"tropical forests are essentially in balance, absorbing as much carbon dioxide as they give off." But he also states "Cutting down tropical forests not only increases carbon emissions but also removes a strong sink and its potential for offsetting future emissions."

If the forests emit as much CO2 as they absorb, how can they also be a net sink - which would imply that they emit less CO2 than they absorb? AGW peer review at it's best.

Well, if you were to believe Gunnar, the oceans are emitting excess CO2, and our emissions of sequestered carbon just magically disappear into the sky. I give "skeptics" some credit -- they have wild imaginations.

Much work needs to be done on retaining the tropical forests.

Of course the generation of methane by those same tropical forests is still being ignored.
Just more proof the whole global warming issue is based on incomplete and erroneous data and theory.
Not based on real science but on religious belief, just take it all on faith..right?
Actually that's ok, just don't call it science.

The amount of methane globally has dropped in the last 6 years. Methane as a % of GHG is less than 1% of the total. Water vapor accounts for about 97% of all GHGs, CO2 about 3%, all others 1%.

Mark, if you really want an issue to stick at the President, and a then GOP dominated Congress, look no farther than the ethanol mandates. Corn and sugar based ethanols is leading our nation and the globe to focus on 2 crops -sugar and corn. In Brazil and Indonesia, tropical rain forests are being decimated in order to grow more bio fuels; in the US and Europe, crops such as barely, oats, and wheat are being replaced by corn.

In the tropics, the removal of the rain forests will have a direct on the natural transfer of equatorial air poleward, not to mention the natural absorbtion of CO2. In the mid-latitudes, our food supply chain will become hostage to the price of oil (with every increase in the price of crude, there will be a likewise increase in grain commodities).

The hysteria of the AGW crowd is likely to have a direct impact not only on our climate, but on the global food supply. We could be colder and hungrier as a result. The law of unintended consequnces still rules.

Mark,

Read this through to the end, with an open mind, if that's possible and tell us all what you think.

It will give you an indication of why you think the way you do, but you may not realize the truth of it, if you've reached that point of no return in your beliefs.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

"relying on trees to mitigate climate change is not a good long-term strategy, because the carbon they store gets returned to the atmosphere on a timescale of around 30 years when they die and decompose. Afforestation and reforestation can provide short-term sinks to slow warming and possibly give us more time to find solutions, but ultimately we need to get the carbon into the ocean or geologic reservoirs, or not emit it in the first place".

While I have planted thousands of trees on my property, I must admit that it was with a thought of some day harvesting them or at least being able to sell the land for more than I paid for it. However, when the forest is cut, it won't be clear cut, but selectively harvested, which allows the next harvest that much sooner.

Also, there is a lot of research going on with just how long the oceans are going to absorb carbon. With the pH rising and the temperature rising, the trend is for the oceans to absorb less and less carbon.

This is how AGW peer review works. Throw skeptics to the lions. No wonder so many young scientists tow the line...

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency says he will investigate a threatening letter sent by the leader of an EPA-member group, vowing to "destroy" the career of a climate skeptic.

During a Capitol Hill hearing yesterday, Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson about the strongly-worded letter written July 13 by Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) that was sent to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089

John D,

I'm sorry, but after seeing Michael Crichton's name mentioned in the very first sentence, I couldn't stop laughing. It's a sad state of affairs when your leading 'spokesman' is a science fiction author.

Crichton was relevant back when he wrote Jurassic Park. Now he's become a joke. Oh well, at least he's good for something -- a laugh.

Again, this just seems to be some beginning stages of back tracking. I think the writing is on the wall. In two or so years they will have to start rewriting their GW "theories" (or as I like to call them, horror stories) all over again.

Mark,

It is funny how you laugh at MichaelCrighton being a science fiction author. At least Mr. Crighton is not running around pretending to be a scientist, like most of crack pots you like to quote.

John D,

Those of us who have been around awhile know not to ask Mark to consider any viewpoints opposing his political ideology. Ideologues rarely entertain differing opinions. I applaud your efforts, though.

To get back on topic, the Nature.com article makes it clear that the science is not settled on climate change, and likely never will be. For all our hubris, the curiosity of man continues to discover new information related to his environment that changes our perspective, if we are open to it. The more we discover, the better our chances for understanding. But, the rub is that we never know when we know enough to consider ourselves capable of understanding as complex a system as global climate. To select a convenient point that buttresses our political agendas is cynical, at best, and criminal, at worst.

Patrick, FYI Lewis is just a paid liar. I don't know how old he is, but he's definitely not a scientist. CEI employs "policy experts," not scientists. I doubt that Eckhart would be in much of a position to actually do anything ro effect Lewis' employment or career, but safe to say that as the funding for such shills dries up over the next few years Lewis will find himself in increasing competition to survive in his chosen career area. If he does lose his job, it'll just be the free market at work.

Mark,

I believe you may have played the antagonist in 'The State of Fear'

Here's an article that may further explain your folly.

http://www.mises.org/story/1927

Patrick - thanks for the post. Yet another example of the frightening state of affairs we find ourselves in. The best that can be done is to expose such tyrants and hope...

BTW - great point regarding the 'sink'.

Steve - if Mr. Lewis is a liar, please provide proof of this. The same applies to Mr. Eckhardt. This is science, after all. The type of ad hominem attacks threatened in the letter should be condemned by all citizens committed to a free and democratic society.

Tom,

Isn't it interesting how James Hansen can create an uproar in the press by claiming that he was asked to remove a word or two from a paper, yet blatant extortion and slander from the AGW side goes nearly unreported.

Speaking of Hansen, I saw a notice that he is coming to town as part of a traveling environmental road show. It is illegal under federal law for a civil servant to engage in political activities stemming from their work. Imagine the uproar if a skeptic on the federal dole did something similar.

Steve Bloom,

Nice of you to be prosecutor, judge and jury without offering any evidence. Come to think of it, that is the entire AGW story....

And how many paid liars are there on the AGW side? Chris Landsea quit the IPCC because his supervisor was insisting on including a link between AGW and hurricanes which had no evidence to back it up.

See, Brett, on a site of this sort, if you do nothing to discourage the more loony sort of denialist, after a while the word gets around and they're mostly what you end up with in the comments. As you can see, the fact that reality is headed in the opposite direction from what they would like is absolutely no impediment to them pretending otherwise. But apparently, for whatever reason, this is the clientele the AW higher-ups have chosen to encourage. FYI, polls show that there's a more or less irreducible 7% of the population, mostly older white males, who retain strongly denialist views despite all the evidence. You got 'em.

Steve Bloom:

Are you a comedian in real life?

Cause you crack me up.

Your disgust at those who offer a different viewpoint is intriguing as many of those who completely agree with AGW believe in different viewpoints as a way of promoting their true agenda.

Your attempts at belittling those who question AGW are funny. Nice poke at the moderator. That'll win you friends for sure.

Face it, the ONLY way in which the question of AGW is settled is if you only talk with those who have a limited agenda and perspective.

"It is funny how you laugh at MichaelCrighton being a science fiction author. At least Mr. Crighton is not running around pretending to be a scientist, like most of crack pots you like to quote."

Oh really? Then why does Crichton go around touting his "background in science?" LOL.

>> As you can see, the fact that reality is headed in the opposite direction from what they would like is absolutely no impediment to them pretending otherwise.

The data shows that in reality, it's been cooling since 1998.

>> views despite all the evidence

What evidence? provide actual evidence for any of the pre-requisites of the AGW speculative idea:

1) That pre-industrial C02 was low.
2) That C02 accumulates in the atmosphere.
3) That man can have some significant effect on the C02 level.
4) That man can actually measure the global C02 level or the global thermodynamic state
5) That C02 is a climate driver

Mr. Bloom,

I see now that you are insisting on censorship by the blog moderator. It is readily apparent that you have come up with a big goose egg. Verrrryy interesting!

Mark,

Then why does Crichton go around touting his "background in science?"

CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.

Crichton's interest in computer modeling goes back forty years. His multiple-discriminant analysis of Egyptian crania, carried out on an IBM 7090 computer at Harvard, was published in the Papers of the Peabody Museum in 1966.

I was under the impression that obtaining a medical degree included a wee bit of science. Judging by your response, that is no longer a valid assumption, just as my degrees in geology precludes me from commenting on the climate, eh?

Oh really? Then why does Crichton go around touting his "background in science?

Well, golly gee Mark, maybe because he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University (Phi Beta Kappa), and received his M.D. from Harvard Medical School. He also was a fellow at Salk Institute for Biological Studies. He has published various technical papers related to being a medical doctor and has also taught courses at MIT and Cambridge. He actually does believe somewhat in global warming. He just thinks the current Religion of Global Warming, headed by his highness Al Gore, which is trying to suppress any reasonable intelligent discussion and common-sense solutions in favor of control over our lives and redirecting ridiculous sums of money into total wasteful "global warming projects" that will do zilch, is total poopoo.

"Read this through to the end, with an open mind, if that's possible and tell us all what you think."
John D. - I think you proved your point, response indicated no open mind and no critical thinking.

I do not deny climate change (you can't call it global warming unless you have a temperature gauge on every square mile of the Earth at the minimum) and I believe there are common sense things we can do to prevent pollution and help sustain the environment but we can't do anything about climate change. Temperatures on the Earth will either go up or down, they cannot remain flatline forever.

We need to prevent the tropical rain forests from being decimated.

To do the types of "solutions" the GW alarmists are preaching to "save the world" would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Alan K: A great link. The author describes the AGW
crowd precisely. The following paragraph deserves wider dissemination.

"Direct evidence of the wilful dishonesty of the environmental movement comes from one of its leading representatives, Stephen Schneider, who is well-known for his predictions of global catastrophe. In the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine, he is quoted (with approval) as follows:

". . . To do this, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Steve Bloom and other bullies who appear regularly on this blog to denigrate sceptics and misrepresent their opinions are simply following the plan laid out by Mr. Schneider. Here is an example. Bloom asserts that reality is headed in the opposite direction to what AGWers would like. This is exactly wrong! Temperatures have not been rising for nearly 10 years. That is reality. But the high and mighty priests of AGW in their arrogant belief in their infallibility believe that they can spout nonsense all day long and the rabble will lap it up as gospel. Reminds me of the story about Columbus . In an effort to dissuade him from his exploration of the new world a priest warned him that he would fall off the edge and be destroyed. Columbus replied that he was not worried because he had observed numerous ships and they always disappeared over the horizon gradually. Reason rendered the priest's beliefs invalid just as reason is rendering AGW invalid with each passing day and with each new discovery about how our climate works. The doom and bloomers will be out of work in a few years when the populace and the politicians finally ralize they have been scammed. Without the internet and blogs like this they could get away with this stuff because of a compliant press.

Mark refuses to desist from using the logic fallacy "argument by authority". Benjamin Franklin did not have a degree, yet he made some important scientific advances. Newton had a law degree.

The reality is that anyone who uses the scientific method IS a scientist. Anyone who rejects the scientific method is NOT a scientist.

Steve Bloom,

In the Soviet Union, people in the minority who dared to openly disagree with the government were labeled insane and put in a mental institution. I think you might have appreciated that approach to limiting dissent and maintaining "social harmony."

Alan K,

Thanks for proving my point that the "skepticism" of AGW is strictly based on an anti-government, pro-corporate agenda. The fact that you hang out at an extreme Libertarian website is quite telling. Talk about a cult.

Actually the skepticism is about the 'science' that you claim is sound and indisputable, also, far reaching government control through regulation and taxation, and the methods of manipulation and the treachery environmentalists will go to to control human activity, wealth and survival. The skepticism is also about effect that GW would have on our society.

Want to talk about a cult? I believe that the proponents of AGW may be as much of a cult as Jim Jones (have a little cool-aid), Scientology (science fiction anyone?) and the Branch Dividians (uncompromising dogma) combined. Let's Throw in a little paganism for good measure.

'Doom-and-bloomers', I like that!

I've encountered Mr. Bloom on other sites, where he behaves similarly. His raison d'etre appears to be to troll around in GW chats to denigrate and attempt to silence those who disagree with him.

His real problem seems to be that people here can exercise free speech without censorship, something that is not possible in his favorite hangout, real.climate.