10/50/100/200/500/10,000 years, beyond accepted climatic variations.

I'm giving you a wide range of time periods to choose from, just stipulating that we're talking global temperature variations outside the norm.

This is the "showstopper." If there is no proven warming trend outside of normal variations, there simply isn't warming, and the entire global warming truther movement is a fraud.

Any attempts to to dodge this simple truth, redirect the thread, or attack critics, will be deleted.

Simply prove your deeply-held beliefs with credible scientific data proving that the Earth has warmed.

If you get that far, we'll move on to step 2, examining whether or not there is data supporting the theory that man-made CO2 is the trigger.

Unless, of course, asking for proof is too "reality-based" for your liking.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 7, 2008 11:40 AM

Kids: Wikipedia isn't scientific proof. Jeez.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 7, 2008 12:28 PM

please do us all a favor and admit up front that there is no amount of scientific literature or consensus that will convince you of GW

To heck with scientific evidence, what we really need are digitally altered photos of houses with flooded front yards to convince people that anthropogenic global warming is real!

And if that doesn't work, just advocate show trials of those who disagree with you. Hey, it worked for the medieval Roman Catholic church... no one believes that Copernicus was right when he said the earth orbits the sun instead of the other way around.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 7, 2008 05:52 PM

Erm, as far as the Oregon petition ("32000 scientists") you're pretty much making yourself look like a doofus with that. They're not climate or atmospheric scientists; they're people who claim to have at least a BS in a science. And I know that engineers and doctors are often at least fairly intelligent, but the signatories to this petition are less than one tenth of one percent of *that* population. In other words, a TINY MINORITY.

Posted by: Doctorb at August 7, 2008 09:50 PM

CY: Wikipedia isn't scientific proof, agreed. However, the references at the bottom of the page, complete with easy-to-click links, are. Wikipedia is a nice shortcut to all that proof you are seeking to deny.

Nice try...

Posted by: Sir Craig at August 8, 2008 10:56 AM

What I would like to know is what is the CY theory on how dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere does not cause warming? What is the mechanism? Climatologists have their theory on the role of CO2, what's yours?

Posted by: noen at August 8, 2008 03:05 PM

noen, the Earth's atmosphere is 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and just 0.038% carbon dioxide. CO2 makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent. You know that, right?

There is a far simpler, common sense explanation right outside your window. See that giant burning ball of hydrogen we call the sun?

It has cycles, and puts out varying but always tremendous amounts of energy, as it has since the beginning. When it hits particularly active periods and gives off more energy, Earth tends to warms up. When it enters a "cool" phase with lesser activity, the Earth generally cools down.

That theory hold a lot better over time than your nutty global warming theorists that want to conveniently ignore the entire climatic and geologic record dating back millions of years so that they can merely cling to their theory that the slight rise in a negligible atmospheric gas since WWII will wipe out life as we know it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 8, 2008 03:22 PM

Nova just aired a program entitled “The Megaflood”. It described how glacial activity formed a giant lake called Glacial Lake Missoula in Montana. The glacial walls that contained the water were over 3000 feet high and created a lake over 1000 feet deep. (Think about that scale for a moment.)

When the walls weakened and failed the 500 cubic miles of water (equal to 1/2 the water in the current Lake Michigan) surged out and scoured the earth for 500 miles as the flood coursed to the Pacific Ocean. Stunning.

Did I mention that this has happened TWICE in the last 15,000 years?

How could this have happened? Global climate cycle linked to solar output? Nah! Not possible, says algore and his disciples - these things only happen because mankind is ungoverned and is bespoiling our fair planet.

Posted by: in_awe at August 8, 2008 05:31 PM

Hey, noen, you did realize that there are organisms on this here ball of dirt that actually use CO2 in their metabolic processes, right?

They're called plants.

So what happens to worldwide plant populations if atmospheric CO2 levels rise, noen? Logic suggests that increased CO2 would lead to increased plant population, as nearly any population increases when the food source increases.

Can you find me a scientific paper (not from any global warming zealots, thanks) that shows results of an actual study of this question? I'd really honestly be interested in reading it.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 8, 2008 10:38 PM

Thanks CY but you didn't actually answer my question. My question was that since we dump tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (one trillion tons so far) and since elementary physics tells us that CO2 absorbs the sun's heat, I was wondering what your counter theory is. Pointing out that CO2 is at 0.038% is a non sequitur. As I am sure you understand, even a light change in the percent of O2 makes quite a difference. And your theory that "It's the sun" has been debunked countless times.

CCG - I am sure that if one could do science from your couch you'd win the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately real science is done by experiment.
Food-crop yields in future greenhouse-gas conditions lower than expected
www(dot)news(dot)uiuc(dot)edu/news/06/0629soyface(dot)html

Posted by: noen at August 9, 2008 03:58 AM

noen, I didn't specify food crops, nor food crop yields. I specified only plant population.

Next time, try answering the question that's asked of you, not the best question to prove your pre-determined opinion.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 9, 2008 12:36 PM

Food crops and food crop yields are what people are interested in because of the impact it will have on people. No one really cares if poison ivy does well. The question is simplistic and ignores real world issues anyway. Plants are affected by more than just CO2 and as the climate changes they will be unable to adapt to the new climate fast enough. Having more CO2 available won't make a bit of difference if there is flooding, or too little rain, or it's too hot, or too cold.

All Mediterranean climates are becoming desert. Having more CO2 won't help the vegetation cope with that. It will simply burn off as is happening in California. All Arctic climates are being forced off planet. The plants and animals adapted to live in arctic climates are finding less and less area in which to live. Eventually there will be no where for them to go and they will simply die.

I thought conservatives were all about conserving things? Didn't Jesus Christ command us to be stewards of the Earth? This is an important issue, more important than wining petty debating points on some blog.

Posted by: noen at August 9, 2008 01:18 PM

noen, if you can't find the research I requested, or if you found it but don't want to post it because it undercuts your position, just say so.

All the unnecessary fol-de-rol just makes it crystal clear that you're spinning as fast as my SUV's driveshaft on the freeway.

Like I said before, answer the question that's put to you.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 9, 2008 03:06 PM

noen,

As per 'theories' - I disagree. Theories are proven science. AGW (and the Sun Cycle) are only hypotheses.

Physics (spectroscopy to be exact) shows us ALL atmospheric molecules/elements/atoms 'absorb' solar radiation. Therefore, your idea on CO2 being the culpable element to absorb enough solar radiation to heat the planet is, by and large, negligible. Any molecule (atom) that absorbs energy will also emit energy due to the transitions of the electrons in their outer shells (among other things - thermodynamics anyone?). Furthermore, CO2 is a "planar" molecule. This means the atoms are O=C=O in a 'straight-line' fashion. It is also 'magnetically neutral'. Oxygen has 6 electrons and Carbon 4 in their outer shells. CO2's bonds are 'double bonds' between the atoms.

Now that we are done with CO2, let’s talk about H2O. H2O has a much greater chance to 'absorb' solar energy in sufficient quantities to heat (or cool) the planet. H2O's greater ability comes from its structure: it is a 'bent' molecule due to the bonding of 2 Hydrogens to one Oxygen. The Hydrogen atoms only have 1 electron in their outer shell where Oxygen has 6.

When the Hydrogens bond to an Oxygen to make H2O, the molecule ends up with a greater negative charge in one of the spherical hemispheres. This causes the structure to 'bend' into a fairly wide "V". Put the Hydrogen atoms at the tops of the "V" and the Oxygen at the bottom. This structure causes what is known as a "di-pole moment" and makes the molecule no longer "magnetically neutral". This can be demonstrated by liquid water's ability of 'surface tension'.

Now, H2O in gaseous form still has that structure to the molecule and even though the distance between molecules is increased, the di-pole moment still is in play. This bent structure allows H2O to do some pretty cool things including create clouds.

If you really want to discuss clouds, their creation, and their effects upon the Earth - I'm game.

Posted by: Mark at August 9, 2008 04:35 PM

Mark, you have no idea what you're talking about do you? How CO2 contributes to warming is well known and established science. Not even the most ignorant denialists will claim it doesn't. But by all means, publish your paper and collect your Nobel prize.

RealClimate
"Water vapour: feedback or forcing?"

"Long-wave (or thermal) radiation is emitted from the surface of the planet and is largely absorbed in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the principle absorber of this radiation (and acknowledged as such by everybody). But exactly how important is it? In terms of mass, water vapour is much more prevalent (about 0.3% of atmospheric mass, compared to about 0.06% for CO2), and so is ~80% of all greenhouse gases by mass (~90% by volume). However, the radiative importance is less (since all molecules are not created equal). One way to quantify this is to take a radiation model and remove each long-wave absorber (principally the greenhouse gases, but also clouds and aerosols) and see what difference it makes to the amount of long-wave absorbed. This gives the minimum effect from each component. The complementary calculation, using only each particular absorber in turn, gives the maximum effect. Generally these will not be equal because of overlaps in the absorbing spectra (i.e. radiation at a particular frequency can either be absorbed by water vapour or CO2)."

Wikipedia
"Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable.[25][26] On Earth, the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent.[27][28] The issue is how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of some greenhouse gases."

Posted by: noen at August 9, 2008 09:51 PM

noen,

Do you have your degree in a hard science at hand? If so, please destroy it by the most convenient means.

On Earth, the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent;

You have merely 'proven' my point that water vapor is MUCH greater in effect than CO2. ('Proven' with a rather unreliable source, I might add.)

Furthermore,

Long-wave (or thermal) radiation is emitted from the surface of the planet and is largely absorbed in the atmosphere.

this statement is not accurate. The variables it ignores include little things like the amount of atmosphere between the radiating point being measured and the end of the atmosphere including what is between that point...such as clouds. Clouds = 99.99999% (or so) water vapor (of course there are different kinds of clouds but I am speaking of that which is 'normal'). They have the ability to insulate the radiating point when that point is behind the terminus (aka, the "dark side"). When clouds are ahead of the terminus (aka, illuminated by the sun) they reflect more energy - both long and short wave - than they insulate and/or absorb.

Posted by: Mark at August 10, 2008 11:08 AM

Go easy on noen, Mark... he didn't realize that water vapor is merely H2O in its gaseous state, because AlGore hasn't included that in his talking points.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 10, 2008 11:37 AM

One question, CCG - why? He fails to use basic scientific methodology. His quotes are from Wikipedia which is heavily moderated by "pro-AGW" truthers. He fails to use logic when he does quote this highly suspect 'source' on the subject. He fails completely to be 'skeptical', as all good scientists are, on ‘new hypotheses’. If he does hold a degree in a hard science, I would be willing to bet he got it from a Cracker Jack(TM) box.

Alas, that rant aside, how about we do a simple thought experiment? You game, noen?

Posted by: Mark at August 10, 2008 07:15 PM

By the way, noen, I am still waiting for that research I asked for.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2008 07:16 AM

"You have merely 'proven' my point that water vapor is MUCH greater in effect than CO2. ('Proven' with a rather unreliable source, I might add.)"

In addition to this. Humans at most contribute only about .02% of the water vapor. Can you please explain to me how .02% can cause these catastrophic effects that the AGW idiots claim will happen?

Posted by: Matt at August 11, 2008 03:58 PM

Basically, Matt, you've got it already. The human added portion is also negligible. However your question does lead into my proposed thought experiment.

I'll keep this as brief as possible. As the water vapor % increases in the atmosphere, the probability of cloud formation increases in a 'Gaussian' or statistcally 'normal' distribution. This means more cloud cover of the earth's surface on average per day/year/etc. Since this will happen on a global scale, illuminated/non-illuminated portions really don't matter much except for this: when cloud formation ocurs in the 'current' illuminated portion of the earth it will reflect more solar radiation than the energy insulated on the corresponding non-illumitated portion.

Since cloud cover over time will be increased in a normal statistical manner, this will result in a cooler planet.

The thought experiment goes as follows:
Melt the ice-caps and increase sea levels by 10-100 meters. Short term global warming will cause this and the increases water vapor will add to the process until the tipping point is reached. However, more of the planet's surface area will be covered with 'fee' water. This will allow the higher temps of a 'warmed' planet to evaporate more of that water, due to the water cycle, into the atmosphere leading to more clouds.

In the short term, the planet will indeed be 'hotter' but the increased clouds, again over time, will cause the planet to cool dramaticly. This will lead to an Ice Age. Won't happen in our life-times but will happen in relatively short geologic time.

Posted by: Mark at August 11, 2008 11:14 PM

Sorry for the mispellings and failure to proof-read. I was tired and just put it up :)

Posted by: Mark at August 11, 2008 11:18 PM