George Taylor: Nonsense

In Monday's Salem Statesman-Journal, Brian Hines - who blogs here - had an excellent letter to the editor. Here it is:

On Friday, Feb. 9, George Taylor was a Statesman Journal "winner" for challenging the conventional science about global warming. I assume the editorial board will next applaud those who still believe the Earth is flat.

There's a big difference between skepticism and ignorance. Taylor, who uses the title of state climatologist (even though this position doesn't officially exist anymore), says that it is unsure whether carbon dioxide causes atmospheric warming.

When I heard him say this on a right-wing radio talk show, I e-mailed a respected scientist at Oregon State University's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences. Professor Jim Coakley told me, "George's assertion that we can't prove whether CO2 causes warming or cooling, is, of course, nonsense."

The scientific evidence is clear: Human-caused global warming is occurring due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Taylor doesn't contribute to genuine scientific debate in this area. He doesn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. He simply uses his soapbox of head of the Oregon Climate Service to echo the party line of global-warming deniers: "The science isn't in."

But it is. George Taylor is misinformed, not a skeptic. That makes him a loser, not a winner.

Discuss.

Comments

  • Thomas Ware (unverified)
    (Show?)

    But, but, but... the world is Flat.

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Another reminder, those interested in the scientific Summary for Policymakers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can find it here.

    And actually, it's Thomas Friedman who is flat.

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am awaiting confirmation from the editorial board of the Salem Statesman-Journal that they are about to publish my revolutionary research paper which conclusively demonstrates a link between witchcraft and male pattern baldness. Given their admiration for Mr. Taylor and his academic "qualifications", they will no doubt wish to nominate me for a Nobel prize.

    Now, back to the laboratory.

  • (Show?)

    That is an astounding assertion for Coakley to make.

    He actually said that it has been "PROVEN" that CO2 causes global warming? He's not just talking about the climate models, but that it has been scientifically proven?

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Read this:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

    If after reading the above you still dispute the scientific proof that CO2 and Methane cause global warming, you are either crazy or smarter than the best scientific minds in the world.

    However, and in contradiction to the above, I understand that Dick Cheney has just finished his own research project in the basement of Blair House and he has discovered that global warming is actually a plot jointly organized by MoveOn.org and the Iranian President. Bombing will begin shortly.

  • Larry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Of course it has been proven.

    And therefore, no more debate on the subject is needed.

    So, if anybody wants to continue to debate what no longer needs to be debated, we must shout him/her down, with the slogan "This has already been proven!" or better yet "You don't believe the dogma, you must believe the Earth is flat!"

    Because, as we all know, it has already been proven. The science is in, we don't need any additional science, since our dogma has been realized.

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The science is in, we don't need any additional science, since our dogma has been realized.

    If you actually look at the IPCC publication that I mentioned above, you will find that the scientific panel in fact lays out exactly the sort of research would be useful for better understanding climate change.

    Also, which dogma exactly is it that you believe has been realized?

  • Larry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Which dogma?

    Well, the self-actualizing dogma that ate my karma, of course! Okay, that was a joke.

    Which dogma, you ask?

    Well, the dogma that has to stop all dissent against the prevailing viewpoint of the day.

    You know, the dogma that George Bush uses when he states that anybody who asks "Howzit goin in Arack?", the dogma that replies with: "You just want Al Kieder to win that war, doncha? Doncha? ...you pinko commie!"

    Dogma should not stop dissent, nor should it stop asking for more data. To say that this issue is resolved, nor more science nor investigation, nor data is needed....well that is the dogma that must be stopped.

  • JMG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nobel Prize winning chemist Svante Arhennius theorized and showed that CO2 caused warming around 1900. Nobody, but nobody doubts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it causes global warming; even the coal-industry's "Greening Earth Society" never tried to claim otherwise (they just suggested it would be a good thing).

    Anyone who wants to claim that it's scientific tyranny to refuse to debate whether CO2 causes global warming is simply a troll trying to avoid discussing the real issue, which is what we have to do to avoid the worst consequences of all the CO2 we've already emitted (and are continuing to emit in ever greater amounts annually).

    See www.realclimate.org for the science (by real climate scientists).

  • Roxanne Bruns (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here is what I don’t understand about this debate, and maybe you folks can help me. Even IF global warming were not caused by humans, what is the harm in cutting down on greenhouse gases and trying to squeeze more miles per gallon out of our cars (or gasp expand public transit). Sure there is an economic harm, but it seems that improvements to health (read: less asthma, etc) and improving technology are both dramatic benefits. -That's not to mention that if we just might be correct in acknowledging the vast preponderance of science on the issue we might be able to reverse dramatic climate change as well...

  • (Show?)

    Roxanne, you're exactly right.

  • Jon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sure, greenhouse gases are causing global warming, but there is no proof we humans are the the reason.

    And I think George Carlin said it best- The earth isnt going anywhere, folks. We are.

  • BrianM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sure, greenhouse gases are causing global warming.

    Sure, humans produce a large amount of greenhouse gases via industry and combustion.

    Sure, it's very simple to demonstrate that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has risen in frighteningly dramatic fashion in the last 100-200 years.

    Sure, carbon is a greenhouse gas.

    Sure, the amount of atmospheric carbon directly correlates to global temperature, in the several ways in which we are able to measure historical trends.

    Sure, the converging evidence from several differing methodologies points strongly to a future of severe global climate change that can drastically alter geography and human existence.

    Sure, an overwhelming number of scientists have looked at the data and have gone on the record as saying that the conclusions are inescapable to any reasonable person.

    Sure, even scientists like George Taylor have said that if the global climate change deniers (like himself) are wrong that the consequences will be disastrous for human civilization.

    Sure, sometimes, rarely, a global climate change denier may agree with one or even several of the points above.

    ...still, there's three things deniers can cling to:

    1) Any normal level of scientific debate (which, to any reasonable person, does not change the big picture) can be blown up by a denier to mean that "the science isn't in".

    2) Abnormal and irrational "up is down" opinions can be purchased in a free market to create "dissent" even if it doesn't exist.

    3) And finally, trying to get a denier to admit to the big picture can be unfairly categorized as "stifling dissent".

    Do I have that correct, wingnuts? I really grow tired of all their rhetorical tricks and nonsense. They abuse logical thought in ways they don't even understand.

    Why don't you just go play in your little fantasy worlds and let the adults worry about the big picture for a while? You've had your chance for the last couple thousand years. Let's let science, rationalism, and logical thought have a chance, eh?

  • Jon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sure, carbon is a greenhouse gas.

    So is water vapor. And its actually the largest contributor to the "greenhouse effect".

    BTW, without this "greenhouse effect"....life wouldnt exist on this planet.

  • BrianM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jon:

    Thank you for proving my point regarding deniers. You've learned one rhetorical trick - taking one point out of context and using that to discredit the larger picture. Very good, you get a gold star in illogical thinking!

    But, even better, your micro-understanding of one factoid demonstrates that you're again denying (whether purposely or through ignorance) the larger picture.

    Yes, an excess of water vapor in the atmosphere is a bad thing. If the global average temperature rises, that means more evaporation, putting more water vapor into the air, and causing things like droughts or flooding (depending on geography) on a local, though catastrophic, scale.

    And yes, to some extent, the presence of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other elements in our atmosphere has led to this point of life - if there's an excess of those things, in ratios vastly different than historically measured, then wouldn't that mean that somethin's gotta change?

    But, back to the original topic of the thread - yeah, people who deny global climate change are, indeed, spouting nonsense. That includes George Taylor, the Salem Statesman-Journal editorial board, and "jon". Y'all run along now, and let the vast majority who agree on the data and conclusions work on finding a solution. Lucky for all y'all deniers, the solution will work for you whether you believe in global climate change or not. That's just the kind of people progressives are.

  • Jon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Im not denying climate change. I do have eyes. Im just not convinced humans are the reason. It does seem pretty clear that for some the "facts" are due more to politics than science.

  • BrianM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I'm not denying [micro-evolution exists]. I'm just not convinced that [evolution can create new species]."

    The format of the arguments never change. They just learn new buzzwords to help them deny anything that threatens their ideology.

    So the fact that atmospheric carbon has increased on a greater scale of magnitude since the Industrial Revolution than it has during the entire measurable historical time-period previous, is not sufficient evidence of a human cause?

    Bah, this is pointless. Even if a denier such as "jon" admits to one small piece of the big picture, he's got plenty of nooks and crannies in which to hide, and delay, and obfuscate.

    I just had a realization - this "agree with one small part but deny the big picture" is the same dishonest argument known as "God of the gaps".

    And "jon", the reason that politics is involved, is because the deniers make it political; it threatens their pocketbooks, and the business interests used their money to buy political support. To everyone else, it's a human crisis that must be averted.

    Get with the program or get out of everyone's way.

  • tl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jon,

    Just curious, what kind of scientific evidence would convince you that humans were responsible for global warming and increases in C02?

    I'm not trying to being sarcastic or mean. I really am curious. -T

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BrianM posted: "Y'all run along now, and let the vast majority who agree on the data and conclusions work on finding a solution. Lucky for all y'all deniers, the solution will work for you whether you believe in global climate change or not. That's just the kind of people progressives are."

    But what solution is BrianM talking about? Kyoto? Please.

    I don't know about all progressives, but based on his comments on this blog, he's right about himself. That apparently IS just the kind of person BrianM is. Arrogant. Condescending. Dismissive. Surely a superior human being.

    The simple fact is, while Brian attacks the comments of some posters as being rhetorical tricks and nonsense, he is employing a tactic used by his kind at nearly every GW blog and as described here by a Ph.D. in climatology:

    Sure, the BrianM's of the world seem harmeless enough. After all, he really has no power or direct influence over you...he can't withhold your next paycheck or get you demoted if you disagree with him...so it's not like you're going to stop thinking for yourself just because he's telling you the Nanny State has everything already figured out. But harmless he is not. The BrianM's of the world are the useful idiots of the anthropogenic GW cause. Without a worldwide human army of GW propagandists ready to strike from their keyboards at a blog near you, the GW industry doesn't stand a chance. Don't take my word for it...read here about those who are vying for BrianM's undivided attention...and who don't want him exposed to the substantial scientific debate that clearly does exist. Real science is refined by leveraging multiple points of view...and real scientists don't squelch the study of scientific alternatives.

    As in the opener to this blog above, every time someone pens an attack on George Taylor of late - there is an attempt to discredit him with reference to his title. Ironically, the folks who do so are the very same ones who accept without question the work of another group that gave itself an official and authoritative sounding title: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Anyone who's done any research on the IPCC is skeptical about them for the following reasons: 1) The IPCC is a UN organization. 2) Maurice Strong. Look him up. He is the godfather of the IPCC, having served as Secretary-General of the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment and Secretary-General of the 1992 UN Earth Summit. Strong believes in a one world government, and is known for hijacking unsound environmental theories as a basis to further his vision of UN global governance. For this reason, he was a big backer of Kyoto, his latest hijacked theory being anthropogenic GW. 3) Like the UN, the IPCC is an intergovernmental organization pre-disposed to reach consensus, regardless of the actual opinions and dissent by voting members, meaning most of its work and conclusions are driven more by politics than science. Former members have resigned in protest due to its scientifically unsound approach. To hide dissent among its members, the IPCC uses summaries of their work that can misrepresent what many of the scientists say. In some cases entire chapters that don't support the intended summary message are condensed to just a sentence. It also uses language that means different things to scientists and laymen, in an attempt to exploit public ignorance over the subject matter. While the IPCC report is presented as a consensus among hundreds or thousands of scientists, none of them are actually asked if they agree with anything in the report EXCEPT for the chapter/pages they themselves worked on. Further watering down the IPCC's credibility - its emphasis as an intergovernmental agency is to get representation from 100+ countries. Because only a handful of countries do quality climate research, representation by qualified scientists is made a secondary concern. 4) The IPCC claims its report is peer-reviewed. In true scientific fashion, this would mean a panel of reviewers must accept a study (including an objection/answer process) before it can be published. The IPCC does not do this. Instead, authors are at liberty to ignore criticism, and have their work published "as-is" with the list of reviewers still appearing in the report, feining the appearnace of peer-review approval. 5) To lend legitimacy to its conclusions, the IPCC and other “consensus” studies have re-written the climate record by eliminating the prosperous Medieval Warm Period of the 12th and 13th centuries that had been recognized in climate textbooks for decades and had appeared in earlier IPCC reports. Only by pretending this warm period never happened can they now show the so-called ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph and claim we are living in the hottest period of the last millennium.

  • BrianM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Rather than hijack the thread, I'll post my public shaming of the DJ's and jon's of the organized global climate change denier movement at my own blog.

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Anyone who's done any research on the IPCC is skeptical about them for the following reasons: The IPCC is a UN organization...Like the UN, the IPCC is an intergovernmental organization pre-disposed to reach consensus, regardless of the actual opinions and dissent by voting members, meaning most of its work and conclusions are driven more by politics than science. Former members have resigned in protest due to its scientifically unsound approach. To hide dissent among its members, the IPCC uses summaries of their work that can misrepresent what many of the scientists say. In some cases entire chapters that don't support the intended summary message are condensed to just a sentence.

    Without commenting at all on the scientific merits of the IPCC, two things:

    1) I believe there has in fact been a single resignation, a fellow named Landsea who works for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in connection with his unhappiness about the PICC's interpretation of possible linkage between hurricane frequency and climate change. NOAA has issued rather strongly worded statements denying such a linkage.

    2) A paleoclimatologist friend of mine who actually has served on the panel explained to me that EVERY bit redrafting, EVERY editorial change, is archived and available to anyone sufficiently interested.

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry, that was obviously supposed to be IPCC, not PICC.

  • alantex (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm posting this everywhere I see global warming deniers at work: Let's just ignore them. They are trolls, let's treat them like trolls and ignore them. If someone innocently asks something like, "But doesn't Larry Denier have a point about xxxxxx?" a knowledgeable person should briefly explain that "No, Larry Denier does not have a point and here's why." But never respond directly to anything Larry Denier and his ilk says. Responding to them is a complete waste of time. They are not going to change their minds because they are prisoners of ideology. And their warped ideological B.S. is not going to change the minds of any intelligent person.

    Use your time to combat global warming instead. Arguing with denier trolls doesn't qualify as combating global warming.

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    lin qiao writes: Without commenting at all on the scientific merits of the IPCC, two things:

    1) I believe there has in fact been a single resignation, a fellow named Landsea who works for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in connection with his unhappiness about the PICC's interpretation of possible linkage between hurricane frequency and climate change. NOAA has issued rather strongly worded statements denying such a linkage.

    lin qiao, would you keep your child in a school whose science teacher espoused to the media that the sun orbits around the earth? Would you check yourself into a hospital knowing the physician they employ for your condition was a quack? I will assume for you that the answer in both cases is NO. Why then would you maintain blind faith in the IPCC, knowing that Chris Landsea resigned his position due to intentional misrepresentation of his research by the IPCC AR4 Observations Chapter lead author (Kevin Trenberth) to the media, and furthermore due to dismissal of Landsea's concerns about this event when he raised them to the IPCC leadership? How can you brush off the IPCC leadership's complicity in such a blatantly unethical act, all but condoned by them in their unwillingness to discipline Trenberth with immediate dismissal?

    lin qiao also writes: 2) A paleoclimatologist friend of mine who actually has served on the panel explained to me that EVERY bit redrafting, EVERY editorial change, is archived and available to anyone sufficiently interested.

    My question is, why are you not sufficiently interested? Why are such low standards acceptable to you? If what your friend says is true, then the IPCC Summary is the equivalent of a Sunday Oregonian front page piece filled with controversy and errors; the other side of those controveries neatly stashed away in the reporters files and the errors conveniently corrected on the inside back page a week or two later.

    Your opening line above <Without commenting at all on the scientific merits of the IPCC> is a window on the reason you and so many others maintain blind faith in the IPCC and accept low standards...standards you find unacceptable in every other important facet of your lives. You don't comment on the science because you don't understand the science. The IPCC leverages public ignorance of science, just as they tried to do with Trenberth.

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Alantex says: I'm posting this everywhere I see global warming deniers at work: Let's just ignore them. ...Use your time to combat global warming instead.

    In other words Alantex is saying, 'do as I say, not as I do.' The fact is, by seeking out what he calls GW deniers, he isn't ignoring them, he's focusing on them. I think that's called hypocrisy.

    What I find especially funny...the irony that furthers his hypocrisy is that Alantex was drawn to this specific blog topic because its author does exactly what Alantex encourages others not to do...the author attacks the person they falsely consider their 'GW denier' poster child, George Taylor...and like a fly to the fire Alantex was powerless to ignore it.

    Give people like Alantex and BrianM enough talking rope, and they hang themselves with their own hypocritical-illogical rhetoric.

  • BrianM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Give people like Alantex and BrianM enough talking rope, and they hang themselves with their own hypocritical-illogical rhetoric.

    I believe that's called, in the psychoanalytical realm, about as pure an example of "projection" as one is likely to find. Heh.

    Run along, "DJ". The adults have work to do. Go back to your tiny little tribe of like-minded deniers wetting their beds and wiping their Cheetoh-stained hands on their boxers while the sober-minded people fix the problem.

  • (Show?)

    Jesus, here we go again. Timothy Ball?

  • (Show?)

    Whoops. Tim Ball, the oil-industry lobbyist?

    My God, is there NO ONE the deniers can name who isn't either on the take from Exxon or lacking any scientific credentials whatsoever?

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I stand corrected. I should have said: Give people like Alantex and BrianM enough talking rope, and they hang themselves with their own hypocritical-illogical juvenile rhetoric.

    BrianM, you do your camp a great disservice. Please send your mother this link. I'm sure she'd be quite proud.

  • (Show?)

    I'm posting this everywhere I see global warming deniers at work: Let's just ignore them. They are trolls, let's treat them like trolls and ignore them.

    Yes, please.

    I'm pretty sure I could just post "global warming - discuss" every single day, and we'd double our comment traffic in a matter of days. But who cares?

    Remember - winning an argument on BlueOregon doesn't actually score you any points anywhere.

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    DJ, you originally wrote that [f]ormer members have resigned in protest due to its scientifically unsound approach. As far as I know, members is understood in standard English usage as plural. I noted that in fact there had been one resignation, namely, Landsea. Your response was not to acknowledge your error but to go on the attack.

    Your remark about IPCC reports being prepared to low standards is just a weird distraction. Again, as my panelist friend explained, EVERY bit of editorial work is archived precisely to avoid claims that the panel is cooking the books.

    As for my alleged ignorance and lack of interest (and therefore craven acceptance of the IPCC), good gawd. I'm a geophysicist. I read the articles about climate change that appear with some frequency in journals for a general earth-science audience.

    Kindly take your silly rhetorical games elsewhere.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK: lin qiao, Have you checked out realclimate.org, the web site run by (or for) the well respected “scientist”, Michael Mann, the father of Al Gore’s hockey stick? It has a pretty good debunking of the CO2 link - you see, there is this little problem that, in the past, CO2 has NOT risen until AFTER 800 years of warming, making CO2 NOT the cause of warming. Check out this BS explanation, apparently from Al Gore’s source:

    At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

    Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

    The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

    The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

    It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

    From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

    In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

    from: realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

    Of course, another possibility is that CO2 comes out of the oceans as the oceans warm due to something unknown (maybe the sun?)- just like the fizz comes out of a carbonated drink when it gets warm. Occam’s razor anyone?

    Thanks JK

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jim:

    Your understanding of Occam's Razor is, um, backwards.

    Here is Occam's Razor: Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

    Here's how the overwhelming majority of people who seriously study such things usually paraphrase it: Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

    Your prefered explanation -- that every 100,000 years the sun causes an increase in temperatures in the ice and oceans surrounding Antarctica which, through some as yet undiscovered mechanism, causes an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 800 years later -- unnecessarily multiplies entities. You're adding new variables, new causes, and expanding the size of the system necessary to explain the observed phenomenon.

    That doesn't mean you're categorically wrong. But it does go against Occam's Razor.

    Here's a more useful philosophical tool. It's Bertrand Russell's rules of skepticism:

    1.) When experts are agreed, the opposite opinion can not be held to be certain.

    2.) When experts are no agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert.

    3.) When experts all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exists, the ordinary man would do well to supsend his judgement.

    Now it seems to me that the experts are all agreed: there is global warming and it's caused by humans. I have not seen anything in the last 5 years from an actual climate scientist who is not employed by one of the faux-climate organizations denying this. Further, everything I've seen denying global warming is either a) taken out of context and vigorously denied by the original author, or b) written by someone who lies about his qualifications or connections to big oil.

    I suspect you will claim that your highly techinical snippets from climate studies should be interpretted as dissent. I'm not a climate scientist, so I'm not qualified to judge (or in a lot of cases even unsderstand) the science. What I'd like to see, to move me from rule #1 to rule #2, is a clear statement from a non-oil-industry climate scientist of some standing, saying he believes the evidence shows that there is no global warming or that the current round of global warming is not caused by humans.

    If you claim that there is a vast conspiracy of anti-petroleum zealots to take over every scientific institution in the world and silence global warming critics, I refer you to Occam's Razor above.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bert Lowry Your understanding of Occam's Razor is, um, backwards. JK: That is a comment on my comment. Do you have any comment on the quoted article it self, or do you accept its claim that the initial cause of warming is unknown, but after 800 years CO2 "kicks in" as a cause?

    Keep in mind that quote is from the web site run by/for the widely published “scientist” who was the creator of the “hockeystick” temperature curve that Al Gore touts.

    Please read an understand it.

    Thanks JK

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    lin qiao wrote: "DJ, you originally wrote that [f]ormer members have resigned in protest due to its scientifically unsound approach. As far as I know, members is understood in standard English usage as plural. I noted that in fact there had been one resignation, namely, Landsea. Your response was not to acknowledge your error but to go on the attack."

    lin qiao, thank you for correcting my use of the English language above. In doing so, you illustrate my prior point that almost everyone and everything (including my use of English) BUT the IPCC is scrutinized and held to a higher standard by the very peole who hold the IPCC Summary as gospel. As a GP, you are armed with the scientific background to scrutinize the latest IPCC Summary as well as prior findings...therefore, surely you've questioned and done your own followup on some of it, not??? Surely you have...as an enginner I know it is in the nature of all scientists to do so.

    In fact, lin qiao, there have been others who have resigned the IPCC in protest. Another example is Richard Lindzen contributer to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment", "Climate Change 1995". After his IPCC experience he became a vocal protester of their methods and political nature, as well as that of the government grant driven anthropogenic GW industry itself. (There, have I achieved plural status yet?) Whether they leave via formal protest or not, the real question is how many have been drummed out of true research by the more hidden and coercive methods Lindzen describes.

    lin qiao further wrote: Your remark about IPCC reports being prepared to low standards is just a weird distraction. Again, as my panelist friend explained, EVERY bit of editorial work is archived precisely to avoid claims that the panel is cooking the books. lin qiao, there you go again with your non-inquisitive nature. Are you sure you're a GP? When you were earning your degree, did your instructors accept the answer, "because my friend said so..."? Do a bit more checking of your own...there is a huge difference between the true scientific 'peer reviewed' process and the lower 'peer audited' standard of the IPCC.

  • Mike (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What I'd like to see, to move me from rule #1 to rule #2, is a clear statement from a non-oil-industry climate scientist of some standing, saying he believes the evidence shows that there is no global warming or that the current round of global warming is not caused by humans.

    Oregon State Climatologists George Taylor has been making similar statements. He is not supported by oil money, but nobody on this blog seems anxious to hear his statements.

    George is a friend of mine, and some of the comments made about him in this thread are positively wrong and slanderous. He has written over 200 peer-reviewed publications, for instance. He is nobody's puppet and speaks the truth as he sees it. He is an expert climatologist.

    I attended the OMSI debate between Taylor and Phil Mote, WA State Climatologist and IPCC lead scientist. George won the debate hands down. Phil is a good guy and a good presenter, but his arguments were not as strong.

    It is one thing to argue points of science; it is another to engage in character assassination of those you disagree with.

    The hissing and smears against good people deflect the debate away from the facts, and directly onto the characters of the false accusers. Remember that.

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mike, thank you for taking us back to the topic that got this all started, namely the character assassination by Brian Hines on George Taylor. On Brian's own website where this topic has received no attention other than my own, I provided for Brian the following post, among others:

    Brian,

    To quote you, "There's a big difference between skepticism and ignorance." That point is illustrated no better than by your letter to the editor above, in which you either ignorantly or intentionally misrepresent George Taylor on almost every point discussed.

    You can learn about GT's actual views in this response by him to a 2005 WW piece. His last line prophetically does a spot on job of describing your editorial letter when he says, "Unfortunately, this issue has become such a divisive and angry one that ad hominem attacks have replaced dialogue."

    You can learn more about GT's views and the truth about the scientific debate he puts forth by watching the conference on GW that he and Washington State Climatologist Phil Mote chaired recently at OMSI. The video is here Mote's presentation slides are here Taylor's slides are here: here

    Note, Brian, that contrary to what you claim above, Mote acknowledges agreement between he and Taylor in his opening remarks, making it clear from the outset that the two agree on many points including that global average surface temp has increased over the 20th century by 0.6C. and that concentrations of atm. GHG's and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK: Hey, lin, I'm still waiting for a comment on the substance of this (see above for rest of original mesage):

    lin qiao, Have you checked out realclimate.org, the web site run by (or for) the well respected “scientist”, Michael Mann, the father of Al Gore’s hockey stick? It has a pretty good debunking of the CO2 link - you see, there is this little problem that, in the past, CO2 has NOT risen until AFTER 800 years of warming, making CO2 NOT the cause of warming.

    Thanks JK

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Interesting article at: tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367 (please keep comments to the facts of the article)

    POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH' Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

    The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

    Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

    Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

    In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

    The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

    Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

    Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

    Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

    “As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

    In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

    For Further Information, Contact: Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431 [email protected]

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jim:

    I read the entire article. And I must admit, I'm impressed by your imagination if you see that article as somehow damning to the global warming CO2 link.

    Here's what the article says:

    In prior periods of global warming at the end of glacial periods (ice ages), something unknown starts the warming process. Then after 600 - 1000 years, the CO2 levels go up. The increased CO2 warms the Earth even more because, well, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    Here's what I take away from it:

    1.) Interglacial warmings (the periods between ice ages), are started by unknown -- though there's a lot of speculation -- process.

    2.) Increases in CO2 certainly cause the Earth to warm.

    Where's the surprise? No one has ever claimed that all warming must be initiated by CO2 levels and nothing else has ever started or increased global warming.

    I'm just stunned that you understood this article to somehow debunk the CO2-warming link. It's like claiming that a California traffic fatality proves Charles Manson's innocence because it's a death of a Californian not caused by Charles Manson.

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey lin qiao, here's the name of another IPCC panelist who resigned in protest: Global warming labeled a 'scam' Paul Reiter of Paris' Pasteur Institute, an expert in malaria, calls the <ipcc> U.N. report a "sham" because, he says, it included the names of scientists -- including his own -- who disagreed with the report and who resigned from the panel. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he says. "It's not true." Mr. Reiter says his name was removed only after he threatened legal action against the panel. The report itself, he adds, was finalized by government appointees.

letter to the editor

connect with blueoregon