Figure 10 shows results when a different assumption is made concerning the behavior of water vapor. The predicted change in storm frequency is shown in Figure 8b. Figure 10 shows how sensitive the predictions are to the assumptions made about the behavior of water vapor in response to global warming. It makes a huge impact on the results, changing the trend from a slight decrease to a dramatic increase in storm frequency. As with the GCM-based temperature trend predictions, understanding the responses of water vapor, precipitation and clouds to additional forcing (be it from CO2, the sun, volcanic activity, aerosols, etc) are vital to understanding climate, and current understanding in this area is very poor. Prof. Emanuel is very honest about this in his paper.

Nice theory. Of course the author has flip-flopped from his last paper and one more trivial detail - ocean temperatures are lower now than they were 30 years ago. The whole premise of the study is fatally flawed.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

I doubt if any model to predict climate will ever exist (unless you could predict sun/space activity)

I have read extensively over the weekend about Kerry Emanuel`s reversal and the main message I got was his earlier position linking hurricanes to global warming was no longer valid. Also, I have been reading about food riots across the world and the production of biofuels is being blamed for shortages and high prices. Wasn`t biofuels suppose to be one of the solutions to combat global warming? And lastly, in the April 14, Wall Street Journal there is an article about the fraud and abuses of the carbon cap and trade system in Europe. Wow! talk about unintended consequences.

Warning: This article talks about frequency and intensity.

Southern Hemisphere - Increase in intensity, small decrease in frequency.

Western Pacific -- Increase in intensity

North Atlantic -- El Nino a powerful force. But a decrease in frequency and increase in intensity.

This is consistent with what we have experienced recently.

Weather isn't climate.

Intensity and frequency are separate.

Consistent with climate change theory.

I does seem strange that one of the major AGW proponents cannot seem to make up his mind. In 2005-2006 he led the way giving his imprimatuer to the theory that GHGs drive NATL Hurricanes. Now 3 years later, he does an about face -sort of. Talk about hedging ones bets: a decrease in number over a 200 year period, but an increase in strength and duration... Didn't Emanuel know in 2005 that ENSO generated verticle wind shear works against TC developement? There were a few skeptics that pointed this out in 2005, but they were branded denialists.

But, in Emanuel's theory, GHGs still drive TCs. ENSO is driven by GHGs. In Emanuel's estimation there will be fewer NATL Hurricanes due to more frequent EL Nino outbreaks. But the potential energy will still be there, and when Hurricanes do develope they will therefore be more destructive. The one catch to this theory is that no one can tie ENSO to AGW. As a matter of fact, the tropics should see its warming aloft and not at the surface (according to the IPCC AGW/Stephan Boltzman theories).

FRom CSM: "His team drew its results from a new modeling approach it developed."

A 'new modeling approach'.....

'NUFF SAID

I love the to and fro of the scientific process. It's uncertain and messy but, as with life, it evolves. Emanuel's previous report predicts decreased tropical cyclone activity- but he's not sure why- "perhaps as a consequence of increased vertical wind shear". In his new report he experiments with new ways of looking into the future with GCM's, but recognizes throughout the report that it is a relatively crude and simplistic experiment at this point and there is much more to come. I personally would change the "Should" in the blog headline to "May".

Let me see if I've got this straight:

1)The ARGO network of ocean temperature monitors shows no net increase in ocean temps while it has come on line during the last 3 to 4 years, and in fact a slight decrease.

2) Many people from the IPCC down will now admit that surface temps have been declining over the last decade (even though the global average is about the 1950 to present "norm") even though CO2 emissions have continued to increase.

That about it?

Okay. So how does it make any sense to publish a paper that makes a projection based on the assumption that your previous projections were correct in the face of REAL data that suggests that they were not. Personally, I would have been embarassed to submit something of that nature, as would have been my professors.

All the best

Aaron

Last year, the early spring in the midwest was cited as proof of global warming. Conversely, the very late spring this year must be proof of global cooling.

"I'm 71-years-old and I've never seen spring come this late," Robert Ciesleck said.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/17646694.html

Remember - early springs are "climate." Late springs are "weather."

Well - what causes hurricanes? There's stuff like the coriolis effectm, but the main driver is usually accepted as the abrupt temperature gradient between the tropical and temperate zones, right?

According to AGW the tropics will not warm very much, but the the temperate and polar zones will warm by up to 8C - i.e. the temperature gradient between the tropical and temperate zones should reduce - so hurricane frequency and severity should also reduce, and the hurricane zone will move North.

It made no sense that the record breaking 2005 hurricane season was blamed on AGW, but then AGW proponents seem to leap on ANY extreme weather event as evidence of AGW.

Here in the UK, the summers of 2006 and 2007 were both extreme, but for very different reasons. Summer 2006 was record breakingly hot. Summer 2007, by contrast, was cool and record breakingly wet.

In both years scientists warned us that such extreme summers would become more likely due to the effects of AGW, but how? These summers were completely opposite in their nature.

If hot, oppressive weather becomes more likely, then how also can cool, wet weather become more likely too? Did something major change in AGW theory between summers 2006 and 2007?! Or is it just that the weather changed from one extreme to the other, so the story had to change too?

This is why people become sceptical....

Concerning frequency of tropical storms and hurricanes. The recent stats are skewed relative to long term norms due to greater powers of observation and in my opinion the hurricane center names disturbances that wouldn't have been named even 15 years ago.
Like temperature comparisons influenced by heat islands or change of location for local station this makes it difficult to know with assurance how much difference actually exists in the climatology.
Never mind if "global warming" is a cause of change.

Fewer hurricanes? Sounds like a good thing to me! What's the downside?

Oh how I wish, I wish, I wish, that global warming comes back soon.

The one good thing I see in this thread is that a scientist is willing to change his mind. That is refreshing compared to the rigid dogma we have been fed in the last few years (20 in the case of Hansen).

Hi John,

There was great press release last week from The Met, basically saying that this year's London Marathon was going to be cold - but in future years runners will have to deal with heat because of global warming. They appear incapable of giving a simple weather report any more without mentioning "global warming."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080411.html

What I read from Emanuel's jibberish is the original prediction model was just a test, the new improved "higher resolution Model", a result of my last grant looks better but still needs a lot of work. This of course will require a lot of money, etc. that will give us the "elevated higher resolution model" which will of course provide us with the chance to see that we need a hyper higher resolution model that will take a huger amount of money that will prove the previous models forgot to include something. And the final model he will call "Vista" which will be perfect.

The people that made all the money from the
Klondike gold rush were not the ones that dug it up but the ones who found the men that had the gold. The hustlers. Our professor Emanuel?

Jep says:
"Fewer hurricanes? Sounds like a good thing to me! What's the downside?"

The downside is more intense storms. The downside is much of the western Pacific will have more storms and deadlier storms.

Pacific cyclone activity has been very intense in recent years.

The downside is that,for the first time two Cat 5 storms hit the Americas last season.

This new result is not out of line with previous findings. Emanuel's work also tends to vindicate models.

" The findings presented here are largely consistent with those obtained by direct simulation of tropical cyclones by global models as well as by downscaling using regional models embedded in global models."

The downside for the US is fewer hurricanes but more Cat 4 and Cat 5 storms.

PH -- The paper discusses the relation between El Nino and hurricanes.

Read the paper before commenting. Too much knee jerk denials.

Getting back to the basis of the scientific process. It is not about achieving a perfection. It is about positing a hypothesis; checking it against data in well designed experiments; peer review; making it public; getting critiqued; modifying the hypothesis and doing it again. It is not about being a flip-flopper when a new study shows new findings leading to a modified hypothesis. While in some areas (mainly physics) it is possible to progress from hypothesis to theory to law, in most it can never go beyond theory (I think it's still a theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun).

Off Topic.....
Antarctic warming not Man Made:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/our_views/climate_change.php

Excerpt:
Here, annual mean temperatures have risen by nearly 3�C, with the largest warming occurring in the winter season. This is approximately 10 times the mean rate of global warming [Hence not caused by it], as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

RealClimate admits GCM are note climate predictions but just scenarios to test sensitivity:
http://climatesci.org/2008/04/11/real-climates-agreement-that-the-ipcc-multi-decadal-projections-are-actually-sensitivity-model-runs/

Excerpt:
Now, from an unlikely source (Real Climate) have come the statements �A scenario only illustrates the climatic effect of the specified forcing - this is why it is called a scenario, not a forecast.

John:

Very well done, I have said just about the same thing for years. Mind you, I'm not an esteemed, consensusly approved, climatologist.

I look at it quite simply that there is less potential difference between the air masses thereby reducing the energy available for development.

Here in the Ohio, USA, I desperately look forward to July and August not because I like hot weather but rather that the air mass around us is more stable relative to potential heat. With the air stable, we get less storms, if any, and those that do pop up are short lived. Therefore, less damage. The rest of the year, cold air drops from the north and we get convective storms that cause problems one way or the other. Mind you, we do not lack for rain either as it can rain it is just that the potential for severe weather is lessened.

Ronnie:

Also, well put, there is something to be said for the naming of a storm that only the fish can see. I'm not sure what that is though. It almost seems that someone (or rather an agency)gets a performance bonus for the naming of a storm since clearly, they need to protect the "people".

Not that I'm saying anything or nothin'.

Just wanted to make it clear to everyone, especially Mark and BT, that I did my part today to enhance Glo-BULL Warming by having, not one, but 2, yes, that's 2 (TWO!!!) Arby's Roast Beast sandwiches for lunch. And they WERE YUM YUM YUMMY!!!!.... So ladies and gents, if you want to curtail the number of hurricanes, et.al. every year, EAT MORE BEEF!!!!!..WOO HOO!!!!..AND A BIG WARM UP IS ON THE WAY!!!!! (Sorry, Brett, but I will believe that when I believe it!).......

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

When was the last cat 5 hurricane to make landfall in the US? Camille? While record low central pressures of hurricanes have recently been measured in the tropics, these hurricanes have not impacted the US with commensurate strength. In 2005, global warming did not produced catastrophic US landfalling hurricanes. Both Rita and Katrina were Cat 3. Camille was the last catastrophic US hurricane; when the earth was cooler! And, well before that, there was the Long Island express of 1938. Now it looks like global cooling is upon us, so we probably should be worried about another Camille.

It does seem strange that one of the major AGW proponents cannot seem to make up his mind.

Come on, JP -- now you're busting his chops for doing exactly what a scientist is supposed to do. This isn't an athletic contest, it's not a religion, and it's not a political party.

Emanuel publishes his best efforts to describe and interpret what he sees based on the data and theory available to him. In the presence of new data and/or new theory, he revises his position.

Isn't that what good science is about?

Would you have him dogmatically maintain the same stubborn posture, regardless of the data and theory unfolding around him, because of work he published three years previously? Sounds more like Ball, Lindzen, or Gray to me.

Patrick,

ocean temperatures are lower now than they were 30 years ago.

Ocean temperatures were cooler than today in 1992, 1993, and 1999 (to name a few)--much more recently than 30 years ago. In 1999, they occurred just 14 months after the record-warm temperature was set. I don't want to accuse you of cherry-picking again, so please explain the implications of your point. From my understanding, it is quite normal for ocean temperatures to dip during a La Nina event. The 1999 data shows that they dropped much more dramatically then than they have in the current La Nina.

In fact, from the UAH data you provided, it appears there was a nine-month stretch from 1999 to 2000 where ocean temperatures were below "normal." During the recent stretch of cold weather, ocean temperatures have been below normal for one straight month. How does this support your recent arguments that we've begun a historic cooling trend? You say global temperatures have decreased since 1998. I contend that they have increased since 1999!

Gettingwarm

"Intensity and frequency are separate. Consistent with climate change theory"

Thus everything is consistent with the theory and nothing can ever be inconsistent with the theory.
Is that how the theory goes?

No way no how. More heat potential in SSTs means more hurricane potential. 2006 proves this.There will be more and more powerfull storms to come as SSTs rise, same goes for tornados like this year so far ~400 year to date when 200 is normal.It can also be a combination of both hurricanes and tornados.

Jack, I think I finally have it figured out how increased biofuels are supposed to reduce greenhouse gases even though the production of ethanol produces more GHG than the oil it's replacing. The real secret is that by diverting the corn from food to ethanol there will be widespread starvation and death so those people will no longer be breathing (producing CO2), driving, buying products that have to use energy to be produced and transported. Less homes to heat and cool. The real secret that most AGW believers keep out of sight is that they need widespread depopulation to make their fantasy come true(as long as it's not them).

Fewer but stronger hurricanes, again just a crazy scientist rubbing his cryatal ball, he left out the part about seeing Dorothy trotting up the yellow brick road. They pretty much cover the bases as one time there Global Warming hoax means more next time means less. But all the Global warmers go for what sounds worst, thats there mind set. Live in Fear, and be Unhappy. Really the frequency of major landfalling hurricanes has been minimal the past few years with lots of depressions forming off out in the Atlantic that you wonder sometimes if those are just given a name to put another slash on the chalk board. Climate change, yeh it does constantly, climate changes it would be unusual if it stayed the same. Say if on the date April 14 the average high is 59 degrees but for 30 years straight April 15 a cold front always seemed to sweep through and the high only reached 40 for most of the years and warmed back up the next day to normal, is the normal high for the 15 around 40 or is it around 59 and is this climate, weather or what. Alot of confussion in the difference in climate and weather and averages. Maybe it is just opinion?

Global warming is nothing but an economic situation. Everyone has to buy into this theory from light bulbs to electric automobiles.I still need to know why the icebergs melted and how the Vikings farmed on Greenland. Global Warming is nothing but Bravo Sierra!!!

"The only solution is for a massive transfer of technology and wealth from the West."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7347638.stm

At least this guy is honest about his real intentions.

According to one research the poorest people in the world�s poorest countries will suffer the earliest and the most from climate change, according to this year�s edition of the Environmental Review. The report says that, due to their geographical location, low incomes, and low institutional capacity, as well as their greater reliance on climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture, the poorest countries and people are suffering earliest and are poised to suffer most.

Slightly off topic, but here is a Cycle 24 update. Apparently, the tiny unnumbered sunspot that was supposedly the proof that Cycle 24 was upon us has sadly disappeared.

Sorry, I erred. It is/was Sunspot 990. However, it is still gone.

BT,
So, why is he called a "leading scientist"? Critics of his 2005 study were branded denialists when they pointed out some obvious problems with his conclusions that TC intensities and frequency follow AGW. Dr Grey made the obvious critique that NATL TCs follow changes in the AMO and not AGW, and he was given the smack-down. It turns out Dr Gray was correct, but that doesn't prevent his detractors from calling him a crank.

Sometimes I think many climate scientists have the scientific method backwards -you don't publish studies until you have enough data to verify the theory. The problem with climate modelers, is thier over-reliance on models. If the data doesn't fit thier model results then there must be something wrong with the data; if that doesn't work, change the models but never admit you're theory is wrong. Emanuel still believes that that there is a direct link between AGW and TCs. But now that linkage is reversed. If the results are so varied, maybe he should just keep quiet and ditch his theories.

Hi Travis,

I made a plot of UAH global ocean trends back to the beginning of UAH records in 1978. There wasn't any trend until 2001, when ocean temperatures went up for a few years. They have since dropped back to below what they were at the start date in 1978.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=plphQL3kEd7X6ZG4_0leiMA

Also interesting is how temperatures in the North Atlantic continue to fall, with some temperatures below normal.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly/5.gif

Just wanted to make it clear to everyone, especially Mark and BT, that I did my part today to enhance Glo-BULL Warming by having, not one, but 2, yes, that's 2 (TWO!!!) Arby's Roast Beast sandwiches for lunch. And they WERE YUM YUM YUMMY!!!!.... So ladies and gents, if you want to curtail the number of hurricanes, et.al. every year, EAT MORE BEEF!!!!!..WOO HOO!!!!..AND A BIG WARM UP IS ON THE WAY!!!!! (Sorry, Brett, but I will believe that when I believe it!).......

(Off-topic alert)
On another thread, Oiz asked why I left Pittsburgh. Here in New England, when we want a roast beef sandwich, we go to places like Bill & Bob's, on the harbor in Salem. Affordable -- in fact, downright cheap, cheaper than fast-food. Real roast beef, thinly sliced, flavorful, and plenty of it. On real toasted onion-rolls that taste good. With a side of more hand-cut onion rings than any mere mortal can consume in one sitting. Out-of-towners might think of Kelly's or Hilltop, but they're just tourist-traps. Here, we have Bill & Bob's. In Pittsburgh, you get Arby's. That pretty much sums up the difference between Pittsburgh and New England.

(back on-topic)
The one good thing I see in this thread is that a scientist is willing to change his mind. That is refreshing compared to the rigid dogma we have been fed in the last few years (20 in the case of Hansen).

Thanks, Aviator.

Now let's see how Aviator's contrarian brethren react to his shocking apostasy.

I wonder which group is more likely to attack Emanuel for practicing good science -- the much-maligned credentialed climatology community (Hansen, NASA, et al) or our contrarians?

So far, our local contrarian horde has offered gems like:

• jibberish


• The hustlers. Our professor Emanuel?


• crazy scientist rubbing his cryatal ball, he left out the part about seeing Dorothy trotting up the yellow brick road.


• They pretty much cover the bases as one time there Global Warming hoax


• nothing but Bravo Sierra!!!

A few years ago, the same complainers were objecting to the hypothesized connection between AGW and NAT hurricanes. Now, when data and theory cast enough doubt on that hypothesized connection to cause a leading scientist to change his hypothesis and confirm their original skepticism, our contrarian zealots attack the scientist -- for "flip-flopping", no less. MESSAGE TO PH: THAT'S WHAT A SCIENTIST DOES WITH NEW DATA!

I think this little episode demonstrates fairly clearly who is and who is not interested in the science.

Global sea ice anomaly is exactly the same as when records began in 1979, and well above the 30 year average. +1 Mkm2
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

UAH Southern Hemisphere shows no trend since records began in 1978. Temperatures are exactly the same now as 1978.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=plphQL3kEd7X6ZG4_0leiMA
(scroll down a little to see the SH graph.)

Arby's

Enjoy the Arby's. Science shows, however, enjoying one too often is not good for your health. Same with Gobal Warming- science shows it is not good for our health. This is not an opinion or a wish. I think most of us really wish we could maintain our wonderful lifestyles with no consequences. Drive that SUV, pile on the coal, eat lots of beef. But that's our wish, not what we know (Science means to "know"). Until there is a body of good science (ie not Exxon funded) showing us different, all the Denyers have is a bunch of wishful thinking and opinions.

Jeff in Jersey,

"The real secret is that by diverting the corn from food to ethanol there will be widespread starvation and death so those people will no longer be breathing (producing CO2), driving, buying products that have to use energy to be produced and transported. Less homes to heat and cool."

You may be more right on then you realize. Ever notice how alarmists remind us of the population growth? Out of skeptics and alarmists, who tends to support abortion? Don't be surprised if we see some type of mandated population control soon, just like China.

BT,

"Isn't that what good science is about?"

What? Scaring people based on incomplete, inconclusive or "junk" data? Is that "good science?" Your theory has changed over the last 3 years. Should we rush to judgement when we are just beginning to understand how the world and the universe works?

There is no climate "crisis." Thank God for cool, calm and rational people...just like the ones who blog here.

Since 1750, man/industry has contributed approximately 0.0087% atmospheric carbon dioxide. This microscopic increase has "NO" effects on human beings. Therefore 0.0087% carbon dioxide CANNOT have "significant" effects on the rest of our biosphere. Simple enough?

Paul:

I wonder how long it will be before the AGWers and the IPCC take credit for "dimming" the sun?

Guess their ideas are stronger than I thought.

Paul,

I haven't looked at the sun in the last several days, but according to that image there seems to be a total lack of faculae. This is disturbing from an argricultural standpoint because it means a significant global cooling is probably upon us, however from an environmental perspective it means civilization will not be expanding. Neither good nor bad news.

Thor,

Not knowing what faculae were, I have conducted a Google search and found some interesting tidbits. For instance, this website at the Institute for Solar Physics in Sweden says the following, Interest in faculae increased with the discovery that the total solar irradiance increases when the sun is more active, which may be contrary to expectations since high activity also means more dark sunspots. This is because the bright solar faculae, the number of which are directly related to sunspot activity, increase radiance more than the blocking due to sunspots. and this, Sunspots and faculae modulate the total solar energy output and they are thus relevant for studies of climate change.

Interesting, very interesting (spoken with a thick German accent while smoking a cigarette).

Adamant,

It is the alarmists who are making the claim that we are headed for runaway heating, therefore it is the alarmist's burden to offer the clear proof - not the skeptic's burden to prove it wrong.

We are skeptical because there seems to be enough evidence to the contrary of current AGW dogma to compel the reasonable mind to question that the science is, in fact, settled.

DC

They have since dropped back to below what they were at the start date in 1978.

I understand that part. Why does it matter that sea surface temperatures are currently lower than they were in December 1978? I pointed out that this is nothing new than that it has happened before for much longer periods of time. The data you've graciously provided only serves to illustrate my point. I asked for the significance of this event in relation to your recent claims that we are entering a historic cooling period. Your data does not seem to back that claim.

You've only reiterated your initial point, this time adding a picture. You did not answer my question in the process. Two points make a line. They do not make a trend.

"The only solution is for a massive transfer of technology and wealth from the West."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7347638.stm

At least this guy is honest about his real intentions.

REPLY: Yep. Globalization and Socialism. Which is what Glo-BULL Warming is all about. There is no doubt in my mind.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!

Here, we have Bill & Bob's.

REPLY: Never heard of it, BT. If I am ever up that way, I will give it a try. I am itching to attend a ballgame at Fenway before I assume room temperature!

Asf for this:

Enjoy the Arby's.

REPLY: I did!

Science shows, however, enjoying one too often is not good for your health.

REPLY: Oh, good grief, these were the first two Arby RB Sammiches that I had in months! I am not on the all Arby's diet, for crying out loud. (Actually, the real reason I did it was because PITA was riding around downtown Pittsburgh in a convertible promoting their vegan/GW agenda while those three Obi-Wan-Jabronis running for President were at the convention center. I was hoping to toss one of the sandwiches in the convertible to freak them out!....LOL!!!!!!)

Same with Gobal Warming- science shows it is not good for our health.

REPLY: Here it comes.

This is not an opinion or a wish. I think most of us really wish we could maintain our wonderful lifestyles with no consequences.

REPLY: Too much of anything/excess is never good.

Drive that SUV,

REPLY: Personal choice.

pile on the coal

REPLY: Personal choice.

eat lots of beef.

REPLY: Personal choice.

But that's our wish, not what we know (Science means to "know"). Until there is a body of good science (ie not Exxon funded)

REPLY: (or ie not IPCC/Al Gore funded)

showing us different, all the Denyers

REPLY: And Panic Mongers

have is a bunch of wishful thinking and opinions.

To sum this all up. Please, spare us the guilt trip. It's gotten quite old.

D. Caldwell

I agree that the burden of proof is on the alarmists. I also think that if you get a series of tests back from a doctor showing a likely problem and a lifestyle change is needed, that the appropriate response is not "I really don't want to believe this and since the tests are only 90% complete and conclusive I will do nothing to change my lifestyle till you can prove to me 100% that there is a problem here".

It is the alarmists who are making the claim that we are headed for runaway heating, therefore it is the alarmist's burden to offer the clear proof - not the skeptic's burden to prove it wrong.

Trying to prove a negative will only give you a headache. This is where the Scientific Method comes into play.

The AGW Advocates have never shown any proof that CO2 causes GW. Never. They will however show all the effects of GW, they will not ever show anyone the cause because they simply cannot.

AGW is not science it is religion. A crappy and expensive religion not just for it's beleivers but for all people.

AGW sucks.

Steve

Adamant:

Golly Gosh, hate to tell you but your analogy of tests back from a doctor and AGW just doesn't cut it, sorry , no cigar.

True story (already told it I know). For 4 years I went to doctor after doctor with worsening lower back problems. It was the CONSENSUS of these imminent physicians that I just needed to exercise more, to help build up my back, ice, pain pills, etc. X-rays showed nothing. Tests indicated just change your lifestyle Mary.

Finally, I chose to question this peer-reviewed analysis of my back problems since I wasn't getting better.

I went to one more specialist and I demanded proof that all I needed was exercise. Caught in a corner with a crazy woman, a denier of the exercise theory, he agreed to another not normally done test, the 2% probability.

My goodness, I had a SPINAL CORD TUMOR that was growing that required immediate surgery otherwise I wouldn't be emitting CO2 today.

Just think IF I had NOT questioned the CONSENSUS of the physicians' diagnosis.

*Learn from science that you MUST doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: SCIENCE IS THE BELIEF IN THE IGNORANCE OF EXPERTS.* Richard Feynman, Ph.D., *The Pleasure of Finding Things Out*

Adamant said:
"...since the tests are only 90% complete and conclusive I will do nothing to change my lifestyle till you can prove to me 100% that there is a problem here".

You're simply restating the fundamental disagreement between the alarmists and the skeptics that is already well known to all of us here.

I would argue that the case for runaway, catastrophic heating is not anywhere near 90% complete nor is it conclusive.

I would also vigorously argue that the measures the world's developed nations would have to undertake to meet Dr. Hanson's carbon goals would be far more catastrophic than any warming anticipated by the (as yet unproven) climate prediction models. The recommended reductions in CO emissions, if seriously pursued in the short term, will go way beyond changes in lifestyle. I don't think Dr. Hanson and his alarmist entourage have the slightest idea of the incredible economic damage that will be done by what he is currently prescribing.

No Adamant, I believe that we must be very sure, indeed, that human emission of CO2 is driving us toward climate catastrophe before we begin dismantling a global economy that currently runs on hydrocarbons.

DC