Joe Bastardi comments are very refreshing - yes, we need validation, not just models and narrow minded single stat point of views - keep the information coming.

Yeah I think Joe is a skeptic, but so am I! Wouldn't it be really cool if one week Joe could have a debate with an AGW'er. I would love to see that, I like debates a lot more than just one person sitting down telling their point of view. I agree with Joe completely and I like the way he thinks.

P.S. I can't wait till next week's video with the interview. So pumped up for that!

Hansen's computer models Wrong??? Another error by Hansen How can that be???
Say it ain't so!
Mr. Bastardi puts AGW where it belongs…
"GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT!"
AGW is all glitz and show without substance.
Mr. Bastardi used facts, logic and rational thought. All he is asking for is to show the science and debate the merits. Yet I believe that will not happen.
I can’t wait for the AGW Folks to comment. It will not refute the science or call for debate. I suspect it will try to vilify him, start name calling(usually about age or politiks) and try to marginalize him. Remember: If you can’t answer the question kill the messenger.

Again, where is the science for AGW???? Don’t you just hate it when your golden ox is gored so easily with just a few sentences of common sense?

Hansen's computer models Wrong??? Another error by Hansen How can that be???
Say it ain't so!
Mr. Bastardi puts AGW where it belongs…
"GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT!"
AGW is all glitz and show without substance.
Mr. Bastardi used facts, logic and rational thought. All he is asking for is to show the science and debate the merits. Yet I believe that will not happen.
I can’t wait for the AGW Folks to comment. It will not refute the science or call for debate. I suspect it will try to vilify him, start name calling(usually about age or politiks) and try to marginalize him. Remember: If you can’t answer the question kill the messenger.

Again, where is the science for AGW???? Don’t you just hate it when your golden ox is gored so easily with just a few sentences of common sense?

Go Joe!
Meteorologist and climatologist are putting good science on the shelf for the sake of political and media hype. It will be interesting to see how our understanding of these incredibly complex systems evolves over the next ten years. I think we will see quite a few scientists asking themselves what were we thinking and where was the science in all of this.

Have you seen this story? Seems a bit strange that a Denier would be one of the principal authors of the IPCC report. What do you think of this? Is this global warming thing for real or just a bunch of hype?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

Quote from article: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time." - Dr. John Christy

One needs only to read Joe's blog on the Pro site to understand that he has a tendency and history to be wrong, sometimes very, very wrong on his interpretations of how climatic events will play out. Part of me respects Joe's abilities and his willingness to offer an "out of the box" perspective, but I mostly feel he's a big time hype artist and doesn't adequately respect others' points of view on climate issues.

So in essence take what Joe says with a grain of salt.

Two very different points.

The remarks about the Today show are telling you that what is happening at NBC these days "Green Week" ,broadcasting Al Gore's concert etc. No wonder all the their news reports claim that the scientific debate is "over" and Newsweek who partners with MSNBC on their website had their "science" columnist write an blistering article ironically claiming that the "deniers" movement was based on oil industry profit motive.

While as shown above I am very much a skeptic that humans are causing climate change and am happy this point of view is finally getting at least some press I find one charge leveled against us skeptics to have merit specifically that to many of us want to "do nothing" about climate change. Here are some preliminary ideas based on as Joe said "what we know". No more new Glass buildings and if at all possible replace the ones that are there. These buildings will kill and injure a lot of people in a major East Coast hurricane. As has been said before no subsidies for people building properties near the coast. Send out some of our best scientists to Holland to figure out how to build proper levees and dikes so the 23rd worst hurricane does not flood 80% of a city. Insanely the rebuilt levees are not any better then the ones that failed. And the remaining scientists that do not go to Holland are sent to France to figure out how 80% of their power supply comes from safely run nuclear power plants. Now my solutions will cost a whole lot and will have to be paid for by eliminating a bunch of popular programs and or raising taxes. That is why they will not happen and Al Gore's feel good ones will. A point that is openly one of thier main selling points.

Joe MUST be censored!!
It is this kind of irresponsible attitude that is the real problem in the world.
I don�t resort to scare tactics but, We Are All Going to DIE if we don�t buy carbon offsets!
As a new offset provider (buymyfarts.com) I fear that Joe�s comments will hurt my sales which of course will be disastrous for the planet.
Just look at the Evidence.
Tripping point after tripping point passed.
Ice melting, dry brush burning, warm summer days, Gaia�s libido decreasing!!!!!
These disasters are unprecedented. Deniers have to be silenced.

"Global Warming" man induced or not can still be regulated with my "TUNNELS" due to fact of the huge natural resource of cooler water in our oceans at about 500 feet. This reserve of cooler water can regulate our climate to best suit mankind. The "TUNNELS" tap into this huge reserve thus regulating SSTs.

Joe Bastardi does a good job of putting things in perspective. So far, all of the dire predictions attributed to AGW are:

1. Based on models, not the real world.
2. So far into the future that we can't verify.
3. Are pure speculation, not science.
4. Promote a political, social, economic agenda.

Today's New York Times reports on Mayor Bloomberg's call for a national tax on carbon emissions. If that happens then we will have reduced every American's spendable income based on the unproven AGW hypothesis. It's ridiculous to think that we are that stupid. Maybe those poor math and science test scores we've been reading about for years are finally coming home to roost.

Here's a link to the NYT article:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/bloomberg-calls-for-tax-on-carbon-emissions/index.html?hp

One only needs to look at predictions of climate modelers to recognize that they have a tendency and history to be wrong. Sometimes very, very wrong on their interpretations of how climatic events will play out. Mostly I feel they are big time hype artists and don't adequately respect others' points of view on climate issues.

Ron, it seems even more strange that someone would describe Christy as a "principal author," noting that Christy himself made no such claim. Why just make stuff up like that?

But speaking of Christy, those reading this who have a subscription to Eos will know that his recent paper on warming in the California Central Valley was thoroughly refuted on the front page just a couple of weeks ago. That must have really hurt since the paper was not only a huge amount of work for him (because of the need to digitize old records) but was intended as a vindication of sorts after the embarassing public corrections involving his main area of work (air temperature data gathered by satellites). So was the WSJ piece a case of sour grapes?

I know its silly and off topic, but isn't Joe's last name the perfect name for someone that you want to insult?

"That darn AGW denying Bastardi!!!

Ok. I got that out of my system.

So Hansen's models could not even correctly predict last year's El Nino ??? Add it was wrong on the. . . surprise, surprise - the WARM side ???

How pathetic.......................

Gary,

Very, uhhh, interesting comment. Very interesting indeed. Lot's of sarcasm.

Did anybody notice that Joe does not actually deny that global warming is caused by increasing CO2 levels?

That is very telling.

Notice he talks about hurricanes and El Ninos well enough, but all one has to do is to look at global temperature trends to see the warming over the last 30 years. Likewise, the science of how CO2 works in the atmosphere is clear enough that it is commonly called a greenhouse gas.

See the following for details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Likewise, sea levels rise has been measured, the trend is clear (it has accelerated since the 1800s) and the cause is from warming of the oceans and net melting of ice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Rick,

If you actually read your own article, you'll see that Bloomberg proposes a national consumption-based carbon tax, coupled with a payroll tax reduction.

Everyone pays payroll taxes. Every corporation pays payroll taxes. Reducing those means that every single employee and business will have a tax cut of some sort. Whether or not they'll have less disposable income compared with the current system will be directly related to how efficient they use energy. Some may pay more, some pay less, but in all cases, their tax burden is a reflection of their choices.

If the corporate-apologist flank of the right-wing would stop frothing at the mouth and turn off Limbaugh for one second, they'll realize that this is a step towards the type of tax system they've always wanted.

Andrew,

Everyone understands that increased CO2 levels will lead to higher temperatures as a first order effect. It is a question of magnitude.

Some interesting FAQ's from NOAA-

Global temperature extremes have been found to exhibit no significant trend in interannual variability, but several studies suggest a significant decrease in intra-annual variability. There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed. There is some indication of a decrease in day-to-day temperature variability in recent decades.

tropical storm frequency and intensity show no significant long-term trend in any basin.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1

Mark,

You said: "Some may pay more, some pay less, but in all cases, their tax burden is a reflection of their choices".

You said it, another "tax" to add to the "burden".

Don't you get it, Mark. We don't want more dictated choices. They make you think their doing you a favour, by putting money in your front pocket while they slip money from your back pocket to pay for it.

Out of every 12 months that folks have to work, every penny they make the first 7 months of the year, is to pay their total annual taxes. That's burden enough. Folks only really start making money for themselves the last 5 months of the year.

People don't have enough money to throw at the sky to try and change the weather back to the good old days, just because some cult leader say's that's what we should be doing.

It's real easy to make profound statements about how others should be spending their money, when those folks are not telling you how to spend yours.

Your tax system would be easier to swallow if we all worked in Taiwan and only paid 4% income tax, or had a rich Mommy and Daddy to look after us.

Mark,

You said: "Some may pay more, some pay less, but in all cases, their tax burden is a reflection of their choices".

You said it, another "tax" to add to the "burden".

Don't you get it, Mark. We don't want more dictated choices. They make you think their doing you a favour, by putting money in your front pocket while they slip money from your back pocket to pay for it.

Out of every 12 months that folks have to work, every penny they make the first 7 months of the year, is to pay their total annual taxes. That's burden enough. Folks only really start making money for themselves the last 5 months of the year.

People don't have enough money to throw at the sky to try and change the weather back to the good old days, just because some cult leader say's that's what we should be doing.

It's real easy to make profound statements about how others should be spending their money, when those folks are not telling you how to spend yours.

Your tax system would be easier to swallow if we all worked in Taiwan and only paid 4% income tax, or had a rich Mommy and Daddy to look after us.

Steve Bloom says:

But speaking of Christy, those reading this who have a subscription to Eos will know that his recent paper on warming in the California Central Valley was thoroughly refuted on the front page just a couple of weeks ago. That must have really hurt since the paper was not only a huge amount of work for him (because of the need to digitize old records) but was intended as a vindication of sorts after the embarassing public corrections involving his main area of work (air temperature data gathered by satellites). So was the WSJ piece a case of sour grapes?

I haven't seen the Eos article, and couldn't find any reference to it on the internet, but if Bloom follows his usual pattern, "thoroughly refuted" simply means someone disputed it. Consider his repeated claim that Christy was was embarrassed and discredited by having to correct his satellite temperature record. What actually occurred was that Wentz and Schabel discovered the need for an adjustment due to orbital decay, which Christy (and Spenser) then incorporated into their calculations. I wonder if Bloom considers Hansen discredited, since he had to make as least as significant a correction to his surface temperature record when Steve McIntyre discovered a computation error.

Also, the expression "sour grapes" means disparaging something because you can't have it. If Christy hadn't been part of the IPCC, and said he was glad he didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize because it's often given to loons, that might be sour grapes. Or it might be true.

Mark

Everyone doesn't pay payroll taxes. Retirees for instance.

Joe again thank you for speaking what is rarely heard these days, which is the truth. Computer Models using incomplete or biased data with poorly understood systems will produce garbage. I am a computer analyst by trade and am not surprised by the amount of computer illiterates who have no concept of how computer modeling or even computers work but latch on to them because the word "Computer" is used. Using the words "Multi-Million Dollar Computers" is even more convincing to the naive. Because we all know computers cannot be wrong! Well not only can errata exist in the hardware, bugs can exist in the software which can produce computational errors but that is besides the point. They do not even know if they have the right numbers or how to use them because climate science is not fully understood. In essence they are guessing.

The easiest way for me to explain this to people is to imagine using the wrong numbers to try to get a right answer on a calculator by not knowing if you should add or multiply them. Sound crazy? Welcome to long term (100 year) climate modeling.

Oh and please everyone do not fall for the "thoroughly refuted" propaganda. The tactic of taking the existence of someone attempting to refute something does not make it reality. RealClimate.org is notorious for refuting everything by posting something about it. This does not make it refuted and merely fools the naive.

Wikipedia? Please no one with an ounce of understanding would use Wikipedia (which a 5 year old can edit at will) as a reliable source for anything.

Tidal Guage measurements show NO acceleration of sea level. The nonsense of acceleration came from one paper where specially selected hand picked tidal guage measurements were combined with satellite sea level measurements and some math to "model" the acceleration. Yep you heard that right they threw out the direct observation of tidal guage measurements and created their own "reconstructed" ones using a computer model. Why? Because another computer model showed that there should of been an acceleration of sea level rise but none of the tidal guage measurements showed it. So of course the observations must be wrong not their computer models. What a SCAM!

It cracks me up at how many computer illiterates fall for this hype. It is like selling "magic elixirs" to the poor decades ago.

Having just read the article by John Christie, I would just like to add that even closer to the North Pole, the annual migration of pink footed geese has begun early because it is much colder than usual this year. You don't have to look far for many such contradictions.

Mark,

Agriculture generates huge amounts of greenhouse gas. Should we raise taxes on farmers to convince them to stop producing food? Should employers lay off their staff to reduce their carbon footprint?

Has it occurred to you that someone quoting an article might not agree with every point in the article? Is this a tricky concept for a purely one dimensional thinker?

Darren:
I have switched sides!
I have seen the green light and am now redefining my life to follow The Gore example.
As soon as my carbon offset comapny makes its first million I will move into a 20000 ft house, buy a private jet and start campaigning.
Every dollar you put in my bank account is one that can't be used to destroy the planet.
The way is clear now.

Actually, Joe just make so much sense, I don't have anything serious to add to it.
Cheers

Now here are two interesting tidbits:
From: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is America's primary body for recording weather and climate data. What its scientists think about global warming is therefore of some interest. Steven Milloy decided to find out. He emailed the climate experts there a short questionnaire that enabled them to give their views in a few minutes. The reply he got back from Federal scientist Dr. Daniel Schwarzkopf was: "F*** you!"

Your tax funded, unbiased scientest's official position?

and:

HANSEN KNEW THAT THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET COULD NOT MELT IN THE NEAR FUTURE

An email from Hartwig Volz [Hartwig.Volz@rwe.com] referring to this article

Dear Mr. Ollier,

With reference to your recent contribution, THE GREENLAND-ANTARCTICA MELTING PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST, you may be interested in my correponence with James Hansen some years ago.

best regards
Hartwig Volz

From: Volz, Dr. Hartwig
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:16 PM
To: 'James Hansen'
Subject: Slippery Slope

Dear Dr. Hansen,

Thank you for sending me your submitted climate change editorial. Your publications are always interesting reading, though I do not always agree.

One remark: many years ago I did a lot of "adventure travelling", also mountain and ice climbing in Greenland. From this time I vaguely remember the following: the sub-ice geomorphology of Greenland is kind of shaped like a saucer. This is the reason why most of the Greenland glacier can not escape by glacier surge, because of the natural sediment and lava barrier. The same is true for Vatnajokull in Iceland, the third largest glacier in the world. So this situation is different from e.g. the situation of the North American ice shield at the end of the last glacial. The top of the Greenland glacier is far too high and too cold to melt. More details you may find by googling e.g. "Greenland sub-ice geomorphology" or asking an expert directly.

best regards
Hartwig Volz
Celle, Germany

Hmmmmmm

"Likewise, sea levels rise has been measured, the trend is clear (it has accelerated since the 1800s) "

Andrew - I realize you aren't knowledgeable enough to critically appraise everything you are exposed to, but you could at least read the materials you link to. It's fairly preposterous to try to extract a changepoint from only several years worth of data, and Church and White themselves appear to be cautious about doing so.

It is hard to decipher exactly what they have done, but I some concerns with their paper. The most immediate is their claim of an acceleration in sea level rise, which they say is due to a statistically significant fit of a quadratic trend. The question is, what was the null hypothesis here? In a case like this, I would recommend a likelihood ratio test of nested models with the null hypothesis being linear trend vs. the alternative hypothesis of quadratic trend. This would allow for a proper test of accelerated vs. constant sea level increase. I'm afraid they have relied upon an ordinary regression for their conclusion, which means they have tested against a null hypothesis of white noise, and will lead to misleading results.

PopTech;
For another example of how computer models can be made to say anything, take a look at ClimateAudit.ord, the section labeled
"What other data series could be plugged in? "
It shows what happens when you use Michael Mann's
Hockey Stick program with white noise data and of all things Tech Stock data.
Yup.... no matter what you input, you get a Hockey Stick output.

Computer models do exactly what you tell them to.

"Agriculture generates huge amounts of greenhouse gas. Should we raise taxes on farmers to convince them to stop producing food?"

First of all, farmers are over-subsidized in this country. In fact, many farmers get millions of dollars and they don't even farm. So spare me this nonsense about "raising taxes" on farmers.

Secondly, farmers don't have to emit as much GHG as they do. The flaw in your line-of-thinking is that you believe emitting huge amounts of GHG is necessary for food production. No, it's not. There are ways to lower it.

" Should employers lay off their staff to reduce their carbon footprint?""

Lowering payroll taxes makes it easier for corporations to hire more employees. At least that's the argument the corporate apologists have made for years. Amazing how you renege on previous arguments when it doesn't suit your current purpose.

"Is this a tricky concept for a purely one dimensional thinker?"

Believing that the health of the economy is strictly controlled by tax rates is one-dimensional thinking.

Bloomberg made billions with his company. He was on Wall Street for fifteen years. I think he knows much more about business than you do, Patrick. And he doesn't think this is going to send us back to the stone age.

Tom, not only am I knowledgeable enough to understand the paper, I read it and I can quickly cut through the crap. Not enough observational data of tidal gauge measurements exist back to 1870 to extrapolate anything meaningful. Thus it was never used. The data that does exist has already been confirmed to show no acceleration. So they used Satellite data and trends derived from this data (which is limited) in combination with hand picked tidal gauge measurements to "model" what does not exist back to 1870.

It is pretty preposterous to make up data that does not exist so you can manufacture a trend. Their paper is worthless to anyone but the naive who is easily fooled when they see someone using a lot of math. All the math in the world is not going to create observations that did not exist.

"I haven't seen the Eos article, and couldn't find any reference to it on the internet, but if Bloom follows his usual pattern, "thoroughly refuted" simply means someone disputed it."

This is correct - we have conflicting studies; yet another instance where the science is not settled.

Mark,

Two ways that farmers can reduce their GHG.

1. Stop growing food.
2. Stop transporting food.

Problem with this is that when liberals meet at Starbucks to think up new ways to control other people's lives (over a cup of Latte of course), they won't have any croissants to nibble on. The tofu factory might have to shut down too.

Of course the Greenland ice sheet is not in any danger of a meltdown.

Average temperatures this year in the interior.

January -37F
February -32F
March -39F
April -27F
May -11F
June 11F
July 11F
August 3F
September -15F
October -30F
November -39F
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2007/11/4/MonthlyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

According to NOAA, the majority of the Greenland ice sheet never sees any melting and has been continuously accumulating ice for hundreds of thousands of years.

Good video about Al Gore's AGW religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Hu9x2xde8

Tom,

I haven't read the Church and White paper. However, the acceleration is clear enough to an unbiased eye. Can't say what confidence level that translates to, but it's good enough for purposes of discussions.

Anyhow, with CO2 levels showing no signs of slowing, further accelerations in SLR are likely. The IPCC will likely address this during the the next assessment as models for the Greenland melt are developed and peer reviewed.

Brett;

Joe Bastardi made a claim against Jim Hansen and a supposed prediction for El Nino. While it would be ridiculous to reject CO2s role in global warming based on one persons wild prediction on a peripheral subject, I have yet to find any documentation of what Hansen actually said.

Is Bastardi perpetuating a myth about Hansen to make straw man arguments?

In other words, can anybody find a link with Hansens actual prediction?

Thanks!

Reply: I will find out from Joe.

Tom wrote: "I would recommend a likelihood ratio test of nested models with the null hypothesis being linear trend vs. the alternative hypothesis of quadratic trend."

I just wanted to stand back for a moment and admire this *utter gobbledygook*. Don't ever change, Tom.

AN unusual arcicle for one of the UKs most respected papers.

The deceit behind global warming
By Christopher Booker and Richard North

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml&page=1

Excerpt:
It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick". Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.

"...the science of how CO2 works in our atmosphere is clear enough...' Hmm... Well let's see: 1)CO2 is a GHG by nature of it's ability to absorb Solar radiation at specific spectral wave lengths ............this is clear enough.
2)The degree to which CO2 is able to retain heat is logarithmic in nature and has a decreasing return to the point of capping (There is a nice website that talks a great deal about this called climate-skeptic.com)and is based largely on the amount of solar heat a planet receives- hence partly why planets like Mars and Venus have different climates even though their atmospheres have nearly identical levels of CO2 in them......this seems clear enough. 3)...Speaking of which ....The concentration levels of CO2 on both Mars and Venus is something like 95 percent by content-the Earth's is .03.......this too is clear enough. 4)...Water vapor, which is also a GHG has many times the heat retaining ability of Carbon Dioxide and constitutes a much higher percentage of the Earth's lowwer atmosphere than does CO2.By chance is anybody talking about reducing that? 5)...The Earth has built in checks and balances for preventing what some refere to as a Positive feedback system and it's resultant run away heating effects. Part of this is the Earth's ability to redistribute heat from the tropics to the northern latitudes- which if I remember correctly Joe Bastardi was trying to emphasize. 6)...Computer models don't seem to work with any degree of reliability at this period in time with regards to (as Joe pointed out) what's going to happen five days from now much less five Decades....this should be blatantly clear. 7)...If this isn't clear ,it should be: The Earth's climate has been changing naturally for a lot longer time than we have been studying it. This includes both heating AND cooling epics that have been recorded in the geological record since as long as the Earth has had an atmosphere. To assume anything at this point, especially that "The Debate is Over" is not wise. At this point in time the only thing that seems clear enough to me is that we don't know as much as some would like us to think we do,and that before we go jumping the gun spending all kinds of money to "solve the problem of global warming", we might want to take pause for thought to attending to other pressing issues that we really do have the ability to effectively impact.

Patrick Henry:Of course the Greenland ice sheet is not in any danger of a meltdown.

Average temperatures this year in the interior.

January -37F
February -32F
March -39F
April -27F
May -11F
June 11F
July 11F
August 3F
September -15F
October -30F
November -39F
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2007/11/4/MonthlyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Reply: Patrick Henry..... Summit Greenland is at an altitude of nearly 10,000ft. Most of Greenland is at an altitude much below that and had temperatures in the 50-60s this summer. Please do not post ignorant and untrue facts. I ask you to stop posting on this site for the goodness of the blog.

Dave,

I'd like to respnd to a few of your points.

4. H2O vapor probably saturates CO2 absorption in the lower stratosphere, but up in the higher portions of the stratosphere, there is much less H2O vapor. CO2, however, if fairly well-mixed throughout the whole stratosphere. It is at these upper stratosphere levels that extra CO2 really makes a difference, because it is not saturated by CO2.

5. I don't think that it is fair to say that the earth has "built in" mechanisms to prevent anything. The earth does not have an "ability" to redistribute heat, heat simply redistributes itself from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. It is not an intentional process, at least unless you assume anthropic principles.

6. Forecasting what the weather will be like five days from now is completely different from forecasting the climate 50 years from now. Climate is much less choatic, and thus much more predictable than weather. Now, this doesn't prove that the computer models ARE correct, but I think that your reason for rejecting them is wrong.

Marie:
I loved the YouTube video - thanks for providing the link! Now, in case you haven't seen this one, it's a hoot. Warning - some profanity. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Mark:
I don't know how old you are but I'm sure I am a lot older! Here's a pearl of wisdom for you concerning taxes:
There is no such thing as a negative or even neutral tax! It's all flim-flam and slight-of-hand
practiced by those proposing it, in this case, Bloomberg. Once a tax is on the books it is subject to expansion. It is only reduced or eliminated when voters become fed up enough to circulate petitions to put it to a popular vote. You should also avoid stereotyping people because their point of view differs from yours. I work for a living and don't have time to listen to Rush Limbaugh or anyone else during the day.

Actually Gabe, Most of Greenland is at high altitude and Summit is typical of the ice sheet (and Greenland in general.) With the exception of a few scientists who live at Summit and a couple of other research stations, the population of Greenland lives in a narrow ice free strip along the coast. Oddly enough, Greenlanders don't build their houses on top of ice, choosing instead terra firma. How weird is that?

I'd suggest a trip to Greenland on Google Earth to get some basic understanding of the geography. BTW - do you think it would be possible to farm and raise livestock in a place where the temperature does not reach 60F a few weeks a year?

cmbclean,

CO2, however, if fairly well-mixed throughout the whole stratosphere. It is at these upper stratosphere levels that extra CO2 really makes a difference

The stratosphere is cooling.

Climate is much less choatic, and thus much more predictable than weather.

That must be why climatologists switch back and forth between predictions of ice ages and warming every 30 years. If the climate is so well understood, what caused the LIA and MWP? If the climate is so predictable, what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?

Rick:

Just a side note; here in Massachusetts, even a popular vote seems unable to reduce a tax. My dream, which I am positive will be unfullfilled, is that the voters will vote some of these clowns out of office.

Boondocks:

I feel your pain! They don't call it Taxachusetts without good reason. I live in Ohio and my congressman is Dennis Kucinich - now you can feel my pain!

Patrick Henry,

You caught my gaff!! I meant to say

"CO2, however, is fairly well-mixed throughout the troposhpere. It is in these upper troposphere levels that the extra CO2 really makes a difference."

Sorry about that.

On your second point. You're right, I'm not explaining myself very well. Climate is choatic, but it is not choatic on the same scale as weather. Just because we can't predict the weather does not mean that we cannot in principle predict the climate. Notice that I'm not saying that we can, as of now predict future climate well. That point is certainly up for debate. i'm simply saying that it is incorrect to infer that we cannot now predict climate because we cannot now predict weather more than a few days in advance.

cmbclean,

There is nothing predictable about the climate. Six months ago the IPCC was calling for an Antarctic meltdown. Now they aren't. The MWP disappeared between the 1997 and 2001 IPCC reports.

The only predictable thing is that long range predictions will be forgotten long before than can be laughed at, and that the press will latch on to any disaster story.

To cmbclean: Thanks for your response. That was my first post and I got kind of a chuckle when I read about the mixing in the "Stratosphere" (don't you hate when that happens?). And you are correct. I was Making a point to Andrew when he said " the science of how CO2 works in the atmosphere is clear enough...". Well,yes, there are certain things that we know about heat retaining gases in our atmosphere such as CO2.And there are things that we know about the heat retaining properties of water vapor,ect.. But as you very nicely pointed out it is not just the individual properties of each component of the system that we have to be concerned about. There are interactive processes of great complexity involved here and CO2 is just one factor. My point is I don't think we know enough to be saying at this jucture what is or is not clear,what is settled, over, resolved or any thing else of that kind.As far as the computer model thing goes, I was only playing off a comment that I thought I heard Joe Bastardi say on the video - something about GIGO?. I'm sorry if I seemed biased against computer models. It certainly would be nice if we could rely on them to accurately predict fifty years from now what our climate will be like, but for now I don't think that dog's gonna hunt. As far as the checks and balances goes, allow me to put it differently. I DO NOT believe that the earth's climate is a net positive feedback system. There is nothing that I have seen (in the form of hard evidence) that leads me to belive otherwise. The IPCC has come up with a temp increase of 3 degrees centigrade by the middle of the century sometime, assuming that half of that increase is going to be due to a forcing created by a positive feedback. Yet did I not hear correctly that the IPCC has acknowleged in its own report that it really doesn't know whether the feedback it's assuming is actually plus or minus (maybe someone could help me on this)? For all the ages the Earth has been around and for all the different forcings it has had to endured,both those we do and do not know about, somehow the system has managed to keep from becoming a run away. Call it a net negative feedback, call it self adjusting,call it what ever you want, it comes down to the same thing - The Earth is not a Venus and its not going to become one or anything close to it(that isn't getting TOO carried away is it?). Yes the planet is warming but sorry, I just can't swallow the catastrophe thing. If however that position is to change, it will do so only because of compelling evidence that mandates a change in attitude and THAT is why I belive the debate must go on because I think there is still much to learn. P.S.- Patrick Henry: Thanks for coming to my rescue!!

Believing that the health of the economy is strictly controlled by tax rates is one-dimensional thinking.

And believing that CO2 is a primary or even major driver of climate is one-dimensional thinking.