Chris Christie: Climate Change Is Real, Human Activity Contributes To It

The climate change deniers aren't going to like what Chris Christie has to say.

In a move that may cause some of his boosters on the right to recoil in distaste, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie parted with conservative orthodoxy on Global Warming:

In case anyone had any doubts on where Gov. Chris Christie stands on climate change, he made his position crystal clear this afternoon: It’s real and it’s a problem.

In vetoing a bill (S2946) that would have required New Jersey to stay in a regional program intended to curb greenhouse gases — a program Christie plans to leave by the end of the year — the governor said “climate change is real.”

He added that “human activity plays a role in these changes” and that climate change is “impacting our state.”

Christie’s words are his strongest to date in regards to climate change, a hot-button issue among the same conservatives nationwide who are clamoring for the governor to enter the 2012 presidential race.

This is a change from the position that Christie took last year when he was asked about the issue and expressed skepticism about the role that human activity might play in changing the earth’s climate. It’s not an entirely unexpected changed, though. When Christie announced that New Jersey was pulling out of a compact among Northeastern states that was designed to reduce greenhouse gases, he said he was doing so because he didn’t think the program was working as intended, not because he doubted the science:

Christie’s stance on climate change shouldn’t really come as a surprise, though. He has opposed offshore drilling for oil and liquified natural gas off of New Jersey’s coast sinc he started his campaign for Governor, and has come out in favor of increased investment in solar and wind energy. These are not uncommon stands for a Republican in New Jersey, or anywhere else in the Northeast for that matter. Recently, Christie has been making an effort to highlight his environmental record, focusing on protection of the Jersey Shore (the beaches, not the television show), which is the state’s top tourist destination.

Of course, the Governor’s comments echo those made earlier this week by Jon Huntsman, of course, and while I have yet to see any reaction to Christie’s comments from bloggers on the right, it will be interesting to see how this impacts the Christie boomlet that we’ve seen of late. At the same time, I fail to see why Christie’s comments should be all that controversial. As he noted, the vast majority of climate scientists accept the idea that human activity has contributed significantly to changes in the Earth’s climate, and that worldwide average temperatures are, in fact, rising. Why  this should be a political issue at all is incredibly puzzling. This is science, not a matter of opinion, and unless you believe that the entire scientific community is engaged in some vast conspiracy to lie to the world, then it seems to make sense to accept what they’ve said. What we do with that information, of course, is a different story.

Perhaps Christie’s celebrity status on the right will shield him from criticism on this issue. Nonetheless, the reaction to Huntsman’s statement this week laid bare the antipathy to science on the right, and the rather idiotic manner in which conservatives deal with this issue. As I noted back in May, it doesn’t have to be this way:

There’s a way of approaching this issue intelligently. Unfortunately, largely because of a view on the right that seems to say any discussion of “climate change” as the pathway to communism, it’s an impossible one to have.

And when conservatives take the pronunciations of talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh on this issue more seriously than they do the words of actual scientists, the odds of having a rational discussion with them about climate change decrease exponentially.

 

FILED UNDER: Environment, Science & Technology, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Ron Beasley says:

    It sounds like he is serious about not wanting the Republican nomination!

  2. doubter4444 says:

    @Ron Beasley:
    Or shoring up the ’16 base.
    Looks like Christie v. Huntsman, 2016 for the R primary
    Not a bad thing in my estimation.

  3. Ron Beasley says:

    @doubter4444: I think you may be right. Both Christie and Huntsman are the setting themselves up to be the Phoenix that rises from the ashes after the Teavangleicals burn the Republican Party down.

  4. Falze says:

    I have yet to see any reaction to Christie’s comments from bloggers on the right

    Heaven forbid you look, your eyes might catch fire looking at those sites (of course they might have pictures of Sarah Palin, so maybe it’s worth it to you):

    http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/08/20/chris-christie-climate-change-is-real/

    plenty of reaction there

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2766497/posts

    and there

    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/20/chris-christie-climate-change-is-real-humans-contribute/

    and there

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/08/no-thank-you-chris-christie-climate-change-is-real/

    Fail.

  5. Falze,

    At the time I wrote the post neither Hot Air, Malkin, nor Gateway Pundit (the last of which I rarely read anyway, for obvious reasons) had published those posts.

    I can’t say I’m surprised by the reactions

  6. JKB says:

    Well, first, what Christie said is facially true. Climate, like the weather it is the long term average of, changes. Climate changes are contributed to by every thing in the world. As humans funtion and perform activities in the world, we contribute to climate change. If this were not true then it would make no sense to alter human activity in hopes of affecting climate change.

    It is, of course, the runaway warming predicted by self-sustaining feedbacks initiated by human contributions to so called “greenhouse” gases programmed into, as yet unconfirmed, climate models that is the point of debate here.

    This is science, not a matter of opinion, and unless you believe that the entire scientific community is engaged in some vast conspiracy to lie to the world, then it seems to make sense to accept what they’ve said.

    There is so much assumed and so much wrong in that sentence. But let’s hit the high spots, namely the “entire scientific community” which would seem to discount the many respected researchers and even entire disciplines who do not buy into the global warming premise especially since for the last 10 years CO2 has been increasing while warming leveled off and is not declining. Or that the entire basis of modern science is skepticism. A friendly competition of one hoping to prove another wrong to the advancement of all. This, of course, was hoped to be avoided by many of the climate researchers who used their notoriety to suppress papers on research not supporting the warming theory and refused to release the data upon which their suppositions were supposedly founded. Data when released by hackers that proved to have been illegitimately manipulated. Or the fact that “science” is just that opinion, it can be nothing less. It is however suppose to be opinion strictly conformed to explain a body of real world observations and offer predictions of other phenomena that may not yet be directly observable by experiment. But it is opinion and will be tossed away when someone offers an opinion that better explains the observations and is able to predict with more accuracy.

  7. john personna says:

    @JKB:

    It is, of course, the runaway warming predicted by self-sustaining feedbacks initiated by human contributions to so called “greenhouse” gases programmed into, as yet unconfirmed, climate models that is the point of debate here.

    The error you make here is pretty simple. You assert that models must be wrong, not understanding that you’ve just asserted an outcome yourself. One you have not proven, or even attempted to model.

    You have to be a special kind of person to think that the “no model” answer is better then the “let’s figure this out” model.

  8. john personna says:

    (Shorter JKB: Since models are never perfect, AGW must be harmless!)

  9. jan says:

    @JKB:

    A balanced, honest post that will most likely be derided by those here who are taking Christie’s public comments ‘literally,’ gleefully setting up another contentious loggerhead scenario within the GOP.

    Even though there are far right blogs that might be in an equal but negative tizzy over Christie’s remarks, I don’t see such a big deal in what he is saying. And, I don’t think the mainstream individual will either. Christie seems like an environmentalist, but not of the extreme type where he’s willing to kill off the economy, in an uncalibrated, biased attempt, in order to radically alter mankind’s footprint on this planet.

    Christie believes in wind and solar, just like I do. We have had solar long before it became liberally fashionable, looking into wind power many years ago on a rural cabin we own. IMO, though, man has long been hard and ruthless on this earth, polluting it with trash and pouring caustics and chemicals on the ground and in the water. However, saying that green house gases is a major cause of climate change is where the skepticism arises, among many scientists worldwide.

    Consequently, I dispute what many of you call the science in global warming, as there has been equally many publications and scientific input that has reversed the global warming myth, as to the etiology being CO2. A good example of this has been data recently released by NASA as well as other explanations on ‘climate change’ that are being actively pursued and debated. Therefore, by no means is it a done deal that CO2 is the causative agent for so-called “global warming.”

  10. Terrye says:

    The thing is not all scientists do agree.

    I recently read a book entitled The Lost Dinosaurs of Egypt. The author talks about a world without polar caps where the average temperature was 68 degrees F. So, it seems to me that climate change is the norm. And one of the reasons there has been push back from politicians and consumers is that the people who most strongly support the theory are also trying to raise energy prices for consumers. Needless to say, people are not going to like that. And another reason it is political, is that the scientists themselves made it political. They also made a lot of predictions of disaster that have not come about. So, people have begun to think that perhaps there is an agenda to all this that is not just about pure science.

  11. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @JKB:

    especially since for the last 10 years CO2 has been increasing while warming leveled off and is not declining.

    Tell that to all the people in Dallas and I’ll bet you get an argument. They would be wrong, but no more so than you.

    discount the many respected researchers and even entire disciplines who do not buy into the global warming premise

    Who? The many researchers at Fox News?

    I think I’ll trust NASA.

  12. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    A balanced, honest post that will most likely be derided by those here who are taking Christie’s public comments ‘literally,’ gleefully setting up another contentious loggerhead scenario within the GOP.

    It’s kind of fun. As can be seen here once again, about the only thing needed to be called “balanced and honest” by jan is to insert as many already debunked lies into a post as possible. She seems to have a strange notion of honesty.

  13. Ron Beasley says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Who? The many researchers at Fox News?

    And the “scientists” on the payroll of big oil and big coal.

  14. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Ron Beasley: Oh yeah, I forgot about them.

  15. JKB says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    For one, how about Geoscientists?

    climate skepticism was widespread among the thousand geoscientists from Canada, the United States and other countries who took part in GAC-MAC 2011 (the Joint Annual Meeting of the Geological Association of Canada, the Mineralogical Association of Canada, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits). Source

    Oh, and from your link. If you can’t draw a line through the data from 2001 to 2011 then get a 5th grader to help you.

  16. john personna says:

    @jan:

    Therefore, by no means is it a done deal that CO2 is the causative agent for so-called “global warming.”

    The problem is no one asks you to believe CO2 is “the” causative agent. Even JKB above agrees that it is “a” causative agent. He just makes light of predictions that it might be an important one. This even as direct measures of warming in our real world accumulate.

    It gets to be an argument in a corner. Yes, there is climate change. Yes, it is generally warming. Yes, man-made CO2 contributes. But we aren’t sure how much, so it is all a sham.

    lolz. The definition of a sham sure has changed over the years.

    (At this point AGW foes usually overlay their next paranoia. They say since the AGW contribution is in question then the greens can’t charge us a trillion dollars, take away our cars, and shoot our dog! Except, no one really wants you to do those things. At this point they are happy if you retire your incandescent light bulbs.)

  17. john personna says:

    In other news, there are now one billion cars registered and on the road.

    That’s kind of a lot, I wonder if it influences the weather ….

  18. JKB says:

    @john personna: At this point they are happy if you retire your incandescent light bulbs.

    Revealing words, “at this point” but then they also want to impose economy killing energy taxes, ban coal-fired electricity generating plants, add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of commercial trucks and farm equipment, etc.

    All because the concept of a trace gas seems to be beyond the grasp of so many. The concept of reinforcing feedback in models but not in the real world seems to be beyond the grasp of “climate scientists”. And, of course, let’s discount the impact of solar cycles, water vapor, oceanic oscillations, increased radiant heat loss out of the atmosphere to space, all in favor of a trace gas that is barely above the level needed for plants to survive much less thrive.

  19. Ben Wolf says:

    @JKB:

    All because the concept of a trace gas seems to be beyond the grasp of so many. The concept of reinforcing feedback in models but not in the real world seems to be beyond the grasp of “climate scientists”. And, of course, let’s discount the impact of solar cycles, water vapor, oceanic oscillations, increased radiant heat loss out of the atmosphere to space, all in favor of a trace gas that is barely above the level needed for plants to survive much less thrive.

    1) Solar activity has been flat since the 1950’s. It isn’t the sun.

    2) Water Vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Atmospheric temperatures have to rise before global humidity can increase.

    3) There is no such thing as an “oceanic oscillation”. ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation do not create heat, they simply move it around.

    4) Arguing CO2 can’t do much of anything because you think it is a trace gas is dumb. By your logic there’s no reason to wash a cut on your arm; the germs are so tiny they couldn’t possibly affect a system as comparatively vast as your body.

    5) I’ll thank you to provide citations to the effect CO2 levels are so low that plant life is “barely surviving”. That is entirely a matter of your uninformed opinion, and is utterly irrelevant to thermodynamics, radiative physics and the growing global energy imbalance.

  20. Ben Wolf says:

    Therefore, by no means is it a done deal that CO2 is the causative agent for so-called “global warming.”

    Yes, it is a “done deal”. There is nothing else. The planet doesn’t warm up because it feels like it, something has to force it to change. Water vapor can’t act as a forcing, the sun has been flat for decades and activity has weakened greatly since 2006. It isn’t cosmic rays or El Nino or people turning up their thermostats too high.

    CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 40% in the last 150 years. We did it. CO2 traps heat. That’s a fact of physics. Add CO2 and you trap more heat. For the cause of the current warming to be something other than CO2, there would have to be a phenomenon which has increased global average temperatures by 0.8C while simultaneously counteracting the warming from rising anthropogenic CO2.

  21. mattb says:

    Consequently, I dispute what many of you call the science in global warming, as there has been equally many publications and scientific input that has reversed the global warming myth, as to the etiology being CO2.

    Jan,

    You’ve just made a claim of FACT — can you please back that up? Linking to a single study, that does not appear to be peer reviewed does not equal a debunking of CO2 theories.

  22. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @JKB: JKB, if you followed the link, you would have seen that the line was already drawn for you.

  23. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: But then, maybe you were the kid who always colored outside the lines.

  24. mattb says:

    Since I don’t have the time to address all the claims being made by skeptics here, let me point everyone to an exceedingly useful post at ScienceBlogs:

    “How to talk to a climate change skeptic”
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

    As far as JKB’s claim that “Global Warming has stopped or reversed itself” — not suprisingly, the case is that this claim is similiar to Rush/Hannity’s claim that Obama inherited a 5% unemployment rate — it all depends on the timeframe you are measuring:
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php

  25. mattb says:

    I would also invite Jan and JKB to spend some time on http://www.skepticalscience.com/ in particular the “Settled Science” area (such as “http://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science-humans-are-raising-co2-levels.html — Humans are raising CO2 levels) to read actual meta-analysis (aka looking across studies rather than cherry picking single data points).

  26. Ben Wolf says:

    JKB knows he can’t win on scientific fact. That’s why he argues in Gish Gallop style, throwing out as many denier talking points as he can in the hopes that something will stick; that his opponents will tire of refuting each debunked garbage argument he makes. When he realizes it isn’t working he disappears into the ether, waiting for an opportunity to try again. He’s exceedingly dishonest.

  27. john personna says:

    @JKB:

    At this point they are happy if you retire your incandescent light bulbs.

    Revealing words, “at this point” but then they also want to impose economy killing energy taxes, ban coal-fired electricity generating plants, add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of commercial trucks and farm equipment, etc.

    Really funny! I say the next step is paranoia and you step up.

    The truth is that we don’t have a high tolerance for CO2 reduction in this country, and we never will. AGW is true, but it is long term. Given the choice between a slightly less fun summer vacation and long range climate change, we’ll choose the air conditioning and the ski boat every time.

    It is human nature. The rest of the world isn’t any more on board that we are. Sure they make big headlines by trimming around the edges, but that’s all. They hold GW conferences and then register a billion cars.

    No, the thing to recognize is that we shouldn’t deny AGW because we fear the regulatory consequences, and then to remember that those regulations are actually quite disconnected. AGW can be true, and we can decide we don’t care enough to act.

    It is true that it takes more guts to say “AGW is going to screw up the planet, but we just don’t care,” but it is more honest.

  28. john personna says:

    BTW, if you want a more defensible next position, I recommend this one:

    1) AGW is totally true.
    2) No unilateral reductions, by international agreement only.

    Since 2 will never happen to any serious degree, but is arguably necessary, you can be both correct and safe.

  29. Ben Wolf says:

    Since 2 will never happen to any serious degree, but is arguably necessary, you can be both correct and safe.

    I think we’re probably going to fry the planet. That’s why it makes little sense for people like JKB to get worked up about government enacting taxes: we aren’t going to do anything about it until it’s too late, at which point it will be so bad government will be assigning you a carbon quota and throwing you into prison for violating it. The longer anti-government forces delay action, the more draconian those actions will have to become. Deniers end up creating the green police state they so fear.

  30. JKB says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    1) you should tell NASA about his solar activity flatness

    2) You belief that an increase in temperature leads to a rise in humidity reveals a lot.

    3) Did I say the oceanic oscillations generate heat? No. But they do drive the panicked reaction to changes in the weather. Back in ’98 at the height of the El Nino the call was all but over to “stop the evil el nino”

    4) Relating a gas that is a tiny constituent by volume to bacteria is a pretty ignorant simile

    5) Here’s a nice video for you. But you should know that current CO2 levels are only a bit over 2.5 times the 150 ppm at which plant growth ceases.

    But don’t let this stop you keep prattling on, the more you say the more you reveal.

  31. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    you should tell NASA about his solar activity flatness

    The point to be seen here is that it is always dangerous to look at short time-scale graphs when dealing with climate science. Has sunsport activity increased? Yes. Your link pointed that out quite nicely. Is that important? Yes, because we normally assume that sunspot activity and solar irradiance correlate.

    Now please notice that the current increase you mentioned is still about half of the starting value in 2000. In short: yes it’s increasing but it’s still well below the levels we had even very recently.

    Now have a look at this graph showing solar irradience (= solar energy output, which is the metric we are really looking for. Sunspots is just a proxy) as a blue line.You will note that the huge starting point in 2000 (to recap: twice the recent increase you pointed out) is this tiny little upswing at the 0,0 mark all to the right.

    So yes, there is an increase in sunspots, but the curve is still essentially flat if seen over a larger period. It just looks otherwise because a) the scale used in the NASA graph is very small and b) the timeframe covered is also small.

    Now look at the red line. That’s the change in global temperature. As you can see, global temperature and sun activity tracked nearly perfectly all the way into the 1980’s. Then it deviated radically. So there must be a new factor that has nothing to do with solar activity.

    Sources:
    1) S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova, 2002, Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?
    2) NASA Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update released May 8, 2009

  32. Franklin says:

    @JKB: Geologists and mineralogists may have a better clue regarding the history of the Earth, but very few of them actually study the climate … I just don’t see how their opinion is relevant. Not to mention … a lot of them help companies search for natural resources including oil.

    But I’m in partial agreement with you regarding climate models. I don’t believe they are good enough to actually predict anything yet. I say this as someone who’s job is to model physical phenomena (but not the climate, which is probably several orders of magnitude more difficult).

  33. john personna says:

    @Franklin:

    If it were only models things would be much more up in the air.

    Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. [link]

    What modern “skeptics” really want is for us to discount a known mechanism, because it impacts their lifestyle.

    Yes we are warming, yes CO2 is a mechanism, but since you can’t prove *exactly* how much, you can take my incandescent bulbs when you pull them from my cold dead fingers.

  34. Herb says:

    “unless you believe that the entire scientific community is engaged in some vast conspiracy to lie to the world”

    That’s exactly what some people believe unfortunately……It’s a rather mainstream position on the right.

  35. Eric Florack says:

    “unless you believe that the entire scientific community is engaged in some vast conspiracy to lie to the world”

    Hardly.

    Contrary to the insistence of the mainstream press and career bureaucrats, there is no scientific consensus on “global warming” or that – if it exists at all – it is caused by human activity.

    A Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “consensus” as “1) general agreement: unanimity; 2) group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” There is no unanimity or even general agreement among scientists that global warming is even taking place.

    For instance, no less an authority than MIT meterology professor Richard S. Lindzen who was named in a recent National Academy of Sciences study purporting to “prove” global warming – in fact disagrees with most claims about global warming.

    As commentator Thomas Sowell has pointed out, “as the [National Academy of Sciences] report itself stated clearly, these scientists not only did not write the report, they didn’t even see it before it was published – and were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release.” (Thomas Sowell, “Global Hot Air,” Jewish World Review, 6-21-01.)

    How can a major government think tank, such as the National Academy of Sciences, claim there is now “consensus on global warming” when the very people supposedly making up that consensus have even never read or necessarily endorsed their studies? The shocking answer is that the entire modern process of “scientific consensus building” repeatedly cited by the establishment press is a fraud concocted by political hacks, to bamboozle the public and unsympathetic politicians – while stifling dissenting scientific voices

    And more:

    A team of scientists has sent a letter to all U.S. senators warning that a claim there is “consensus” in the scientific community on the climate change issue is false.

    The letter dated Oct. 29 reads in part: “You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a ‘consensus’ of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe. . .

    “The claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no.”

    The five signees of the letter include professors from Princeton University, the University of Virginia and the University of California, Santa Barbara.

    The letter refers to an earlier open letter sent to Congress by those five signees and others declaring: “The sky is not falling. The earth has been cooling for 10 years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them. . .

    and finally,

    New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

    NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

    Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

    “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

    In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

    The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

    Well, there would be, were there actual honesty among the AGW hoaxters.

  36. Davebo says:

    Bithead,

    Considering that meterology is not even a word, should we question your “experts”?

  37. Ben Wolf says:

    @Eric Florack: Have you actually read the paper, Erick? If so then you’re aware Spencer fails to take into account things like ENSO, convective heat transfer and is only able to arrive at his conclusion by excluding 90% of the temperature record. Oh, and his paper has no estimate of uncertainty. In addition to that, he decided to publish it in the most obscure journal he could find, I suspect because he knew it wouldn’t be peer-reviewed by a climatologist who would quickly spot his errors. His work, and his creationist insanity, have made him a joke.

    It’s ironic you insist that one hundred years of research isn’t enough to demostrate the reality of AGW, yet this one paper by a known hack with a political axe to grind is all the evidence you need to shout, “It’s a lie!” to the world.

  38. Ben Wolf says:

    JKB

    1) The water carrying capacity of the atmosphere is a function of temperature.

    2) No one is panicking about 1998 but you.

    3) You didn’t read your own NASA link, did you? http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html

    4) What video?

    5) Stop lying.

  39. john personna says:

    There is a pattern to watch out for. It spans politics. Both sides do it. The pattern goes like this:

    – 90% of experts or scientists or whomever agree
    – 10% or less disagree
    – opponents stitch together a network from that 10%
    – they go further, asserting that the 90% are part of a conspiracy
    – they lock themselves in with self-sealing arguments

    The left, broadly speaking, has done it with “cell phones kill bees” and “vaccines cause autism.” We should praise them when they can break out of those loops.

    … but the AGW denial is really the same pattern. Maybe if you are a denier, and you really look at how your position parallels phones/bees or vaccines/autism you can figure it out.

    Consensus does actually weigh in these things, and the idea that consensus equals conspiracy is nuts no matter who does it.

  40. john personna says:

    (In case it wasn’t obvious, Eric gave us a series of quotes and assertions stitched up from that minority territory. Sure he could. Just like the cell phone or vaccine people can.)

  41. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    Considering that meterology is not even a word, should we question your “experts”?

    Let’s try to keep this civil, right. In fact, Spencer is a respected expert in climate research (if a bit beyond his prime nowadays).

    The problem here is not that Spencer is not an expert. The problem is that even experts occasionally write crappy papers (as most global warming scptics would probably agree to – at least in the case of Krugmann).

    And the paper Eric mentioned here is just a dud. The model used is constructed in a way that allows it to come to almost any conclusion one wants. If you modify the variables just slightly, you can actually prove man-made global warming. So it comes down to the variables used. And there are several rather glaring errors in the paper when it comes to those (note: he fixed the most basic one on ocean heating depth in a later update, but several others remain).

    For a good, if rather technical discussion see here. For a discussion between Spencer and Dessler (which, btw, proves that dissenting voices are not “ignored and silenced” as the conspiracy theorists claim) go here.

    In all, the best laymans indicator of the paper quality may be that it was published in an online journal that allows submitting scientists to suggest their own reviewers adn where the scientist has to pay to be published. If it were indeed the scientific breakthrough it is made to be (instead of an rehash of ideas Spencer has published before and which were largly considered incorrect) he could have gotten a better venue easily.

  42. Hey Norm says:

    Hahaha…climate deniers crack me up. They also think humans rode dinosaurs, the earth is flat, the planets rotate around the earth, tax cuts pay for themselves, marriage equality will destroy marriage, etc., etc., etc.
    Hahaha

  43. Franklin says:

    @john personna: Thanks for the link, I’ll take a closer look at that. I would definitely be receptive to empirical evidence.

  44. M. Simon says:

    Christie is correct. The question is “how much?”. My view is: very little. CO2 has been rising for 10 years. Temperatures have not. The CAGW folks can’t explain it. Can you?

  45. M. Simon says:

    Consensus does actually weigh in these things, and the idea that consensus equals correct is nuts no matter who does it.

  46. M. Simon says:

    It’s ironic that I insist that one hundred years of history isn’t enough to demonstrate the reality of AGW? Yep it is.

    If you look back in history we get alternating heating and cooling panics about every thirty years. i.e. more or less co-incident with ocean heating/cooling cycles. We are coming to the end of a climate warming panic/cycle. Next we will have a cooling panic. Starting about 2020 or 2025.

    CAGW is science – but it has nothing to do with climate science. It is in the social science realm.

  47. M. Simon says:

    A model in electronics where all the factors are known to four or six decimal places or better is considered good if it comes within 1% of the true answer. an average model has errors in the 5% range.

    Now we have climate models that claim accuracy of better than .3% where the sign (let alone the magnitude) of some important factors is not known or is disputed. And then you have the gridding and time slice problems. Oh. yeah – given the Earth temperature of 300 deg K a 1% error is 3 deg C. A 5% error is 15 deg C. The first case is barely useable and the second is worthless.

    So is it .3%? 1%? Or 5%? One way to tell is to see if any of the models predicted this 10 year run of rising CO2 and relatively constant temperature. Not a one – before the fact.

    Back to the drawing board.

    And then you have factors like Svensmark’s observation that cosmic rays affect cloud formation which aren’t even in the models (his final paper will not be out for a while but his hypothesis is holding up well in experiments so far). And clouds are VERY important to climate.

    What else is missing from the models that we are unaware of? There is a problem with unknown unknowns. We don’t know.

    And these models with coarse gridding in space and time where functions are parameterized rather than computed from first principles is supposed to give us an eye on the future? GIGO.

  48. M. Simon says:

    FWIW I hang out with engineers (being one myself) and most of them are of the opinion that CAGW is bunk. I can tell you this: the work as presented so far would not meet ordinary requirements of engineering due diligence. Of course our stuff has to work and not kill people. We actually can get in trouble for a wrong answer. The Climate scientists? If they are wrong they ask for (and usually get) more money. It is a government program (mostly) after all.

    Me? Aerospace Engineering. Without benefit of a degree. If you fly your life is on my line. And – knock on wood and be very careful – I haven’t killed anyone yet.

  49. anjin-san says:

    You guys will have to pardon bithead, he is busy trying to figure out how to spin the disaster in Libya…

  50. M. Simon says:

    Did I mention the problem of modeling chaotic systems, where very small changes in a variable or factor can cause huge changes in output? So what is the error in inputs? .5 deg C? 1 deg C? More? Just the error in inputs has eaten up at least 1/2 of the imputed accuracy.

    CAGW may be a fact. The models as currently constituted don’t prove it.

  51. Scott O. says:

    @M. Simon:

    The CAGW folks can’t explain it.

    Actually, they can. Here’s one example:
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/has-global-warming-stopped

    It’s ironic that I insist that one hundred years of history isn’t enough to demonstrate the reality of AGW? Yep it is.

    OK, 100 years isn’t enough history to demonstrate a trend but 10 years is?

  52. Scott O. says:

    @M. Simon:

    FWIW I hang out with engineers (being one myself) and most of them are of the opinion that CAGW is bunk.

    Are you saying there’s a consensus amongst the people you hang out with? What happened to “the idea that consensus equals correct is nuts no matter who does it”?

  53. jan says:

    To all the ‘alarmists’ who have closed off any further data gathering on AGW, here is some “science” that may alarm your mindset.

    New NASA data blows gaping hole in Global Warming alarmism

    Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

    Here is a letter sent to Congress reputiating some Warmists scientists.

    The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

    On February 8, thirty-six eminent scientists, highly knowledge in climate change research, and thirty-three others submitted an open letter to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate contesting the false assertions contained in the January letter, particularly the statement that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding” [that man is causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming].

    Seldom have we witnessed such a stark contract between those who recognize that climate change is normal and natural from those who declare that 20th Century global warming is caused by humans, unprecedented, and dangerous……

    ….and, here is some earlier scientific consensus, over 30,000 people in the science field who have doubts about the causes of climate change.

    30, 000 anti-global warming scientiest can’t be wrong

    In the largest effort to date to document global warming dissent in the scientific community, 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhD, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM, and 12,714 BS or equivalent – have signed on with the Global Warming Petition Project to state “the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity.”

    Many of the best and brightest minds in the United States and around the world are in total agreement: The so-called global warming “scientific consensus” is a complete fabrication and does not exist.

  54. M. Simon says:

    OK. I’m convinced. CO2 is causing a catastrophe to the planet.

    What do you intend to do about China (estimated to have 2X USA CO2 production by 2020 and 4X by around 2050) and India?

    Is this serious enough to go to war over? Or is it about political Power and Control in the USA?

    I thought so.

  55. M. Simon says:

    “the idea that consensus equals correct is nuts no matter who does it”

    Yep. Even a consensus of engineers can be wrong. My point was that this idea of “unanimity among those capable of addressing the question” is bunk. As some one upthread has so kindly provided evidence.

  56. jan says:

    It amazes me how incurious most of you are on this blog. Even though much of the data coming out of the IPCC and CRU has been in dispute, including their computer models and press releases, you continue to Al Gore the topic, with nary a thought that maybe , just maybe there are other reasons behind our climate changes. For instance, solar flare activity, and inactivity, has been gaining ground as being highly suspect for climate changes. But, still you seem stuck on CO2 as being the main culprit, and nothing else….even if it means innumerable businesses are lost or adversely effected, people lose jobs, and energy costs increase due to the EPA spinning more and more regulations to curb these supposed malevolent greenhouse gases.

    I thought this was a fitting statement for how data is more honestly processed by an open mind:

    “One of the two ancient principles of natural justice long recognized in British Law is audiatur et altera pars. Hear the other side too. It’s certainly cheaper, and it’s probably right.”
    Viscount Monckton of Benchley

    This would not only apply to AGW, but to many of the issues and crisises of the day, including spending, deficits, entitlement reform, our welfare state, religion, education. So many aspects of our country, government, society are not working. And, yet, what I hear here is don’t rattle the status quo. Keep a progressive agenda going, and ratchet it up, if at all possible. Keep Obama in office. Keep on blaming somebody else. Destroy the opposition, and somehow, what is not working now will start to work someday. And, if it doesn’t turn out that way, well “Too bad, so sad, blame Bush.”

  57. M. Simon says:

    OK, 100 years isn’t enough history to demonstrate a trend but 10 years is?

    I see you don’t handle irony well. Pity. In any case the importance of 10 years is that it wasn’t predicted and the importance of 100 years is that we get alternating panics every 30 years or so. And I will make a scientific prediction: by 2030 or before we will have an ice age panic. Again.

    Ice ages worry me. I’m told we do not as of yet have any reliable way to grow crops under ice.

    BTW nice link to the paper. It explains everything. I wonder why the explanation was not prior to the fact? Perhaps something else is being overlooked or not running according to predictions. Oh. Wait. My mistake. They got it right this time. For sure. Really. All factors accounted for. Finally. The predictions from here on out are rock solid. Totally!

    ===

    CAGW is based on positive feedback from water vapor. There is some evidence that in this little portion of our chaotic cycle that the feedback from water vapor and clouds is negative. Measurements show this and the relative stability of our current regime is a strong hint. Almost all questions except clouds have been settled. Both sides agree that a doubling of CO2 (baring other factors) will raise the planetary temp 1 deg. C. The only major question left is clouds. Positive feedback? Or negative? That is a very big question. It is the difference between “doubling CO2 will raise temps 1/2 deg C” and “doubling CO2 will raise temps 3 deg C”

    If Svensmark’s cosmic ray work holds out then the recent weakening of the sun’s magnetic field portends a cold near future. And that is beyond any ocean cycles. Could a weaker sun combined with a cooling ocean cycle tip us into an ice age? We are overdue. Well it is something to think about.

  58. jan says:

    @M. Simon:

    Or is it about political Power and Control in the USA?

    It’s about power, control of the people, and lots of money for those who have early on invested in green energy like Gore and Soros. The EPA is squeezing all other producers of energy into having to shoulder higher production costs, which is then passed on to the people (like we need that in our current recession). However, It’s a way for the government to literally force us into a less productive green energy cycle.

    Of course, places like Costco are getting rid of their plug-ins, because “no one uses them.” And, government backed solar energy businesses are going out of business. I guess that means the government has to slap a few more people around to make them understand what it is they want them to do.

    This is the progressive way —-> force-feeding, socially engineering society, via redistributing other people’s wealth.

  59. jan says:

    Here’s a great opinion piece about feeding the masses on unicorn ribs. …..aka, powering the country economically with green jobs.

    A wonderful summary on ‘liberalism’ is posted in the comments below the commentary:

    Prologue says:
    August 20, 2011 at 10:56 am
    “All the tax money and legislation on earth will never overcome the laws of nature, nor the laws of economics. Nevertheless liberalism’s arrogance will keep on trying.”

    Peter Dellas nails it. Not only will they keep on trying, they will keep on pinning their failures on someone else.

  60. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    For instance, solar flare activity, and inactivity, has been gaining ground as being highly suspect for climate changes. But, still you seem stuck on CO2 as being the main culprit, and nothing else

    Jen, do you even read what other people are writing or are you just copypasting your favorite websites?

    Solar flare activity has been figured in in the models. It isn’t the reason for global warming as far as we can tell. I even linked the study above.

    Nobody who knows anything about climate change claims that Co2 is the only factor in global warming. That would be complete humbug. However, it seems to be the only factor that has changed significantly from previous cycles. And since we also see significant deviations from previous cycles and can model the effects of co2 pretty well, it seems a very likely culprit.

    And Monckton on honest data processing has to be a big joke. The guy is the most dishonest fraud on the GW lecture cycle. He has been repeatedly caught fixing statistics, falsifying charts, misrepresenting scientific studies and he knowingly keeps doing it even when he has been informed of his “errors” by the people who wrote the papers he cites. The guy lives of peddling misinformation to uninformed audiences eager to be vindicated in their beliefs. You won’t find a less open mind in the whole discussion!

  61. Ben Wolf says:

    @M. Simon

    1) Global Warming theory is not “based” on water vapor.

    2) Global Warming theory is not “based” on models.

    3) Global warming theory is based on hundreds of different lines of evidence. That deniers continue to believe there’s some smoking gun out there which will single-handedly destroy the case for AGW is indicative of how little they know about the subject.

    4)) Cosmic Rays again? Here’s the cosmic ay flux for the last sixty years:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NeutronMonitor.GIF

    Note that there is no effective trend. They aren’t getting stronger or weaker over this period, they simply fluctuate along with the solar cycle.

    5) When you post, try sticking to one subject at a time. The Gish Gallop argumentation style leaves much to be desired.

  62. Ben Wolf says:

    @M. Simon

    I talk to a lot of engineers (being one myself) and most of them are of the opinion that CAGW is bunk.

    This is akin to being diagnosed with leukemia and going to your chiropractor for advice on its treatment. Engineers are not trained in climate science.

  63. Ben Wolf says:

    @M. Simon

    As an engineer, you’re probably unaware that a statistical trend cannot be established for a ten year period: climatology requires no less than thirty years. Nevertheless, the planet has continued to warm during the past decade:

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

    Stop lying.

  64. Ben Wolf says:

    If you look back in history we get alternating heating and cooling panics about every thirty years. i.e. more or less co-incident with ocean heating/cooling cycles. We are coming to the end of a climate warming panic/cycle. Next we will have a cooling panic. Starting about 2020 or 2025.

    This is completely untrue, but I don’t expect that to stop you.

  65. john personna says:

    @M. Simon:

    As note, when you post that many wrong things, most people won’t have the energy to answer them. They’ll just shake their heads and move on.

    Remember, from my August 21, 2011 at 16:06 comment, the pattern is to stitch together what you’ve heard from the outliers, and make it your case.

    You can do that, and maybe some kind soul will have the energy to correct you on each and every point. I don’t. I’ll just observe that you do yourself a disservice. You don’t really understand the field. You are not a climatologist. You are a denialist, and know where to hook into that alternate information network.

  66. john personna says:

    (BTW, the logic “I am an engineer, and so can understand climate in my spare time” is sadly common. IMO it flags the kind of engineers who should be fired immediately, and replaced with people who have a more encompassing world view. I should know. I made my nut cleaning up after such engineers.)

  67. mantis says:

    There’s a big problem among engineers. They think they understand science. Most don’t.

  68. john personna says:

    @mantis:

    It’s more broad. It comes down to the difference between knowledge and meta-knowledge. It is both what we know, and what we know about what we know. Everybody needs introspection, and should pause to consider whether they know enough before they begin a project, or if they should go off to learn more, or to bring someone in.

    Successful people in any field are tempted to apply their decision making skills in a new domain. Sometimes we need to temper our hubris with humility around the edges. “Wait a sec,” we should say. “I am an expert in X.” and “I’m not really sure yet that I am an expert in Y.”

    “I am unproven.”

  69. jan says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius: @Ebenezer Arvigenius:

    And Monckton on honest data processing has to be a big joke.

    Yeah, I know the routine…everyone is a joke except the Howard Mann’s and Phil Jones of the world, who helped propagate AGW through skewed data and suppression of other scientist’s publications, who didn’t fall into line with the evidence they deemed worthy to present to the world.

    The ‘warmists’ and ‘alarmists’ are today’s flat-earth people, and don’t even know it.

  70. jan says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius:

    BTW Ebenezer, did I post anything other than a quote from Monckton — the purpose of the quote having to do with “hearing both sides” of an issue….???

    To refresh your memory:

    “One of the two ancient principles of natural justice long recognized in British Law is audiatur et altera pars. Hear the other side too. It’s certainly cheaper, and it’s probably right.”

    So, why act like I’m spewing Moncktoneze (although, I do like his accent, and find him entertaining to listen to) when that is the only reference made to him — attributing a philosophical remark to him?

    You’re a bit disingenuous aren’t you, in attacking a red herring, a strawman in order to be more pompous and sophisticated-sounding in your posting. You know “sophistication” doesn’t pair well with wisdom, as they seldom go together, as traits, with a person.

  71. mattb says:

    @jan…

    This is going to be short and blunt — I accidentally closed a far longer and better source response…

    No offense, but you are equally “incurious” when it comes to researching the material you link to. Here’s a hint, “researching both sides” doesn’t mean taking what’s written in a editorial from each side and deciding which you like better. That really appears to be what you do… because you keep quoting crap analysis of science (typically by conservatives) or offering your own misreadings of postings (like that time you tried to argue that a Rasmussen survey said the exact opposite of what it said).

    Here’s a run down:

    On “30, 000 anti-global warming scientist can’t be wrong”

    1. Writing that 30K scientists who signed on to the statement is disingenuous at best and flat out bad research or willful ignorance (incuriousness on the part of the author). Signatories to the “Oregon Petition” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition) were not all “Scientists” (as the quote you excerpted noted, 2000+ were Medical Doctors and Veterinarians) and the vast majority had only a Bachelor’s Degree. Further the organization that created the petition admits that they did not verify all signature and that included in that initial count were spoofs and pranks. In other words, with the exception of the names at the top, it was essentially an open internet petition.

    2. The more legitimate letter/statement is the one to the American physical society (ie. physicists) (http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info). But the author of the article misrepresents its content. He wrote: “saying the scientific data did not support the conclusion that increased CO2 concentrations are responsible for global warming” — that’s not what they wrote. Their suggested change to the American Physical Society’s statement on Global Warming simply states that CO2 is not, in their opinion “settled science” (they don’t deny the possibility that CO2 could be the cause). Note that the APS did not adopt this suggestion (in either it’s 2009 or 2010 form). Second, while some 50 physicists did sign this letter. Of course, it’s also worth noting that those 50 signatories represent approximately .125% of the 40K members of the APS (not exactly an overwhelming number).

    Onto “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism”:
    1. The author of this piece is a lawyer who works for an Anti Global Warming political think tank “The Heartland Institute” (fun fact about the Heartland Insitute, in the 1990’s it teamed with Phillip Morris to contest the idea that second hand smoke caused serious health problems).
    2. Spencer, himself a very politically engaged, anti-anthropomorphicCC figure, notes that the article’s author makes his findings appear more proven than they were (see Spencer’s blog: http://www.drroyspencer.com/)
    3. Critics note that the paper was not published in a climate journal, and due to the anonymous nature of Peer Review, we don’t know what scientists reviewed his data. But that doesn’t mean the data is wrong.
    4. The best meta analysis I found on the article is by Judith Curry, P.h.D., who notes that she would have published the article and that skepticism is important, but ultimately, trying to claim that this undercuts existing research is a HUGE overstatement. She also notes that there are a number of flaws in the article that need to be worked out in future research. Quoting Curry:

    Also, it needs to be understood that given the short period of their data set, Spencer and Braswell are looking only at fast feedback processes associated with clouds (not the longer feedbacks associated with oceans and ice sheets). How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear.

    The paper makes a useful contribution, but in the end they make the same error in interpretation that they accuse others of making. In my opinion it is not correct to infer from their analysis that global temperature variations were largely radiatively forced.

    […]

    So should the paper have been published? I would say yes, although the reviewers and editors should have insisted on more information regarding the climate model simulations that were actually used in their analysis.

    Basically you linked to two political hit pieces which don’t understand the science or the context of what they are talking about. Both essays were about scoring “points” rather than actually looking at the facts.

    You’d do your arguments a lot of good if you spent more time quoting legitmate sources (like Curry) and less time trying to pretend that pulling from political editorials is in any way demonstrating any real curiosity.

  72. anjin-san says:

    You know “sophistication” doesn’t pair well with wisdom, as they seldom go together, as traits, with a person.

    Really? Only bumpkins possess wisdom? I could see why that little bromide might be useful from a tea party perspective.

  73. WR says:

    @jan: I love being lectured on hearing both sides of an issue by a woman who does nothing but cut and paste from the vilest of right wing websites.

    Or maybe she thinks that “stupid” and “evil” are the two sides she should be listening to…

  74. Hey Norm says:

    Jan doesn’t believe that humans are impacting climate change…but then she also thinks the solution to our economic malaise is to tax the poor and sick and elderly more. So there you go.

  75. klem says:

    @Ron Beasley:

    “And the “scientists” on the payroll of big oil and big coal.”

    Exactly, could be the same “scientists” on the payroll of big Green.

  76. mantis says:

    Exactly, could be the same “scientists” on the payroll of big Green.

    Name one of those scientists. Also, who is “big Green,” exactly?

  77. M. Simon says:

    Mantis,

    Big Green is a government program. Every time it fails the government increases its funding. There is big money in Green Studies and Green Stuff. As long as the government is willing to pony up the cash. But in the words of the immortal philosopher WmB, “Pack your ermines honey, the marks are wising up.”

  78. M. Simon says:

    Ben Wolf,

    I’m glad to hear that there is no water vapor in the models. That would sure mess up the computers they run on if it was excessive.

    BTW your ignorance of the controversy is showing. Even hardened warmist scientists know that water vapor and its dampening or accelerating (depending on your camp) expected CO2 warming is the key issue (note I didn’t say only). If you were merely wrong that is fixable. However, it appears to me your ignorance is terminal. My condolences.

    What about China? Ready to go to war to save the planet? Or isn’t it worth saving?

    Last I checked China produces 6X as much CO2 per unit of GDP as the US does. Shouldn’t we be bombing China for that alone? We could target their worst plants. Kind of like a Global EPA.

    Or are you all posturing and socialism? Colloquially a Watermelon.

  79. M. Simon says:

    If you are unwilling to start a world war to save the planet you are not serious.

    You don’t really care about the planet (your motives are American political).

  80. WR says:

    @M. Simon: In other words, I don’t actually have any specifics about what “Big Green” is, but I know that the government is bad so that must be it.

  81. Ben Wolf says:

    Shorter M. Simon: If you aren’t willing to destroy the planet wth nuclear weapons to save the planet from global warming, you’re not serious.

  82. Ben Wolf says:

    @M. Simon: @M. Simon: China produces 5.5 tons of carbon per capita. The United States produces 17.3 tons per capita. Are you not even competent to do a simple search? I suppose you’ll next be arguing that unless we invade ourselves, we aren’t serious about global warming.

  83. Ben Wolf says:

    I’m glad to hear that there is no water vapor in the models. That would sure mess up the computers they run on if it was excessive.

    The only person saying this is you.

    BTW your ignorance of the controversy is showing. Even hardened warmist scientists know that water vapor and its dampening or accelerating (depending on your camp) expected CO2 warming is the key issue (note I didn’t say only).

    It isn’t the key issue.

    If you were merely wrong that is fixable. However, it appears to me your ignorance is terminal. My condolences.

    Stop lying.

  84. klem says:

    Now that we know that Christie is a climate alarmist, I now know who NOT to vote for.

    Thanks for this heads up.

    Cheers

  85. john personna says:

    Chris Mooney posts:

    The Republican War on Science Returns

    With two key points:

    1. It’s Not Just About Science, It’s About Reality.
    2. We Need Psychology To Explain This.

    It’s worth reading, whether you are observing or suffering the phenomena.

  86. Rob in CT says:

    It would be lovely if GW wasn’t happening, or if it was but it wasn’t cause for alarm. Unfortunately, I don’t think either is true. And thus there are two questions:

    1) How best to mitigate; and
    2) How best to adapt.

    Government has a proper role in the answers to both questions.

    This really boils down to various industries resisting changes that would be imposed by government (the GOP is just representing those corporations/people after all). I get that, really I do. It’s to be expected. What I don’t get is the assumption that this is all a grand conspiracy cooked up by Marxists so they can take over the world or something.

  87. john personna says:

    @Rob in CT:

    This really boils down to various industries resisting changes that would be imposed by government (the GOP is just representing those corporations/people after all). I get that, really I do. It’s to be expected. What I don’t get is the assumption that this is all a grand conspiracy cooked up by Marxists so they can take over the world or something.

    Well not just that. Various governments will also take different positions with respect to AGW and their self-interest. I don’t think we should expect, for instance, Saudi Arabia to take the lead by reducing output.

    And as I say above, the GOP has a really safe fallback position. They can just say that they’ll support reductions in our coal burning when we can get meaningful limits out of the Chinese.

    List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions