Finally somebody with a rational thought.
Mr. Bastardi, I applaud your candor, use of logic and common sense.

The World Bank wants to step up its efforts to fight global warming. This ties in with the Millenium Developement Goals proposed by the chief of the UN. This is without question wealth distribution based on inconclusive, non concensual findings. Where is the logic? We are on the precipice of seeing an American, Canadian and possibly Mexican joined, Euro-type dollar...soon.

Dr. Bastardi brings up some basic and what should be common sense points. These however, will be overlooked by the over thinkers of AGW.

I honestly feel that many over thinkers who buy into the various AGW doomsday scenarios, actually suffer from some form of Schizophrenia. Seriously. They are looking at a blurry puzzle through a microscope, trying to get the pieces to fit, which in their convoluted heads it does. Stop looking in the microscope and look at the big picture. We aren't going to destroy ourselves by emmitting CO2. We've already burned 20 percent of the earths fossil fuels, yet we and the earth are doing no worse when compared to the past. Ocean levels have not gone up. It was warmer in 1939 without SUV's.

Perhaps they are all smoking from the same stock of THC producing plants(please allow this comment, its true in some cases). Please come back and join the rest of us in reality. I'm all for efficient energy, but come on people.

Joe tells it like it is. The substance of the argument is this: we just don't have enough accumlated data over time to make any "credible" conclusion on climate change. To do so is intellectually dishonest.

Heck, I'd like to see a 5 day forcast in the winter bear out to something that would be
somewhat accurate much less a 5 or 50 year climate projection.

So, Brett, are there any senior folks at AW that Katie could interview who aren't denialists? Just curious. Reply: I will find out Steve.

Also, since most of what Joe said on the only technical issue (Arctic sea ice) was wrong, Katie might consider interviewing someone who actually knows something about Arctic sea ice. The National Snow and Ice Data Center would be a good place to start. I think they can even do a satellite link.

Anybody who wants the facts on Arctic sea ice should have a look a this NSIDC page (and note the links on the right).

People who argue against climate change are the same people who claimed the world was flat.

Today is October 25th and not one leaf has changed color yet, I have pictures of the same trees with me in front of them 15 years ago where every leaf was gone by this point.

We have just experienced the Hottest October in Philadelphia and have not dropped below ZERO since 1994.

I don't need to look anywhere but my own backyard to know climate change is REAL.

it is very sad when people want to confuse us and make us think what's happening is normal or not proven, give me a break, I hope you wake up before it's not too late.

the interview was horrible display and a weak attempt at journalism.

Thanks Joe. It's nice to hear common sense now and then. Good point about doing research about the topic. Don't believe everything you hear. Research things on your own. The facts will surprise people. Unfortunately kids are being force-fed garbage. The infamous polar bear on the melting ice kills me. A year or so back I read an article that said "Starving Polar Bears Due To Global warming May Be Resorting To Cannibalism." I saw the article and said "wow I better check this out". Upon further research it turned out that one polar bear like three years earlier apparently had eaten another bear. I dug a little deeper and found it's not that uncommon for polar bears to eat other bears. How on earth could one polar bear eating another be linked to global warming? Well it was and that�s the kind of things kids are being exposed too. Unfortunately, most people believe what they read in the newspaper, see on TV, or read in Time For Kids. It's a shame they can�t.

I'd like to second one of Joe's first points. If I may paraphrase, his point was that current climate events MUST be put in the context of what has happened before. This approach gives the analyst the best shot of saying whether something is truly unique, or merely one additional example in a long history of similar examples.

Hi Guys;

Great piece! I've been following global warming and the weather for quite some time.. would love to be a storm chaser but am currently working in radio in DuBois,PA. Global warming worries me, not just for myself but for my grandson as well, what's ahead.. can we stop it? It seems like we're fighting a loosing battle or is it our destiny to let the weather and the world get so bad that it eventually wipes out man kind with more floods, fires, tornadoes and so on. What are your thoughts on just how bad the weather will become...

It's so refreshing to hear someone with common sense talk about this global warming nonsense. Way to go, Joe!!! Keep up the good work. By the way, where did all the hurricanes go with all of this record warmth in the U.S. Just a thought...

Lance

Sounds like Joe Bastardi is unaware that there are records of arctic sea ice extent going back to 1900 and they show a decline.

http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm

Also, somebody should let him know that the oceans have also been warming in response to to the increase in greenhouse gases. So, since the artic sea ice is melting from a warmer atmosphere and ocean currents does not alter the root cause of the warming.

Also, he should be reminded that CO2 emissions have only become the dominate climate driver since about 1950. Prior to that data, natural variations were likely more significant. CO2 emission were a factor prior to the 1950s, but were not dominate like they are now.

Yes, he certainly has strong opinions, and he's not afraid to voice them. Not much I can disagree with. He's right: satellite record have only existed since 1979, so we can't make many statements about arctic ice or other climate variables that are currently catalogued by satellite with any high degree of certainty. We can fill in the gaps with other methods, but we can't be as certain about changes before 1979 as we are about the changes since.

As he said: we don't own the Earth; we're just renting it, and we need to keep it in good shape for the tenants that occupy the planet after we are gone. And for most ways of doing that, there are more benefits than just reducing the amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere. Increasing fuel economy reduces our demand for oil. Increasing energy efficiency of homes and home appliances not only reduces energy demand and the need to build more power plants, but it decreases electricity and heating and cooling costs for individual homeowners. Developing wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources reduces air pollution and makes the national power grid more flexible and less vulnerable to disruption (from nature or from terrorists). Preventing hazardous chemicals and radiation from entering our biosphere keeps the environment healthy and keeps us healthy since we rely so much on the natural world around us for all our needs.

Such measures have benefits far beyond CO2 reductions and should be aggressively pursued either way. If it turns out that CO2 is having a significant effect on global climate after all, we will have already taken great strides toward mitigating the consequences.

Thank God for Joe Bastardi and Accuweather! I used to use the Weather Channel as my browser home page but went in search of something else because of their extreme bias.

Excellent interview with someone that knows weather. Very refreshing to see common sense prevail in a subject that constantly is just opinion and conjecture yet you get ridiculed if you don't believe what they are selling. Thanks Joe.

Some good reminders of how much the weather (and life in general) has improved over the last 150 years.
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/water_02.html
http://www.kancoll.org/khq/1946/46_2_malin.htm
http://www.ks.nrcs.usda.gov/about/ks_history/page_4.html
http://kidd.park.edu/debramcarthur/photo.htm
http://www.1900storm.com/
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/flooding/tenworst.shtml

Alan Lockwood, you might have a look over at Real Climate for that sort of information. It's run by a group of climate scientists.

------------------

Yes, Joe knows weather. Climate, not so much.

Andrew linked to some useful information (yes, actual data), and there's plenty more in the same vein at the NSIDC site I linked above. This recent NSIDC paper (not a permanent link, unfortunately) analyzes ice trends going back about fifty years.

Another detail that Joe may want to know about is that Greenland snowfall this summer was much below normal. How'd that happen?

Finally, he confused the Arctc Oscillation (AO) with the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation (AMO). Understandable, I suppose.

Mr. Bastardi has a lot of courgage to face the political wind on this one. He is exactly right. God bless him. The so called "climate change crisis" is nothing more than a power grab by government to gain further control over what private citizens can and cannot do.

Joe's very interesting and enthusiastic for such a topic on Meteorology. Very well done on the common sense and understanding that everything happens in cycles from the past. Common sense #2, we cannot measure what we don't have from the past.
It seems that other weather companies use future weather predictions as a form of fear and mass media manipulations for political/governmental pull and/or power.

Joe tells it how it is, something very beautiful and rare in this day and age.

michael seitzinger:
"People who argue against climate change are the same people who claimed the world was flat."

Wow. They must be getting pretty long in the tooth at this stage...

michael seitzinger, do you have any photos of those trees from 30 years ago? 50 years? 100 years ago? I believe you just help prove Joe's point.

Thank you Katie and Joe....a streightforward and easy to understand interview. We here in southern new england have had a remarkably cool and pleasant summer with a nice round of Indian Summer in October,it happens, with seasonably cool temps arriving. Killer frosts have just started about a week ago, and the Leaves are just stunning this year! Apple Harvest in our region has been a bumper crop, and I have to put wood in the stove this morning, Brrr :)

Wow, a scientist who doesn't buy the AGW theory! How refreshing to hear his common sense views on global warming. I was particularly impressed by the reality check he pointed to concerning satellite data becoming available only since 1979.

Thank you Dr. Bastardi and thank you AccuWeather for restoring some sanity to this, mostly political, discussion.

I can't wait to hear his views on the non-existent 2007 hurricane season. The AGW faithful would have us believe that it's impossible not to have more frequent and more severe hurricanes what with all the warming that is occurring.

This blog can be so disheartening at times. It's gotten oddly political lately. (Emphasis on odd.) Why is RICH talking about an American-Canadian-Mexican dollar? In what way is that weather related? Why is the TV weatherman (Bastardi on Weatherworld on WPSX) talkng about climate? Meteorology is not climatology even if you like what Bastardi says.

But, then I remember that this place is really the last safe haven for people who choose to continue to deny and mock what they refuse to accept. Like when RICH implies that one would surely have to be a habitual user of cannibus to believe that humans are causing global warming. Brett, what's wrong with you that you allow a comment like that to get posted? (Reply: He is free to his opinion, just like you are. Brett. )In what way is it helpful, or again, related to issues of climate?

Then again, what else should I expect from a source of Wikiality like this one? Realizing that outside the finite universe of this mutual admiration and misdirection society, the world's important adults are finally admitting we all have a problem typically makes me feel better. As does the fact that as society advances, the folks who populate this wikiality are increasingly finding that their reality consists only of the highly confined space in this blog.

Yell and scream in this little blog until your collective throats are hoarse, but you aren't going to stop the train, deniers. You're too late.

Whether the warming we have seen over the last 100 years will continue or not, I cannot say, but Joe Bastardi reminds me a lot of the great Richard Feynman (and not just because of the accent) when he encourages us to stop accepting science dogma fed through corporate-run entertainment companies, and research these things ourselves.

I couldn't help but think of Feynman's role uncovering the Shuttle's O-ring deficiencies while serving on the Rogers Commission listening to Joe.

Whether or not we take the theory of AGW as some article of faith (as many activists appear obsessed with) or not is besides the point. If we want to come to any conclusions, must all strive to understand the underlying science and weigh the evidence ourselves, and then act accordingly.

Anybody who ever studied any science knows this, and I think this is what irks many about the political overtones that come from both sides of this debate, particularly the pro AGW side.

Thank you Joe!

Making the assumption because your leaves have not fallen yet and that October has been exceptionally warm is due to GW is like saying a stiff breeze is due to a hurricane. You've been on the earth less time then the earth has been in existince (unless you are really old). What makes you think your obsevation carries any weight. Using your logic if November is the coldest month in a long time will it be due to global cooling?

Please!

Unlike the RealClimate staff who are paid to push an agenda of fear, uncertainty and doubt - Joe Bastardi has a regular job helping people with their day to day lives.

Guys,

Speaking of arctic sea ice, it has been predicted that the arctic will have a particularly warm winter this year, in connection to the large negative sea-ice anomaly observed this summer. So I think that we should all keep a close watch on the the land masses around the arctic circle. As mentioned by Jim Andrews in his World Weather blog on this site, (http://www.accuweather.com/regional-news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0®ion=worldnews&date=2007-10-24_19:24)
siberia seems to have had a rather warm start. I've been observing mainland nunavut, and things seem to be holding about steady at seasonal values there, on the whole. I haven't looked at Scandinavia, Alaska, the Yukon, or the Northwest territories lately. Has anyone been keeping an eye on them?
Brett, do you know of any site that provides data on the monthly average temperature anomalies for the three northern territories of Canada, similar to how the NCDC keeps track of those for the individual states?

Thanks

cmbclean,

Much of Alaska has been having an unusually cold fall. 21/25 days have been below normal in Fairbanks this month.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PAFA/2007/10/26/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar

Temperatures at Arctic Village have been as low as -25F
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PARC/2007/10/26/MonthlyHistory.html

Temperatures in the interior of Greenland have been averaging -26F
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2007/10/26/MonthlyHistory.html

Listen to our fellow deniers rejoice as their savior, Joe Bastardi, gives them a little red meat to chew on.

LOL.

I like Joe, I remember watching him on Weather World many years ago. The problem is that Joe makes no secret that he's a hardcore Republican, and he goes out of his way to trumpet his conservative beliefs any chance he gets.

When one looks to scientists, we hope that we are looking at an objective scientific viewpoint, rather than their personal biases. Knowing what we know about Joe, we are not sure whether he's simply sticking to the science or grinding a political axe. Or both.

I happen to think his political leanings weigh heavily on these so-called scientific viewpoints of his. But I commend him for at least keeping his politics out of this particular piece.

Joe's great: I'm suprised that you let him have a voice on your blog!!
Jim

His opinion? It's not an opinion. It's petty name calling, and it cheapens debate. Don't be obsequious and claim otherwise, Brett.

michael seitzinger:

Congrats! You just told us what we already know. Climate change is REAL no duh!!! But is AGW real. That's another question and I think you should try doing some more research.

Andrew:

"Sounds like Joe Bastardi is unaware that there are records of arctic sea ice extent going back to 1900 and they show a decline."

There is only one way to find out the artic sea ice since 1900. COMPUTERS! How accurate are they??? Hint: Our models can barely forecast out 24 hours correctly. How can they go back in time? Those graphs are generated from nothing! They are more experimental than anything.

GSN:

"Yell and scream in this little blog until your collective throats are hoarse, but you aren't going to stop the train, deniers. You're too late."

I don't think so buddy. And why are we the deniers anyway? Why can't YOU be the deniers for not believing that climate change is a natural cycle? Seriously, I have some friends which are "AGWers" and I love talking to them! It's fun! But you are so ONE sided and wound up in your way of thought. My professor tells me to leave all doors open, and I do! The AGW door is only a CRACK (about 1/8 of an inch). Just to let you know there seems to be a general trend in the new generation of climate scientists, there are a lot more "deniers" than ever. I have met a lot of other students and I would say 20% of them were believers and I have converted a few of them "Dark side" because I'm evil and think the world is flat and smoking is good for you! (what a joke)

Joe Bastardi is correct. People don't use their power of reason any more and just accept what they're told. Solar activity that is occuring at levels not seen before is given no consideration. Are we going through global changes? Answers is yes, but not entirely for the reasons so frequently stated. Is it impacting the ability to forcast weather, yes! Thanks Joe for your honest and clear reasoning!

GSN "the world's important adults " ???
who do you think you are??? ah yes, an elitist who is willing to hear all arguments... as long as they fall in line with what they believe. If not....DENIALIST!!!! UNIMPORTANT ADULT!!!! Typical lib.........

Dear Joe, what a rational, welcome view of the Global Warming Farce, not to mention your courage - but keep in mind, if Hillary gets in, you and I are both out of a job.

George in San Diego

Knowing what we know about Joe, we are not sure whether he's simply sticking to the science or grinding a political axe.

Mark,

Can you refute any of Joe's comments or can you only whine about him being a Republican? :)

BTW - It is easy to tell whether Joe is sticking to the science or not if you know science. Kind of like speaking English, if you speak it, you know whether someone else is :)

Andrew,

Bet you anything artic sea ice has been in the decline since the end of the Little Ice Age. In fact it has retreated at least a thousand miles since the last Ice Age.

Any AGW advocate,

How is it that you all are so whacked out over a ONE degree increase in temps that followed a ONE degree decrease in temps during the LIA?

Regards,

Steve

GSN-

Could you make a list of the top ten most "important adults" please. This would help me gauge just how much B.S you are eating at the moment.

Steve Bloom & Andrew,

Here is what NASA says is the cause of the rapidly melting Arctic sea ice. Sounds like air and ocean circulation patterns are the cause, and not a rise in atmospheric temperatures.

Proof of it is that 90% of sea ice is submerged and not exposed to atmospheric temperatures. Nor does Arctic air, even if a few degrees warmer than usual, have sufficient heat capacity to do significant melting or ocean warming; only already warmer water can do that, and the warm water was supplied via the Bering Straight from warmer lattitudes, pushed there by large scale atmospheric circulation patterns.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-112

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/videos/earth/earth20071001/

It all seems very logical and reasonable, and the source is impeccable; after all they are Jim Hansen's NASA colleagues.

Anon:

How about for now, we put Sarkozy at the top of the list? He's just backed a carbon tax, even though he's used by the right as an indication of how "socialist" France has recognized the error of their ways and is turning rightward.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKPAB00356820071025

Courage? Strong Opinions? Joe is jumping on the latest bandwagon...anti-GW. Now that the ball is rolling against Al Gore he "sticks his head out". Where was he a couple of years ago? Over hyping some hurricane that was clearing going to avoid some major city, or hyping up an East Coast hurricane season. He dislikes politics mixed with science...please, that's all this really is, politics and business!

I am amused by the reaction of the close-minded AGW faithful that Brett would have the audacity to allow such heresy as that espoused by Dr. Bastardi. Brett, how could you? The "science is settled" crowd really have their panties in a bunch over this interview.

Actually, I am not surprised by their reaction. Their comments smack of elitism which pervades liberalism, academia, and the mainstream media. The AGW zealots are long on arrogance and short on scientific facts. They should listen to Dr. Bastardi and challenge everything they are told; instead they follow the Gores and Hansens blindly. They look for bad news and ignore good news in an effort to convince everyone that the A in AGW is scientific fact which, of course, it is not.

The truth is that our civilization knows very little about the complex systems that drive our climate. Everything is open to question and revision as we build this body of knowledge through scientific inquiry. Instead, we are told by the AGWers, "trust me," I know best. Well, that's not good enough for me. I am not going to follow some self-proclaimed Pied Piper whose theory falls apart at every turn.

GSN,

You seem to have a hard time of accepting that AGW is a widely politicized and economically charged debate. Why are you so ignorant to this fact? Look at the piece again. Did you actually listen to it? Before speaking with Bastardi, it opens up by mentioning that the World Bank wants to step up its efforts to fight global warming.

This ties in with the Millenium Developement Goals proposed by the chief of the UN. This is wealth distribution based on inconclusive, non concensual findings. Where is the logic? The World Bank is getting involved with what many believe to be a non existant cause. Is that sound investing for a World Bank? I am convinced that there are different motives behind human induced global warming.

We are on the precipice of seeing an American, Canadian and possibly Mexican joined, Euro-type dollar...soon. I bring this up because first of all it's true. We are now dealing with a global economy, where competing nations are joining currency to strengthen their economic base. We are no different. Eventually more and more currencies will join forces. We are now in a global economy. Global warming (human induced) will help to make this transition smoother because it will be used as a common cause.

My theology based thought process is that there is an impending apocolypse, but it will not be from nature, but rather a united force that will use government, economics, politics and religion as a vehicle for bringing chaos and destruction, WWIII. I could get into specific timelined details and demonstate how this is happening, but it would not be allowed in this forum.

I know a good deal of people (friends) who abuse cannibus and most are on board with AGW. We discuss this all of the time. This link is just an observation. My comments are relevant. I apologize, no offense to you directly GSN.

GSN,
We really do need to know who makes the agw LIST of IMPORTANT ADULTS!
We all need to know who to bow down to and accept their view of the world as THE gospel.Thanks for putting politics in the debate.
Some of us wonder Just when is the AGW Religion going to put science in?
With any luck when you grow up you too can be an important adult.

LOL Everybody have a great weekend...and stay cool

The AGW crowd who regularly post on this site seem to be of the opinion that they are better and smarter than anyone that does not agree with the AGW mantra. I certainly think the words of Joe Bastardi are far more credible than those of Al Gore. BTW Joe did not say there was not climate change, he just doubts that human activity is the cause.

Another point, Katie Fehlinger may be adding to global warming. She definately raises my temperature a few degrees.

Great to hear some common sense for a change.
Stay true to the science Joe. We appreciate it.
michael seitzinger:
"People who argue against climate change are the same people who claimed the world was flat."
I believe you are refering to one of the more famous Scientific concensus positions of history.
That one, thankfully was also shown to be wrong.

GSN:
You are correct that a majority of people have been convinced by AGW theory. However, as with nearly all the previous Scientific Concensus positions of the past, this one will die a humiliating death as well. Our screaming is not what will kill it however, the truth will. That inconvienient truth always seems to find the light eventually.
As for the suggestion that RealCliamte.org is a credible source of information, well LOL. They sitll defend the compleatly discredited Hockey stick graph as well as ALL of Al Gore's exaggerations. Credible? I think not.

GW is natural. It has been going on since the LIA. Everything we are seeing these days is consistant with a steady slow increase in temperature as the world recovers from a bad cold spell.
Get a grip on reality.

Wow, thanks JOE...someone brave enough to speak on a topic like this stands to get lots of flack I suppose...in this world now it's a given! It's almost sad seeing a few of these responses trying to claim Greenland this or the Artic that or their backyard whatever...OMG it's as if those in the AGW crowd have collectively become rabid and lost all touch with reality...I live by the Atlantic ocean and tell ya what, I and others here have NEVER seen so much land present and exposed at low tide, kinda like the Maldives issue with that greenie group from Australia who took down that old tree out on the beach that exposes the fraud of see level rise there...

I no longer ponder if such groups and statements are by 'accident' I know they're flat out lies!

And Joes' long range ideas are well considered climate, oceanic and many other sources he uses to forcast and there's not many out there that are as good or even close, so thank you Joe and Accuweather for having the guts to say it like it is!

Did anyone else notice a general sentiment from the AGW cult that Joe should not be allowed to present his position?
For those with open minds, here are a few excellent reference sites that offer consistantly good and timely information on why AGW is just simply wrong.
http://www.globalwarminghype.com/
http://icecap.us/index.php
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/GWQuiz/Testindex.html
http://climateaudit.org/
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html
And if you would like to see what a farce AGW really is, look here:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Enjoy.

Alan Lockwood, I see that I dropped the wrong url into that RealClimate link above. This is the correct one.

Jonathon, did you even notice that the discussion you linked was about *winter* sea ice? Probably not. Atmospheric temperatures in the winter aren't much of an issue in ice reduction for rather obvious reasons. Summer air temps are a different matter. You might want to read that NSIDC article I linked above.

Thanks Brett! Based on the responses received so far regarding Joe Bastardi's opinions on climate change, you seem to have hit a nerve on both sides of the debate. "Ouch" from alarmists and "Bravo" from the less political crowd. I have to admit that these types of interviews probably offer more substance to the overall debate than anything else. Most accept climate change as real and inevitable....after all it has been occuring for thousands if not millions of years. What is curiously suspicious is that a GHG representing Cynically, the real, immediate problem we are facing is the Politicization of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science)!

Gary,

Great links. I love this one-

Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?

http://nujournal.net/core.pdf

Joe, thanks for the great perspective. It's funny how meteorologists naturally seem skeptical on this issue - can't because they know how hard it is to predict in a chaotic system and how worthless models are more than a few days out. I've see one of Joe's peers, Art Horn, provide awesome presentations detailing our actual current scientific understandings of climate.

Isn't it also funny how the AGW proponents almost invariably utilize religious terminology in their posts. "Savior, deniers, rejoice," etc etc. This really is a religious article to them entirely believed on faith. Anyone who doubts is to be condemned. They are a new iteration of earth worshippers only this time they want to throw our economy into the volcano rather than the virgin to save the planet. (Picture Al Gore in a grass skirt dancing around the fire!)

It all would be very funny if so much wasn't at stake.

Patrick Henry et al,

Thanks for noticing my post. Things have been going okay in nunavut and the yukon. I'm "worried" about Siberia though. As you pointed out, alot of the negative ice anomaly was over on the siberian side of the arctic.

It'll be interesting to watch the fall out from his opinion. Most scientists have been black balled when going against the current fad of global warming. As it is right now, the global warming camps are turning this into a money machine using vague data and chicken little "the sky is falling" tactics. Ask a scientist in the global warming camp to explain the history of weather going back 1000 years rather than just trying to explain it all away using less than a hundred years of data. History show's us that the Vikings were farming on Greenland in the 10th century and then the climate changed and all of Europe went into the deep freeze. Usually they try to explaing these events as a natural cycle.

I know other countries especially China are emitting large amounts of CO2 in recent decades but what about the early to mid industrial revolution when the Pittsburghs and NY's and other cities were spitting out the stuff and cities like LA had smog problems when there was not much regulation. It just seems things were worse back then.

Was that just a drop in the bucket compared to what is happening globally now and over time its accumulated?

Sorry if I am stating the obvious but did we really have a good starting point for reliable measurement on CO2 levels?

I obviously need some facts I guess

Mark - Your intolerance of any thoughts that might run counter to your political agenda is quite telling. I thought lefties were supposed to be tolerant of folks with differing opinions and views. Mr. Bastardi makes reasonable comments on the topic and people with open minds could derive some perspective from some of the points he makes. It is not necessary to embrace his position, but would it hurt the AGW folks to open themselves to different perspectives? Politically-driven positions on science will never carry the day. More reasoned arguments from other AGW devotees are much more likely to add perspective that aids in discussion.

People or organizations don't pat Accuweather or Joe Bastardi to forecast Artic Ice extemes, or the CO2 concentrations of Mexico or Lybia. He is a "medium range" or "long range" weather forecaster. As a former weather forecaster, I noticed that Joe Bastardi was the only forecaster who predicted last Winter's North American weather with any degree of accuracy. Politics have nothing to do with it. Either he is correct, or he is incorrect. Steve Bloom or Andrew, there is no one who works at either NOAA, or publishes for Realclimate who enjoys the amount of success that either Accuweather or Joe Bastardi has enjoyed. If you are a construction company or energy company, whoese success or profits are hinged on accurate forecasts of the weahter 90 or 120 days out, look no futher than Joe.

Party affiliation means nothing when you are correct.

I see the battle between the alarmists and deniers continues as would be predicted from this piece.

It is too funny how some assert Bastardi is a Republican, and immediately dismisses everything said as agenda driven. Did it ever occur to them that most of the scientists at Realclimate might be Democrats (and if you read the discussion blog, I dare say many are downright socialists)? Of course not. That is what drives me nuts about the alarmist crowd, the double standard of their thinking stinks.

Being a skeptic means one continues to ask questions and continues to researches, and listens WITH RESPECT to other viewpoints. Shame on all of you who demand an end to the debate.

I only scanned the posts quickly, but did not see the following link.

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf

Public policies should be based on sound science, not knee-jerk opinions.

It is always good to see when good science makes its way into the news. Let us give it better visibility.

Keep up the good work.

cbmclean:
Here is a link to a city in Russia that is in the arctic circle. http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/25248/2007/10/28/MonthlyHistory.html As you can see it is cold and getting colder. Anyone saying that with all that ice melt it is warm in the arctic would be very wrong. All areas of the arctic have now reported below zero readings. By the way did you get rain over the last few days? Take care.

Mark;

In your criticism of Mr. Bastardi, you fail to cite even one solid fact as to why you disagree with him. Can you cite any factual wrongs in what he says about the California fires or the Delaware Valley, or is his party affiliation all that is necessary for proof of his being wrong?

Seeing as how you and Erich Honecker are pretty closely aligned, politically speaking, it is not hard to see why you think Bastardi's being a Republican (if he is, in fact, so). Better to argue against scientific facts rather than politics.

Bob,

Yeah, we got a good helping of rain in the piedmont. BTW, what part of the mountains are you from? My girlfriend's parents live in Old Fort, which is right off I-40 about 30 miles east of asheville. I myself am from Hope Mills, which is right outside of Fayetteville. I go to NC State, so I live in Raleigh now. My girlfriend lives in Graham, which is just eats of burlington. Raleigh got a fair amount of rain, I think the Burlington area got even more. Unfortunately, the Fayetteville area didn't seem to get so much, which sucks, because my dad runs a lawnmower sales/repair shop (that my grandmother owns) in Hope Mills, so healthy grass is important to our livlihood.

"Mark - Your intolerance of any thoughts that might run counter to your political agenda is quite telling."

This isn't about politics, Buzz. It's about NOT having someone's politics mixing in with what is supposed to be an unbiased, objective scientific conclusion. Joe's right-wing affiliations undermine his credibility. ANY scientist that brashly proclaims their political views undermine their credibility.

"I thought lefties were supposed to be tolerant of folks with differing opinions and views."

I'm not a lefty, so you might want to ask someone who is.

"Steve Bloom or Andrew, there is no one who works at either NOAA, or publishes for Realclimate who enjoys the amount of success that either Accuweather or Joe Bastardi has enjoyed. If you are a construction company or energy company, whoese success or profits are hinged on accurate forecasts of the weahter 90 or 120 days out, look no futher than Joe."

LOL! Oh man. How much are they paying you, JP? Seriously, as I've said before, I like Joe and his passion for weather. But don't sit there with a straight face and say he's the most accurate forecaster. I liken him as a forecaster to a home run slugger in baseball. He swings for the fences with his long range forecasts. Like most home run sluggers, he'll hit one out of the park once in a while, but more often than not, he whiffs and strikes out. If you want examples, let's look at January 2006, which Joe said would be very cold. Instead, it turns out to be the warmest January on record in the lower 48. Or the winter of 2001-02, which Joe said would be brutally cold, possibly the "Ghost of 1899." Yeah, winter of 2001-02 was extremely warm across most of the country. Or we could talk about the last two hurricane forecasts.

Party affiliation doesn't matter when you're incorrect too, right JP?

"Look for it only in books, for it is no
more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind."
_____________________________________________

Great quote, great point!

I too fear we are headed towards a Dark Age of superstition and pseudo-science, "global warming' being the latest and greatest example of this.

Mark,

I forgot. Which well-known hurricane forecaster called this summer correctly? Was it the climate modelers who predicted an extremely active season, and for Dean to Hit Louisiana? Or the Met who predicted a blistering hot UK summer?

People who live in glass houses....

Way to go Joe,
It would really be a boring world if we could tell what the weather was going to be year in and year out.There is no way ,anyone is going to tell me that, they are going to tell me what the weather is going to be next year. Mother nature is changing and the world is changing as far back as man can recall.This is one thing that man can screw with and make it worse, not better ,no matter how hard they try. Mother nature always has the last say and sometimes it is devastating.It seems ,the more man tries to fix it .It gets worse.
Steve

cbmclean:

Live 2 miles north of Mt. Pisgah in Candler. My wife and I are originally from Orlando so it is great to live in the Mountains. Look us up if you visit the area.

Great job Joe, don't let the merchants of smear discourage you, there are plenty of rational people looking to debate and discuss the issue and are more then willing to hear your opinions on it. Please keep it up.

Just to let your know you are not alone:

Scientists Disputing "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory:

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
- Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor

Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Bruno Wiskel, BSc. Honours Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, Rutgers University, USA
David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George Kukla, Micropalentologist, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joe Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Khabibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus, Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, NYU, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, University of Washington, USA
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Lawrence University, USA
Paul Reiter, Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, University of British Columbia, Canada
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc Physics, M.Sc Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Reid A. Bryson, B.A. Geology, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Timothy (Tim) F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William (Bill) M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland

Deceased:
August H. Auer Jr., AMS Certified Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA (Died: June 10, 2007)

Meteorologists:
A.J. Colby, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Meteorologist WKYC-TV, USA
Andre Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Anthony Watts, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist KPAY-AM, USA
Arlo Gambell, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Art Horn, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WVIT-TV, USA
Bill Meck, Chief Meteorologist WLEX-TV, USA
Bill Steffen, Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Bob Breck, B.S. Meteorology & Oceanography, University of Michigan, Chief Meteorologist WVUE-TV, USA
Brad Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Brian Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Bruce Schwoegler, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Christopher Plonka, Meteorologist USAF, USA
Craig James, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State University, Chief Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Dan Maly, Retired Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
David Aldrich, B.S. Meteorology, North Carolina State University, Meteorologist WTXF-TV, USA
Dick Goddard, Chief Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Don Webster, Retired Meteorologist WEWS-TV, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Canada
Eugenio Hackbart, Chief Meteorologist MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center, Brazil
Herb Stevens, Meteorologist WNYT-TV, USA
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist WCFT-TV, WJSU-TV, USA
Jason Russell, Meteorologist, WTEN-TV, USA
Joe Bastardi, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State, Expert Senior Forecaster AccuWeather, USA
John Coleman, Meteorologist, Founder of 'The Weather Channel', Chief Meteorologist KUSI-TV, USA
Jon Loufman, Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
Justin Berk, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Meteorologist WMAR-TV, USA
Karl Bohnak, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Meteorologist WLUC-TV, USA
Kevin Lemanowicz, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WFXT-TV, USA
Kevin Williams, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WHEC-TV, USA
Mark Koontz, Meteorologist WFMJ-TV, USA
Mark Breen, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Senior Meteorologist Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium, USA
Mark Johnson, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist, WEWS-TV, USA
Nick Morganelli, Free-Lance Meteorologist, USA
Rich Apuzzo, Chief Meteorologist Skyeye Weather, USA
Roy Leep, B.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, Meteorologist WTVT-TV, USA
Sally Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Shane Hollett, Meteorologist WMJI-FM, USA
Steven Nogueira, NWS Senior Meteorologist, USA
Terry Eliasen, B.S. Meteorology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Meteorologist WBZ-TV, USA
Tim Kelley, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist NECN, USA
Tom Chisholm, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, Lyndon State College, Chief Meteorologist WMTW-TV, USA
William Kininmonth, M.Sc, Colorado State University, Retired Head of Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Australia

Social Scientists:
Andrey Illarionov, Ph.D. Economics, St. Petersburg University, Russia
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
James Inhofe, B.A. Economics, University of Tulsa, USA
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
Marlo Lewis, B.A. Political Science, Ph.D. Government, Claremont McKenna College, USA
Myron Ebell, M.Sc. Economics, London School of Economics, USA
Richard Tol, Ph.D. Economics, Vrije Universiteit, The Netherlands
Richard W. Rahn, Ph.D. Business Economics, Columbia University, USA
Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Economics, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Thomas A. Birkland, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Washington, USA
Thomas Gale Moore, Ph.D. Economics, University of Chicago, USA
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia
William Nordhaus, Ph.D. Economics, MIT, USA

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

I am a meteorologist and happen to believe GW is real and caused by humans. In fact, with CO2 levels rising at an acclerating rate and is actually increasing at a rate that goes way beyond the worst case scenrios of forecasts made in the 1990s, I wonder if we finally hit our tipping point. The oceans aren't able to absorb as much CO2 any longer. The oceans have become acidic and has cause corals to bleach. As polar ice melts, the earth's albido is increasing. As tundra thaws the once frozen soils start to decay and release even more CO2 and methane.

My forecast: By 2012 everyone on this site will have changed their minds. It's worse than we thought it was going to be.

Be prepared. It's too late to stop this run away train now. Mark my word. By 2012, you will have changed your mind.

Having badly mispredicted this summer's UK weather, the Met office has learned to cover their bases.

This winter is forecast to be warmer than average. However, it is expected to be noticeably colder than last year
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070927.html

Last winter was about 1.6 degrees above average in the UK. The Princess and the Pea will be able to detect that magical 0.2 degree range which is "above normal but noticeably colder."

If the winter is warm, they win! If the winter is cold, they win! If the winter is normal, they win! Gotta love the British sense of humor.

Hi Jack,

I didn't realize that meteorologists were using CO2 in their forecasts now, forecasting weather five years out, or predicting future human belief systems. Please explain this revolutionary new development in the field of meteorology.

BTW - if you think the train is unstoppable, I'd suggest that you stop worrying about it and enjoy the rest of this lovely Sunday. Hopefully the Rockies will be put out of their misery today and BT can enjoy the party back home.

Mark,
Your previous point made my point. People who depend on accurate seasonal and long range forecasts will gladly pay money to those who can deliver. And, since when is forecasting accuracy determined by party affliation?

Those who can deliver good results consistently can make living in this field. Does this make Joe a climatologist? Of course not. However, his take on weather/climate cannot be ignored. As a former weather forecaster, I have much more respect for him than for someone who issues predictions so far into the future that thier predictions are foregotten a day after those predictions are issued. It is a totally different game when your livelyhood is riding on your forecasts.

Jack, spouting the AGW line by using false arguments doesn't help your cause. It's warmer water that bleaches coral, not the miniscule increase in acidity. You sound like you haven't been doing meteorology for very long.

There are plenty of people on "Poptech's" list who I suspect would object to being added to the ranks of the insane as was done above. There are very few actual climate scientists listed, and the majority of those do not "dispute man-made global warming theory."

I see that there's some local talent listed. Brett, is it clear to you that Abrams and Sobel "dispute man-made global warming theory"? Just curious.

Reply: Steve, I really cannot speak for them. All you have to do is send them an email and I am sure you will get the answer. Brett

Steve,

Dispute as in questioning various parts of it to believing natural causes are the prominent climate drivers.

It is funny that you mention "actual climate scientists" since this is an elusive definition as you can see by the education of the following alarmist scientists who are claimed to be "climate experts":

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA)
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology

Climate Science covers a vast array of degrees in the natural sciences. Don't be fooled into thinking you must have a degree in climatology to be able to research or comment on it.

Jack,

You harp on 2012 as a turning point. Any correlation with the Mayan "End of times" or "End of an era" prediction of 2012?

"Be prepared. It's too late to stop this run away train now. Mark my word. By 2012, you will have changed your mind."

THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!

Honestly, Jack. I doubt your meteorology training. Online degree perhaps?

Steve Bloom,

What happened? You were so confident that the link you provided would make Singer look bad.

My response, though lacking a link :) was pretty clear.

In your reply, you called a me crackpot wanna Galileo to which I replied asking why you never answered my questions.

Do you admit that the link you provided was BS? Funny how loud AGW'ers are when parroting someone else's work, but go silent when asked to explain themselves.

Deniers, Contrarians, Non-Believers, Crackpot Wanna-Be Galileo's, Let's not forget that CO2's role in GW is nothing more than a poor thought.

The 1 degree increase we have seen since the LIA where we saw a 1 degree DECREASE has simply been attributed to CO2. There is ZERO proof. Steve Bloom, can you provide any proof, or perhaps you'd like to point us to a link that that is flawed and points to other links that do not exist anymore?

Perhaps you can point us to an "Atmospheric Mathematician". You know the kind with a distinct graduate degree to show how 750 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause the warming attributed to it?

I look forward to your reply,

Steve

Jack:

LOL, You know, you have just sealed the fate of the GW issue. By predicting that by 2012, we will all realize that GW is happening, you have just condemened it to be over by 2012. Everyone knows to look to the opposite of what a meteorologist says about the weather, LOL. Just kidding, I think.

Even if it confirms to be warmer by then, the human component will still be quite debateable.

Most importantly, I will be glad of warmer temps, less cost for winter heating, not much change in summer cooling costs, longer growing seasons, etc. In studying this issue, I really fail to see a negative, unless you live at sea level on an atoll in the middle of the ocean. Which, I do not.

Joe Bastardi's Winter forecast is out:

http://tinyurl.com/yp82v6

Poptech, you're right that what a degree is called doesn't mean much. What counts is a substantial record of *relevant* research and peer-reviewed publication. A very few scientists (e.g. Christy or Lindzen) might appear from their public statements to be denialists, but if you look at their actual positions you find out that their "disagreement" with the consensus boils down to arguing that climate sensitivity to CO2 might be on the low end of the IPCC range; i.e., their views place them in a small scientific minority but not outside the consensus. This is in contrast to most of the folks on your list, who are unqualified and/or crackpots.

A topical article from yesterday's NYT:

Bright Scientists, Dim Notions
By GEORGE JOHNSON
Published: October 28, 2007

At a conference in Cambridge, Mass., in 1988 called 'How the Brain Works,' Francis Crick suggested that neuroscientific understanding would move further along if only he and his colleagues were allowed to experiment on prisoners. You couldn't tell if he was kidding, and Crick being Crick, he probably didn't care. Emboldened by a Nobel Prize in 1962 for helping uncoil the secret of life, Dr. Crick, who died in 2004, wasn't shy about offering bold opinions -- including speculations that life might have been seeded on Earth as part of an experiment by aliens.

The notion, called directed panspermia, had something of an intellectual pedigree. But when James Watson, the other strand of the double helix, went off the deep end two Sundays ago in The Times of London, implying that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on.

Since the publication in 1968 of his opinionated memoir, 'The Double Helix,' Dr. Watson, 79, has been known for his provocative statements (please see 'Stupidity Should be Cured, Says DNA Discoverer,' New Scientist, Feb. 28, 2003), but this time he apologized. Last week, uncharacteristically subdued, he announced his retirement as chancellor and member of the board of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, where he had presided during much of the genetic revolution.

Though the pronouncements are rarely so jarring, there is a long tradition of great scientists letting down their guard. Actors, politicians and rock stars routinely make ill-considered comments. But when someone like Dr. Watson goes over the top, colleagues fear that the public may misconstrue the pronouncements as carrying science's stamp of approval.

Kary Mullis, after grabbing a piece of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, dove head first off the platform, expounding on the virtues of LSD and astrology and expressing his doubts about global warming, the ozone hole, and H.I.V. as the cause of AIDS. On the latter point he was following the lead of Peter Duesberg, a molecular and cell biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and member of the National Academy of Sciences, who still insists that AIDS is caused by recreational drug use and even by one of the pharmaceuticals used for treatment.

Iconoclasts at heart, the best scientists are faced with an occupational hazard: having left their mark on one small patch of ground, they are tempted to stir up trouble elsewhere.

"With my own advancing years, I'm mindful of the three different ways scientists can grow old," Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal of the United Kingdom and president of the Royal Society, wrote in an e-mail message. The first two choices are either to become an administrator or to content yourself with doing science that will probably be mediocre. ("In contrast to composers," Dr. Rees observed, "there are few scientists whose last works are their greatest.") The third choice is to strike off half-cocked into unfamiliar territory -- and quickly get in over your head. "All too many examples of this!" he lamented.

Creationists still gleefully pounce on a quote from the Cambridge University astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who late in his career compared the likelihood of a living cell arising through evolution to "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a Boeing 747. This caricature of the evolutionary process led to the coinage of the term Hoyle's Fallacy. Dr. Hoyle also promoted the notion that epidemics are caused by viruses hitchhiking on the tails of comets.

Sometimes the wandering from one's home turf extends all the way to the paranormal. In 2001, when officials of the Royal Mail, the British postal service, issued a package of stamps commemorating the centenary of the Nobel Prize, they sought the counsel of Brian Josephson, who shared the prize for physics in 1973 for his superconductivity research. Physicists across Britain recoiled when an official pamphlet accompanying the stamps predicted that quantum mechanics might lead to an understanding of mental telepathy.

"Perhaps we should have checked that," a spokeswoman for the Royal Mail told Nature at the time. "But if he has won a Nobel Prize for his work, that should give him some credibility."

With science treading right to the bleeding edge of the knowable, maybe the Royal Mail can be forgiven for mistaking pseudoscience for the real thing. In an article in The Observer of London, David Deutsch, a quantum theorist at Oxford University, dismissed Dr. Josephson's speculations as "utter rubbish." Dr. Deutsch is known for proposing the existence of a multiplicity of parallel universes.

There is a difference of course between bold speculations and Dr. Watson's reckless remarks. In announcing his retirement, in an oddly oblique e-mailed dispatch, he expressed hope that the latest biological research, at Cold Spring Harbor and elsewhere, would lead to treatments for mental illness and cancer. Invoking his "Scots-Irish Appalachian heritage" and a faith in reason and social justice passed on by his parents, he sounded sad and confused, as though this time he had succeeded in dumbfounding even himself.

Steve Bloom -

"Jonathon, did you even notice that the discussion you linked was about *winter* sea ice? Probably not. Atmospheric temperatures in the winter aren't much of an issue in ice reduction for rather obvious reasons. Summer air temps are a different matter."

Your comment demonstrates to me that YOU did not bother to look at either the video or the article. If you had you would have seen this sentence at the very beginning :

"This drastic reduction of perennial winter sea ice IS THE PRIMARY CAUSE of this SUMMER'S fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record and subsequent smallest-ever extent of total Arctic coverage."

"Atmospheric temperatures in the winter aren't much of an issue in ice reduction for rather obvious reasons. Summer air temps are a different matter."

I would have thought you would know that 'winter' temperatures in the Arctic do not get above freezing, period. It is only in the summer that they can, although not by very much, and not for very long. Your ignorance and arrogance are astounding.

Steve B:
You forgot to mention the notorious James Hansen who in the 70's helped to model the great Global Ice Age Scare.

Just an oversight?

I am on a list of people who question that global warming is caused in (whatever) part by humans because of the mistaken belief that people are not allowed to change their minds as new information becomes available.

It is true that during the waning years of the last century, I signed a statement that included a number of scientists who doubted the global warming by humans theory.

I have since changed my mind and believe that it is true that human activity is a cause of global warming. I am sure this will clarify nothing in the minds of those who do not understand or accept the possibility that a person can change her or his opinion in light of new and improved information. However, that's what happened.

Despite my current conviction that human activity does cause global warming, I do not share the fear of debate that others with my belief seem to exhibit. But, that stance is left for them to defend.

I appreciate the forthright and candid statement from Elliott Abrams. It's a good example of why I have always respected Accuweather, why I rely on his forecasts, and why I participate in this forum.

I have since changed my mind and believe that it is true that human activity is a cause of global warming.

Elliot,

What is it that changed your mind?

Regards,

Steve

"You forgot to mention the notorious James Hansen who in the 70's helped to model the great Global Ice Age Scare."

Now there's a complete lie, Gary. In a sane world, you would be too embarassed to post again.

Now there's a complete lie, Gary. In a sane world, you would be too embarassed to post again.

Is it any different from this lie? How do you paste both a name and an email address into the browser form "by mistake"? Or how about his follow-up -- hoping a good offense will obscure his blunder?

Is it "Gary" or "Randy" who's lying? Both? Are they the same person? Multiple people? Part of Morano's organization?

With this crew, anything is possible.

Jonathon, you demonstrate the drawbacks of carelessly using press releases to prove scientific points. Had you read carefully you would have found that the situation is more complex.

From the top:

You wrote: "Here is what NASA says is the cause of the rapidly melting Arctic sea ice. Sounds like air and ocean circulation patterns are the cause, and not a rise in atmospheric temperatures.

"Proof of it is that 90% of sea ice is submerged and not exposed to atmospheric temperatures. Nor does Arctic air, even if a few degrees warmer than usual, have sufficient heat capacity to do significant melting or ocean warming; only already warmer water can do that, and the warm water was supplied via the Bering Straight from warmer lattitudes, pushed there by large scale atmospheric circulation patterns."

So, you claimed that "air and ocean circulation patterns are *the* cause" and that the warmer air cannot have resulted in "significant melting." The problem is that neither the paper nor even the press release said either thing (as is demonstrated by the quote in your more recent comment).

BTW, the positive Arctic Oscillation phase that has resulted in the increased winter ice loss into the North Atlantic was present in the '90s but *even more strongly*, yet did not result in the kind of sharp reduction we're presently seeing. The NSIDC paper I linked (but you didn't read) states in its conclusions:

"The Arctic sea ice is clearly experiencing unusual conditions. This study shows a significant change in the character of ice extent starting in the early 1990s. Before then, there was an overall downward trend, but it was limited to the summer and it was superimposed on a periodical signal. Starting in the early 1990s and accelerating in the early 21st century, the periodical signal has disappeared and the rate of decline has increased. While the AO may have triggered the sharp decline in the 1990s, the air temperatures are a primary influence recently, though other factors such as ocean heat and atmospheric feedback are likely also key influences. Where there are significant trends in individual regions, the trends are almost always negative and tend to be largest during the peak melt period of a given region."

Let me know if you're confused on any other points.

Steve and BT:
Now there's a complete lie, Gary. In a sane world, you would be too embarassed to post again.

Not embarassed at all actually. With all the crap that the AGW cult posts, I feel quite at liberty to post just about anything.
I will keep posting the truth regardless however.

Did you guys see the ClimateAudit posts showing what complete and utter Fraud the Mann Hocky Stick Vindication attempt was?
Very entertaining read.
Cheers.

BT;SB
Did some more reading on Hansen. He claims to not have helped directly with the ice age scam and many seem to back him.
Guess I will have to conceed that maybe he did not. Oh well.
Still dosn't excuse his recent lunacy about sea level rise though.

BTW: Do check cliamte Audit. the Hocky Stick Fraud issue is really very entertaining.
cheers....

Steve Bloom :

"Proof of it is that 90% of sea ice is submerged and not exposed to atmospheric temperatures. Nor does Arctic air, even if a few degrees warmer than usual, have sufficient heat capacity to do significant melting or ocean warming; only already warmer water can do that, and the warm water was supplied via the Bering Straight from warmer lattitudes, pushed there by large scale atmospheric circulation patterns."

So, you claimed that "air and ocean circulation patterns are *the* cause" and that the warmer air cannot have resulted in "significant melting." The problem is that neither the paper nor even the press release said either thing (as is demonstrated by the quote in your more recent comment).

Sorry Steve, I'm not confused at all, it is you who are confused ! You failed to notice that the comment was not in quotes, and thus it is not from the paper. Being a thermodynamicist, I added that fact; air temperatures would need to comparable to the temperate lattitudes - 30's & 40's F simply won't do it. Nor did you include any link to any paper in any previous post directed to me. I shall read it however, since you have provided the link now.

Based on the conclusion you quoted from your source, there certainly seems to be a difference of opinion between experts in the field, and the conclusion rational people should draw is that this is by no means "settled science."

BTW, in another post you wrote :

"You forgot to mention the notorious James Hansen who in the 70's helped to model the great Global Ice Age Scare." "Now there's a complete lie, Gary. In a sane world, you would be too embarassed to post again."

Regarding this, I saw this last month : http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070919/NATION02/109190067

which says : "'U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,' blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus."

Were you simply unaware of this, or are you claiming it never happened ?

Good Day

Hmmm....

Elliot:

I too am curious about your switch in thoughts and reasons for it. I would suppose that you have some lively debates with your colleagues there at the office.

And quite frankly, I respect a person who can change their mind about any topic as better or different information becomes available. I would think most people have no issue with that. What does concern me though is the question of whether or not that information is accurate and worthy. That is the real crux of this whole debate.

Elliot since you are an admitted part of the AGW crowd, and a well known and respected metereologist, can you please inform me of how warm it will be in the future here in central Ohio? Would like to keep planting lettuce right through winter here in Columbus. Really, that is all I care about, how many months out of the year can I grow veggies. LOL.

BT:

Are you implying that the skeptic "crew" is disengenous? Kinda like the pot kettle thing ain't it?

Gary, it turns out that the "ice age scam"... wasn't.

Regarding the HS, spending too much time on McIntyre's blog can give you a warped perspective on things. Personally I'd pay more attention to his stuff if he could get more scientists to agree with him. Not that I think the original HS paper was perfect -- I'm sure it wasn't. As the National Academy of Science expert panel noted, the key point is that its main conclusions have been confirmed by a lot of subsequent work.

Regarding Hansen: What climate factors establish the upper limit for the rate of ice sheet melt/collapse, and what does that tell us about the upper limit under conditions of continued warming?

Steve B:
Firstly the Ice Age Scam was real. It just turns out that Hansen may not have been a part of it.

I Will admit when I am wrong. And I seem to have been wrong.
And to be honest, the Hansen thing... I was really just annoyed with BTs condescending arrogance and wanted to poke a stick at him anyway. Hansen's history and credibility don't alter facts in any way.

The HS though. Did you read all the thread. Most of it was concerning the disgracefull farce that was the review. We all know the graph was a deliberate deception, "(We have to get rid of the MWP)"; the real issue was the cover up vindication schamm later used to prop up the fraud. Really supports the conspiricy theories.
Cheers Steve

Thanks Joe. The voice of reason and rationale must be heard. Otherwise, unthinkable measures will be adopted to regulate access to energy with devestating consequences to all peoples of the earth.

Thank you

Jonathon, of course I knew those were your ideas. The problem is that you attributed them to the paper, and the point you were trying to make (that air temps are an insignificant factor in sea ice melting) is simply wrong. I'm not by any means claiming that they're the largest factor, BTW. If you, as a thermodynamicist, have a citation or a calculation to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

In terms of experts disagreeing, I'm not sure what you mean. The claim in the press release about AO-induced ice transport being the major factor in the ice reduction can't have been based on the paper itself.

On the "ice age scam" business, you'll find the answers in the link I provided Gary. I would suggest to you that the WaTimes link you provided doesn't provide a basis for concluding much of anything since it includes so little in the way of actual quotes of the 1971 WaPo article.

The Rasool + Schneider paper itself, BTW, was more or less a "what if" exercise that ran some calculations based on a completely unrealistic 4x increase in aerosol levels. I say unrealistic, but recall that 1971 was a time of great concern about rapidly increasing aerosol levels. The first Clean Air Act was passed at about the same time the paper came out. Was it a "scam" if the paper played a role in that? The key point is that nobody in the scientific community ever thought there was a realistic chance of an imminent "ice age," if for no other reason than that the effects of aerosols go away within a few years after the emissions cease.

But who cares what I think? Noted skeptic Richard Lindzen wrote in part: "But the scientific community never took the issue to heart, governments ignored it, and with rising global temperatures in the late 1970s the issue more or less died. In the meantime, model calculations--especially at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton--continued to predict substantial warming due to increasing carbon dioxide."

Steve, A substantial record of papers in peer-review journals is not proof of anything outside of writing a lot of papers. You can write 500 papers that are all wrong and you are less relevant then one scientist who published one paper who is right. What matters is the actual science. Most of the scientists listed have published papers in peer-reviewed journals and to call them quacks is dishonest simply because you disagree with their scientific positions.

You cannot add scientists who disagree with the consensus in simply because they agree on SOME issues that the consensus does. Neither Lindzen nor Christy consider their views to be of what the scientific consensus believes in regards to AGW. Which is the same for the other scientists listed. While I cannot speak for Elliot Abrams, I did notice that he was very careful in what he said. While many scientists may agree that humans are contributing in someway (which can include land-use changes) as having an effect on climate that does not automatically mean they believe humans are THE cause or main driver of the current climate and or it is all or largely all the result of human produced CO2. For instance you can believe that human produced CO2 is having a 1% effect on the climate and state you believe humans are effecting the climate. Thus the oversimplification of skeptical scientist's positions to push the main AGW theory of human produced CO2 as THE climate driver to catastrophy is propaganda and dishonest.

"There is no consensus on the hysterical message of doomsday pushed by Al Gore or James Hansen." I believe Elliot Abrams would agree on this last statement.

You might want to consider following Elliot's lead in being careful what you say, Poptech.

Joe,

You are absolutely correct. We have been overwhelmed by GW fanatics who see GW behind every concievable bush. Politicians who endorse AGW are either willingly ignorant or politically posturing. Thank you for speaking on behalf of the many who understand the issues but have no platform from which to speak.

Sincerely,

Doug

Let's try an experiment. Let's start with Doug Janeway's last comment:

You are absolutely correct. We have been overwhelmed by GW fanatics who see GW behind every concievable bush. Politicians who endorse AGW are either willingly ignorant or politically posturing. Thank you for speaking on behalf of the many who understand the issues but have no platform from which to speak.

Now, please consider the following:

You are absolutely wrong. We have been overwhelmed by AGW contrarians/deniers who see an AGW proponent behind every concievable bush. Politicians who oppose AGW are either willingly ignorant or politically posturing. Thank you for speaking on behalf of the many who understand the issues but have no platform from which to speak.

Each of these sounds like a statement that can be tested for accuracy. Is it? By what criteria?

I'd like to ask for a "truth-o-meter" score for each, along with a brief description of how it was arrived. Is there any mechanism, other than sheer personal bias, for calibrating these "truth-o-meter" ratings?

What are the implications of the results of this experiment?