I saw on TV awhile back that the earth gets into a heating period about every 60,000 years. I also heard on that program that it has been about 60,000 years since the last heating trend. I have never heard this stated by anyone since that time. No matter...blame Bush anyway.

Posted by Denny at September 27, 2006 03:32 AM

Skeptic, reporting for duty!

Posted by Oyster at September 27, 2006 03:41 AM

The main purpose of the global warming scare is to give government more power and give environmentalists an excuse to fly around in Lear Jets, which produce lots of CO2.

Posted by DADvocate at September 27, 2006 05:25 AM

The profesor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M made a pungent statement in his blog that seems to apply to you "skeptics"
His statement went something like this, "Taking some steps now against global waming is like buying fire or storm insurance on your houes. You are willing to pay some now against some problrm that you are sure will never arise to affect you." Not an exact quote, but close.
SO...may I assume that you "skeptics" do not believe in fire insurance on your home?

Posted by James S Melbert at September 27, 2006 09:54 AM

James - No, you may not.

If you peruse my blog you will see that I am quite environmentally concerned. But much of good science is based on skepticism not the rantings of a lunitic politician. I want clean air, clean water, etc. The value of that should be clearly evident.

We don't need to sign the Kyoto Accord to do this. We don't need government becoming more intrusive into our daily lives. Building a few nuclear power plants to replace coal plants would help.

Remember, if you make a false assumption, everything that follows from that may be false. If it's not, it's not because of any logical or reasoning process you have done but probably chance.

Posted by DADvocate at September 27, 2006 11:57 AM

James, I buy homeowners insurance because fire can completely destroy my house, and I can't afford the loss without the insurance. However, I have not taken out insurance on my house in the event that yard gnomes come to life and blow it up. One is a calculated decision based on real possibilities. The other is a fantasy. If some people want insurance on global warming, let them pay for it--not me, not at least until I'm satisfied that it's a real threat and we can do something about it.

Posted by Woody at September 27, 2006 12:32 PM

I don't know the truth about " Global Warming" but I don't have any great problem with doing things that might contribute less to the problem if problem there is. Primarily because I think they are 'good' things to do in any event.

A. I see no reason why we can't build LOTS more nuclear power plants. Burning less fossil fuel must have some significant benefits even of we can't precisely define them. See "B" below for one of those tangible benefits.

B. There should be a CRASH program to eliminate the need to import Mid-East Oil. ANY Mid-East Oil. No more petro-dollars for the jihadists and their State Sponsors.

C. There should be a VAST increase in the CAFE standards effective almost at once. Let Detroit get its dismal act together. for once before it becomes a ghost industry in a ghost town. It is 'selfish' to continue to use a 'questionable' resource in such a cavalier and wasteful manner. Contrary to Ayn Rand, obtuse and unexamined selfishness is not its own reward.

Like DADvocate I want a 'common-sense' approach to be taken to the problem. Unlike him, I have no great ideological problem with Government Involvement if it makes sense to have same. Sometimes the 'invisible hand' writes too damn SLOWLY to be a viable alternative.

Kyoto is a joke. It was doomed to fail. It in fact is failing. Everyone who signed it had to know it was doomed to fail, and they signed it anyway. And why ?

Because the appearance of action is more important than the actuality. There was a famous old SNL skit whose punch-line in a running gag was, " It's more important to look good than to feel good. We have tried to build an entire culture on that self-absorbed fallacy.

That is the core of the Kyoto problem. Being despite its braggadocio, all sizzle and no steak,it was designed merely to 'feel our pain'. It was not designed to do anything meaningful about it. Now the 'usual suspects' find it a convenient excuse to continue the usual tedious campaigns again the usual designated victims. But it still does virtually NOTHING about the 'problem' against which it was supposedly targetted. Nor will it ever.

I would be happy if we could just take even the 'common-sense' steps to 'improve' the situation. NOW.

Posted by dougf at September 27, 2006 01:26 PM

DougF, the same folks who are alarmists about global warming were picketing nuclear power plants and shutting them down years ago. Not all people who support global wrming are against nuclear power, but they and we have a battle on our hands with the environmentalists on this. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

Posted by Woody at September 27, 2006 03:06 PM

James, if the proposed interventions were inexpensive, that would be an apt analogy. Too often the people making pronouncements have only the vaguest notions of what their proposals would cost. If it were indeed one of those "if everyone just gave one used bicycle tire no kitties would die" deals, everyone would sign on.

Change the question slightly. Would you spend $100,000 a year to insure a $1,000,000 house? What if you didn't have 100K? What if it didn't leave you enough to feed the kids? Only if it's cheap is it worth it.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at September 27, 2006 03:48 PM

Casualty insurance is not a very good model.

Fire/flood insurance gives me financial compensation for my lossesafter the damage has occurred.

What GW believers are discussing is something else: actions (with imputed financial and economic costs) to prevent an event from occurring. (It's not my intention to rehash the issues around the validity of GW here.)

Two different models.

It would be intriguing if some private entity were to offer GW insurance...

Posted by civil truth at September 27, 2006 07:09 PM

I've been hashing this issue with a NASA scientist over at Real Climate, and find that his (and their) technique of arguing is to never accept anything from the other side and to wear you down rebutting them. It's easier to settle an auto insurance claim.

Anyway, when I politely presented some links and arguments to another commenter, the site author came back to me, and I responded to him with the comment below. I'm not necessarily right on everything, but I'm right that their minds need to be opened and that they need to be willing to admit errors if a global warming problem is to be correctly diagnosed and addressed. Here's my response to them.

* * *

Gavin wrote in response to #169: Well, I would have a higher opinion of your opinions if you didn't quote things that are easily demonstrated to have no substance.

Well, that kind of rude arrogance and close-mindness is typical of those who have made global warming a religion.

Gavin, selected comments and posts offered by you do not prove that the skeptics have been convinced otherwise or that their opposing claims are wrong. Those things that I quoted were found as links from other scientists just as qualified as you. You're cherry picking, which just forces those who have time to take more of it to show how your research is selective and that it can reach incorrect conclusions.

It reminds me of a quote by, possibly your favorite, Ann Coulter, which can be adapted here. On a different subject, she said, "Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy." In this case, the "climate cause" isn't worth the energy to me, because I'm trying to run a business and don't have NASA paying my salary to make rebuttals to rebuttals ad nauseum. I'd rather deal with an insurance claim than try to get a global warming activist to admit that maybe, just maybe, there are holes in his positions.

As indicated by your response, by comment #145, and by others: this site seems more dedicated to finding something, anything, wrong with the people and positions of those who don't come to their altar. Kill the messengers and anyone who disrupts the party, even if it is of honest concern.

As one person sarcastically put it, "The science already is indisputable. No chance computerized climate models are flawed. No chance natural, long-term global climate cycles are at work. Mother Earth is in dire peril. The only disbelievers are evil Exxon-slicked scientists or Bush-administration yahoos."

But, I have never seen adequate proof that anthropogenic global warming is causing an immediate crisis or that actions called for by the anti-West Kyoto Potocol would come close to making any material change in the situation or that the investment would give an adequate payback. I prefer real science over polls of "concerned scientists" (including many unqualified) and the like. Consensus is not a word of proof but a word to shut up opposing voices. It's a political word and often used here.

On the AGU and its membership, maybe it doesn't occur to you that scientists who are skeptics are not welcome at its podium and that their papers or presetations are rejected because global warming activists believe with religious fervor that the only true scientists are those who agree with them and that opposing views are to be attacked rather than considered. A rabbi would be as welcome at a Taliban meeting.

Maybe this offers some insight into the hype from AGU. Scientists compete with each other for finite resources, just like bankers and corporations. In this case, successful competitors are those who are rewarded by their universities or institutions. In all science, this means publishing research articles in the refereed scientific literature. That research costs tremendous amounts of money and there really is only one provider: Uncle Sam (i.e. you and me). No one gets much of this pie by claiming that his or her issue may, in fact, be no big deal. Instead, any issue – take global warming, acid rain, and obesity as examples, must be portrayed in the starkest of terms. Everything is a crisis, and all the crises are competing with each other.

As we have learned from current events, we need adequate proof of a problem before we go to war, and this war that you want to fight will make the one in Iraq look like a bargain. And, it's my money, too.

Perhaps you and your readers would be better served by opening your minds and getting rid of your pride rather than reflexively shutting up debate.

Posted by Woody at September 27, 2006 08:34 PM

"Not an exact quote, but close."

Oh good, James. For a minute I thought the professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M couldn't spell. Whew.

Posted by Oyster at September 28, 2006 05:50 PM

Sorry. Couldn't help it.

Posted by Oyster at September 28, 2006 05:53 PM

Woody, how is Gavin gonna see that response if you don't post it on realclimate?

you're just showboating on your home turf, for your neo-con mates! Shame on you... or maybe you think NASA scientists are hanging on your every blog... I think not!

Have a look at posts 119 and 169 on the Sachs WSJ thread on realclimate folks.

Check your facts before you post em there woody, you can't treat RC like a vanity blog!

mark s

Posted by mark s at September 28, 2006 09:57 PM

Mark S., you seem to be an expert on what's posted on Real Climate but must not be reading carefully or you would have seen that this is merely a copy of what I did submit to Gavin's site. On the other hand, I didn't go back to see whether or not he blocked it, which is a Real Possibility for Real Climate people who are Real Fanatics about their Unreal Crisis. That site is just like the AGU--it blocks submissions that go against the faith.

BTW, in checking the referrals to this site from Real Climate, I noted that someone from NASA in Maryland read this post and spent serveral minutes here. Gavin works for NASA. Maybe it was him. I have no problem with Gavin, except that he's closed minded and can be rude if he's questioned. (Bill Clinton's like that, too. Ask Mike Wallace.)

So, before you accuse me of "showboating" consider that (a) I stated that I posted that comment there and my word is good, (b) that Gavin sometimes deletes opposing comments or comments that he considers off topic, and (c) maybe you just missed it. Nevertheless, your conclusion and statement was false, which wouldn't be ther first thing stated falsely by a AGW proponent. Also, don't you think that the authors of that site are showboating in a sense with their fanatisim and comments because they enjoy the celebrity of it?

I just haven't gone back to the site to check and don't really care or have the time to argue any more. It's pointless with you foks, and, honestly, I have a real job that requires my attention, and I worked until 10:00 PM last night, as an example--all to support myself without government assistance or a government paycheck.

Most of the folks there, possilby like you, are so eaten up with this "urgent crisis" that you will spend the half the day reading all the quotes from your fellow players and the other half of the day trying to nitpick oppposing views or slandering opposing scientists. As I stated before, it's easy to do if you're on a government job.

Check back with me in ten years and we'll see how true your dire predictions came.

Posted by Woody at September 29, 2006 07:10 AM

Woody, I checked Real Climate after Mark S. posted his comment, I couldn't find your comment, doesn't mean it wasn't there, just that I didn't see it. Maybe it's in moderation, maybe deleted, I just don't know... off to work, I don't have a government job either. Cheers!

Posted by GM at September 29, 2006 07:55 AM

Just checking in from my private industry job. My employer only let's me check in during coffee breaks. He's tough.

I'm not surprised that my comment was bleeped out, even though it was more polite than theirs. I guess some people are too arrogant to think that they might be wrong or too scared that others will see that they are.

But, we are messing with their paychecks when we dispute their claims. I think that a quote from above is worth repeating on this issue.

Scientists compete with each other for finite resources, just like bankers and corporations. In this case, successful competitors are those who are rewarded by their universities or institutions. In all science, this means publishing research articles in the refereed scientific literature. That research costs tremendous amounts of money and there really is only one provider: Uncle Sam (i.e. you and me). No one gets much of this pie by claiming that his or her issue may, in fact, be no big deal. Instead, any issue – take global warming, acid rain, and obesity as examples, must be portrayed in the starkest of terms. Everything is a crisis, and all the crises are competing with each other.

Posted by Woody at September 29, 2006 11:02 AM

G.M., I thought more about my comment being deleted at Real Climate without leaving a trail that it was made and without a reason that it was not allowed, which should be a legitimate reason. We adjust a comment if someone uses bad language, for instance, but we don't just take it off as if the comment was never made. We doctor it with funny symbols or state that the comment had to be deleted and why.

To me, the pick-and-choose selection of comments at Real Climate exhibits a bit of dishonesty, and that's to the discredit of Gavin. An honest exchange doesn't consist of the host making his point and then deleting the response of a guest, as if the guest was left speechless.

Maybe Mark S. will get angry with Gavin rather than me--but, I doubt it. It's like hoping that the New York Times will print letters to the editor from conservatives. From now on, I'll let the mutual admiration society of the folks at Real Climate pat each other on the back and believe that they are the only ones with true knowledge--which shows true foolishness.

Posted by Woody at September 29, 2006 03:20 PM