Print 104 comment(s) - last by ekv.. on Jan 28 at 4:00 AM

Is Antarctica warming or cooling? Either way it proves global warming, according to climate modelers.

In the 1990s, predictions of a greenhouse-warmed Antarctic abounded. As time passed, though, problems surfaced. Research paper after paper indicated that, other than the tiny Antarctica peninsula, the continent was in fact cooling -- and had been doing so for many decades.

Skeptics pointed to this as a flaw in global warming theory. Not so fast, cried the climate modelers. They quickly spun a number of possible explanations, including ozone holes, ocean currents, and terrain that cut off Antarctica from the world's warming. As the certainty in the cooling trend grew, so did their statements, until they eventually began stating that they had predicted a cooling trend all along.

As the folks at RealClimate put it, "Doesn't this contradict [global warming]? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century."

Cooling was thus cast as proof of global warming, not refutation. The media dutifully shifted their cameras from penguins to polar bears. The world was safe for Kyoto again.

But now a new paper has appeared, saying that Antarctica is warming after all. Written by Eric Steig and Drew Shindell, the paper purports to prove that past evidence of cooling was incorrect. But doesn't that contradict the models? Not if one can again rewrite history.

Speaking at a news conference today, Steig says, "We now see warming is taking place [in] accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases."

In 2004, Shindell had something very different to say. That year he authored a paper that stated, "Surface temperatures [had] decreased significantly over most of Antarctica," Shindell added, "This cooling is consistent with circulation changes". He dedicated the rest of the paper to demonstrating that climate modeling "reproduces the vertical structure and seasonality of observed [cooling] trends."

Today, Shindell says, "It’s extremely difficult to think of any physical way that you could have increasing greenhouse gases not lead to warming at the Antarctic continent.". One can only wonder if he kept a straight face.

Even the New York Times is playing along, saying that cooling "ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models". Memories are short.

The real story here isn't Antarctica. It's the willingness to rationalize model results to fit any and all scenarios. To the modelers, their results are consistent with. . . well, everything. Whether warmer or colder, flood or drought, more storms or less -- it's all proof that global warming is real and happening now.

This, of course, isn't real science. A true theory require something called falsifiability -- a set of conditions under which it can be disproven. So far, this is something the modelers have failed to give. It allows them to maintain a facade of unflappable certainty-- but it isn't science.

Among researchers who work with actual climate data, skepticism is climbing. The modelers at least remain faithful. But as of now, their predictions are rather like the gypsy fortune teller who tells you, "You will live a long life -- unless you die young."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Enough is enough
By mdogs444 on 1/22/2009 6:53:16 AM , Rating: 5
It's the willingness to rationalize model results to fit any and all scenarios. To the modelers, their results are consistent with. . . well, everything. Whether warmer or colder, flood or drought, more storms or less -- it's all proof that global warming is real and happening now.

This, of course, isn't real science.

Exactly. Nuff said.

RE: Enough is enough
By FITCamaro on 1/22/2009 8:23:41 AM , Rating: 3
Yup. To these idiots, their theories can't be disproven. No matter what happens, they're right. It's like arguing with a 5 year old.

RE: Enough is enough
By Reclaimer77 on 1/22/2009 3:58:48 PM , Rating: 2

First the earth was warming. Once it went public that it was actually cooling, they just changed their theory to Climate Change to cover all warming and cooling AND storm changes into one all encompassing "theory".

This, my friends, is not science.

RE: Enough is enough
By AnnihilatorX on 1/24/2009 4:46:15 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree with you guys.

The problem is climate system is too complex and frankly no one has a clue, because there is no reliable theory and all models are based on theories.

You can't really blame the scientists however. If there are physical evidences that violates a theory, good scientists will try to account for and modify the theory in an attempt to improve upon the theory to be better and more reliable; They may succeed or may fail in the process. Only when something is no longer able to be accounted for in any way, or a better theory emerges; you then disapprove your theory.

This has always been how science progressed, from particle-wave duality, special relativity, to gravity. You can't say this is bad science.

RE: Enough is enough
By BBeltrami on 1/26/2009 11:41:48 AM , Rating: 3
I don't hear anyone denying scientists their curiosity. But discarding the Scientific Method to satisfy the argument you approve of is clearly not science.

The over-arching problem TODAY is not the scientisits. When I have BP, Chevron, Subaru lecturing me with multi-million dollar ad campaigns about how green they are and how I'm not doing my part to save the future; when legislators send out press releases declaring that "something MUST be done about emmissions within 4 years or it will be too late"; when our education system teaches GW Theory as scientific fact, a bigger picture emerges. If you agree with it, the picture is rosy. If you don't, you're called names.

That's progress.

RE: Enough is enough
By tastyratz on 1/22/2009 8:40:57 AM , Rating: 2

People just argue on the DT articles anyways, why do we see them on global warming so frequently?

RE: Enough is enough
By TomZ on 1/22/2009 8:49:27 AM , Rating: 5
The science is irrelevant anyway at this point. Global warming is now a political problem, not a scientific problem. The incoming Obama administration has committed to go to work on the problem - at great expense to taxpayers no doubt - even before the science is in.

RE: Enough is enough
By FITCamaro on 1/22/2009 9:07:10 AM , Rating: 5
True. But the problem is that its being promoted as science.

There's one guy here who consistently gets rated down when he says that in order to get rid of global warming, you have to defeat the politicians advocating for it. He's correct. No amount of scientific evidence now is going to stop the mantra these idiots have.

Warming, cooling, staying the same. They'll say it fits their models, the media will back them up, and the drones buy it hook, line, and sinker.

RE: Enough is enough
By omnicronx on 1/22/2009 10:37:31 AM , Rating: 5
There's one guy here who consistently gets rated down when he says that in order to get rid of global warming, you have to defeat the politicians advocating for it. He's correct. No amount of scientific evidence now is going to stop the mantra these idiots have.
I have to agree with you here, the only thing worse than bad science is politicians advocating for it.

I just really wish politicians could focus on real environmental problems, like the thick smog us city dwellers have to breath everyday of the summer (or all year long depending where you live).

RE: Enough is enough
By rcc on 1/23/2009 1:25:06 PM , Rating: 4
like the thick smog us city dwellers have to breath everyday of the summer

Can't argue that, although, some areas have made great improvements. The California emissions standards are a real pain in the tail sometimes, however, the average apparent air quality in the Greater Los Angeles area is amazingly better than it was 25 years ago. When I was making service calls in the Azusa area in the '80s I didn't realize how close the San Gabriel mountains were to the plant there because you couldn't see them through the brown yellow haze. Then one year the smog parted and I'm asking the locals when they had the mountains installed.

RE: Enough is enough
By Amiga500 on 1/22/2009 12:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it wouldn't be a complete waste if they did decide to move away from oil/gas power plants.

The electricity and heating supplies of the western world are far too volatile for my liking...

(Of course, substituting volatile oil prices for volatile wind-speeds is currently not an option in my opinion)

RE: Enough is enough
By Amiga500 on 1/22/2009 12:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, swap that around:

"substituting volatile wind-speeds for volatile oil prices"

RE: Enough is enough
By TheDoc9 on 1/22/2009 2:46:27 PM , Rating: 3
Politically it might be important to keep global warming in the public eye, it might have something to do with the carbon tax.

Plausible deniability
By Screwballl on 1/22/2009 11:50:43 AM , Rating: 5
... or also called displaced responsibility. Failure to take responsibility for reporting the facts, instead only reporting the flawed information that gets you more money from more sheep willing to believe that MMGW is real.

In the end it is a bunch of talking heads (without a thinking brain) looking at the numbers they want, and anything that points to the opposite is ignored, simply to further their agenda. If the fact shows that plants are absorbing more CO2 now than 10 years ago, they ignore it and only show the flawed and incomplete statistics of man releasing more CO2.

Face it, the reality and FACT is that our planet and other planets around the universe go through normal heating and cooling trends on their own. The planets such as ours also have natural mechanisms that work to balance any changes, such as plants that grow faster and larger because they soak up more CO2.

Look at coastal areas by the Pacific or Atlantic. On the left coast we have massive redwoods that soak up massive amounts of CO2... yet the coastal saltwater should be reducing the CO2 absorption thus not allowing these trees to grow to the size they are, not increasing their CO2 absorption. The effects of both sodium chloride and CO2 on oxygen binding by component II of the hemoglobin from Artemia Franciscana have been determined that Sodium chloride decreases both the oxygen affinity and cooperativity: the Hill coefficient decreases from 2.4 to 1.7 in the presence of 0.5 M NaCl at pH 7.5, 20°C. In contrast, CO2 increases both the oxygen affinity and cooperativity. The effects of both agents are small and increase with the degree of oxygenation.
As CO2 increases, this means that the salt included in the air bonding with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere speeds up the growth and health of plants along coastal areas. Soaking up the CO2 faster means release of the Oxygen much faster as well thus reducing any impact of man made CO2 released. This means those redwoods will grow faster and larger than before, and it means the Everglades in Florida will grow faster and thicker than before. Also means faster, larger and healthier crop production in Florida and other coastal states.

Nature adjusts itself regardless if any compound, including CO2, increases or decreases. Man may be putting out more chemicals but nature always cleans itself up and adjusts accordingly.

RE: Plausible deniability
By Grabo on 1/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Plausible deniability
By masher2 on 1/22/2009 12:45:14 PM , Rating: 5
> ""The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century"

If the theory of CO2 causing climate change is so basic, you might ask yourself why Arrhenius wrote several research papers in the 19th century and even a book-- and still failed to convince any of his colleagues. Why it wasn't until the 1960s, in fact, that anyone believed CO2 could affect climate, and even to the late 1970s, most believed that cooling could predominate warming. Why even today, many atmospheric physicists still don't subscribe to alarmism. Hint, the two basic problems revolve around "saturation" and "spectral overlap".

And for the record, yes: CO2 does cause the earth to warm. That's not what the debate is about at all. The base warming from CO2 is very low (about 0.5C/per doubling). The question is positive and negative feedbacks, and how large they may be.

RE: Plausible deniability
By Grabo on 1/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Plausible deniability
By WTFiSJuiCE on 1/23/2009 2:18:04 AM , Rating: 2
At this point, NASA will say anything in hopes of not seeing their budget diced to pieces.

RE: Plausible deniability
By PlasmaBomb on 1/24/2009 1:29:23 PM , Rating: 5
Current state-of-the-art climate models

The problem is that current state-of-the-art climate models can't model their way out of a (biodegradable) paper bag...

RE: Plausible deniability
By ekv on 1/28/2009 2:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
Am ignoring the "Hint" because it makes you sound like Mr. Eckart ... Check out


I have a bit of a problem with your Climate_sensitivity link since it references IPCC.

I'm sure most people here have read about IPCC's "hockey stick" but Orson Card bears repeating every now and then.

By Kyanzes on 1/22/2009 9:57:17 AM , Rating: 2
A handy subject if you happen to be in need of an MSc for bragging rights :)

By grenableu on 1/22/2009 11:16:54 AM , Rating: 2

By truk007 on 1/25/2009 3:45:22 AM , Rating: 2
Master of Science (Magister Scientiae)

Expect 1,000-year climate impacts, experts say
By mxnerd on 1/27/09, Rating: 0
By ekv on 1/28/2009 4:00:48 AM , Rating: 3
woops ... and now this week we're back to below normal temp's, like we had in mid December.

The Jan. warm-up was great. There's a saying that goes something like, "when the Sun shines on the Rose Parage another million people move to Southern California." There is some truth to that. Our Jan. was an especially gaudy example, contrasted with New England and Chicago experiencing teens. Hah! [Oh, sorry 8]

I mean, with the temp's in the 50's yesterday, why, you'd almost think it was, well, winter. 8)

Btw, yes we are behind on rain totals. Though having several light rains has really helped out, since areas that experienced those terrible fires have had some chance to grow vegetation and thereby slow soil erosion or avalanches when the heavy rains come ... soon (traditionally).

AGW, pfft. There are much worse problems, e.g. the state legislature still hasn't a budget (is it a year late?), and their spending is outrageous, along with trying to indoctrinate kindegarteners about Homosexuality (for crying out loud). Our border problem is unsolved and billions are going to welfare for illegals, etc. [Before you rap me on that, I have acquaintances who did it legally and THEY are unhappy with illegals].


By fancypants phil on 1/22/2009 1:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
whats with the beach picture? I don't get it? Because Antartica is warming up?

By strikeback03 on 1/22/2009 3:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
...if you try hard enough, you can find data to support any position you want. Nevermind the analysis though, apparently we can't even trust these guys to accurately report the temperature. Shouldn't "Is the average temperature going up or down?" be relatively easy to answer?

truth or consequences
By tookablighty on 1/22/2009 3:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
All these comments and no one states the obvious. Yesterday it was "we always predicted cooling", today its "we always predicted warming"

Mates, the media is lying through its teeth, and you all seem happy as larry about it.

A Case for AGW Skepticism
By Mencius1 on 1/22/2009 5:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
Shindell testified To Congress
By deeznuts on 1/25/2009 8:51:47 PM , Rating: 1
Shindell testified To Congress in 2007 that his models from 2004 helped explain the cooler temperatures, and "predicted" a warmer future for Antarctica.

In the fall of 2004, a team I led published a paper providing an explanation of how ozone depletion over Antarctica and increasing greenhouse gases could together account for the observed cooling over much of Antarctica (and the warming over the Antarctic Peninsula, the one area where observations showed a warming trend).

Maybe that explains it? or did he just insert that in 2007 because it looked like Ant was warming?????

wrong perspective
By sphyder on 1/22/09, Rating: 0
Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By Amiga500 on 1/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By thepalinator on 1/22/2009 11:45:12 AM , Rating: 3
Scale of potential hazard: Extinction of species.
My city varies from a temperature of about -5 degrees to 90 degrees each year. Please explain to me how changing that to -3 to 92 will lead to the extinction of all life as we know it.

Do you people even listen to what you're saying any more?

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By Amiga500 on 1/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By masher2 on 1/22/2009 12:50:29 PM , Rating: 4
> "are aware that once upon a time Mars had an atmosphere? How do you think that disappeared?"

It disappeared due to a combination of the shallow Martian gravitional well and the lack of a magnetic field to protect the upper atmosphere from the solar wind. Are you suggesting that global warming will somehow impact gravity and magnetism?

I must again point out that, over geologic time, CO2 levels have averaged much higher than they are now. During the Devonian, for instance, they stood as high as 4,000 ppmv -- over ten times current levels -- a period in which life was both more abundant and diverse than what we see today.

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By Amiga500 on 1/22/2009 1:03:33 PM , Rating: 1
If those (grav well and mag field) were the sole reasons there would never have been an atmosphere to start with as both are relative constants*.

You know that as well as I do.

Something changed - and it wasn't Mars' mass.

*It possibly could have been the magnetic field, but I consider that unlikely. If it is the case - it then is something we need to understand the mechanism of ASAP.

As I said in another post, I don't particularly care about all life - I am more concerned about human life.

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By Zshazz on 1/22/2009 3:00:25 PM , Rating: 5
I remember reading somewhere that the core of Mars cooled and thus shut down the magnetic field. It isn't a constant at all, since it's produced by the super-heated fast-moving liquid metal.

Plus, the whole point of the article is to show that these climate change "scientists" (to use the term extremely loosely) can and do change their models to predict whatever is happening. I.E. it's not possible for them to be wrong.

It's silly. The same method of science can be used by me to say "The more humans there are, the bigger the universe is, because humans have been increasing, and the size of the universe is increasing" ... and then, if we were to find out that the universe was shrinking, I could say "The number of humans has increased to such a dramatic level that it is causing a humanus-magnito-gravitus field and is causing an implosion on a universal scale!!" ... and if it switched back to the universe is increasing, I could just say "Oh... well, the number of humans has increased to such a degree that it is counter-acting the humanus-magnito-gravitus field!"

As you can see, it is utterly ridiculous. There is no way to "prove" them wrong when they do this (hence, they do this... they get paid so much money to study "climate change" ... so obviously, they're going to try to prolong it until they retire with $21 Billion in their bank account). The best way to find out if it's true or not is to apply some common sense to it. Obviously the number of humans isn't increasing the size of the universe, because it increased before our time. Obviously human emissions (especially CO2) aren't changing the climate, because the emissions have been higher in the past naturaly, because climate has changed in the past without us, and because we have no solid proof and the climate change scientists only manipulate the data to show their favor, so we can't even trust raw data anymore.

Point is, GW/Climate Change is probably one of the biggest and most effective shams in all of human history.

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By Amiga500 on 1/22/09, Rating: 0
By tookablighty on 1/22/2009 3:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly is at stake? The planet's been more than a mite warmer before and we humans still did just fine. I'm not planning on keeling over because the thermo goes up another degree, are you?

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By Zshazz on 1/22/2009 8:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
Key word being probably.

Actually, I was just dodging the anti-christians who think Jesus is the biggest and most effective sham in all of human history. It's vaguely worded, but I do mean that it's a sham, just the question is whether it's the one of the biggest or not. Either the scientists that support the theory, like the one quoted in the article, actually believe what they're saying is true (in which case, clearly have some mental illness) or they're simply pulling a gigantic scam to get as much research money as possible.

Because so much is at stake, I'm not happy to take the chance, are you?

I am if the chance is infintismally small. As far as I'm concerned, the chance of Yellowstone blowing and killing off the planet (you realize, when that thing goes, it'll release more emmisions than the human race has in the past 100 years, right? ... and it'll be freaking instant) is greater than humans causing climate change and killing us. I almost 100% believe (I realize that you'll nitpick this part, but nothing can be 100% certain, you can't even be 100% certain your physical body exists... you could just be a figment of your own imagining ;)) that climate change is being done by forces far greater than us (e.g. cycles of sun, which has been much more strongly correlated with temperature change than emissions... hey, it even passes the common-sense test, where we get heat from gets hotter = us getting hotter!). And even if I were wrong, like others have said, the climate of Earth has been far "worse" in the past and life was in greater abundance. If anything, we'll thrive more if we pump CO2 into our atmosphere.

Frankly, I'm more afraid of the universe randomly imploding because people fart too much :-\

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By Amiga500 on 1/22/2009 3:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
It disappeared due to a combination of the shallow Martian gravitional well and the lack of a magnetic field to protect the upper atmosphere from the solar wind. Are you suggesting that global warming will somehow impact gravity and magnetism?

Done a brief bit of digging, and there is indeed evidence to strongly suggest the magnetic field of Mars has weakened substantially over time, driven by a cooling core.

I would assume that core cooling was internally driven, indeed I would hope that core cooling was internally drive. Regardless - that is something that merits further study.

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By phxfreddy on 1/22/2009 10:22:41 PM , Rating: 3
Amiga500 == Die hard member of the congregation and choir of the Church of Latter Day Warming.

By Amiga500 on 1/23/2009 2:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
You bothered to read my posts on other threads on this?

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By rdeegvainl on 1/22/2009 2:32:33 PM , Rating: 5
you are aware that once upon a time Mars had an atmosphere? How do you think that disappeared?

Definately wasn't man made global warming.

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By Amiga500 on 1/22/2009 3:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
Thats another little gripe of mine.

Who really cares if climate change is man made or not?

Humans have always sought to control the local environment - it has what has made us the No.1 species on the planet. Extending control to the global environment should be near the top of our priorities.

(Now, obviously getting control of the environment means so much more than building a few wind farms - as they do not control the environment at all)

By WTFiSJuiCE on 1/23/2009 2:14:36 AM , Rating: 2
It honestly does matter if climate change is man made or not, because if it is then we actually can take steps within ourselves to contain that.

Extending control to the scale of the global environment? We can't even stop China from creating toxic winds that swoop down from the Gobi Desert, picking up all of the pollution particles from its grand industrialization and spreading it slowly all over the globe (while making thousands in Korea ill). And yet, you want to control the Earth's environment in its entirety?

Ok, hold on. I think I still have August De Wynter on speed dial, maybe he'll let us use his weather machine for kicks one more time.

Even if we could control the Earth's climate, we can't stop the sun from creating sunspots (in particular I believe we are just coming off of a maximum period of sunspots), therefore creating a strong solar wind, and reducing cloud cover which warms the planet surfaces.
What do we do about that? Shoot sulfur bombs into the atmosphere to cool ourselves until the danger goes away?

What about when global cooling happens? Are we going to send nuclear missiles into the sun to give it a jump start?

Major Tectonic Shift? Develop an enormous glue gun on the ISS and paste California back to the mainland?

What if a supervolcano erupts? There's nothing in our bag o' tricks for that one.

The problem with your gripe is that nature isn't something that is outside of us. We didn't just evolve above nature thanks to social contract. It's our arrogance as the 3rd most intelligent species that makes us think we can control the very environment we live in completely.

In the meantime, I'll just sit here and wait for the dolphins to thank us for the fish and leave the planet just before it explodes.

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By clovell on 1/22/2009 1:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of money, eh? Do you realize the amount of human suffering and death we'll spend as an opportunity cost to combat a 'problem' that mightexist?

You don't stake the quality of life of 7 billion people on a warm fuzzy, son.

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By Amiga500 on 1/22/09, Rating: 0
By clovell on 1/22/2009 4:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
> Do you realise that greed will prevent the global relief of human suffering and death anyway?

Let's think about this rationally for just a bit. The masses can accept and address only a certain number of crises at a time. Pushing the curbing of global CO2 emissions is going to huge and expensive and is going to crowd out other, more eminent calamities.

And no, I'm not that stupid. I just don't think the potential risks are currently outweighed by the potential returns, that's all. The shock and awe style is just to put my arguements against the AGW crisis on a proportionate level with yours for it.

And as for the son thing - I got a bit carried away there, my bad.

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By strikeback03 on 1/22/2009 3:28:24 PM , Rating: 3
And extinction of the species is necessarily a bad thing?

By greenchasch on 1/22/2009 4:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
Why not start with yourself and see how it goes?

RE: Lets do a quick risk assessment...
By Misty Dingos on 1/22/2009 4:58:33 PM , Rating: 1
You are attempting (poorly I might add) to do a risk assessment.

The risk assessment process involves a complete to good understanding of the process. I personally don't think climate scientists have a clue as to climate forecasting but let's give them a break and take the average HIGW model as reasonably accurate.

Anytime you do risk assessment you must also apply the probability of that risk.

Adverse Event X Probability of occurrence = Risk Assessment

So you have probabilities: Low, Medium and High. We will assign them numbers 1 for Low, 2 for Medium and 3 for High.

Next is Adverse Event: Death of all living creatures on the planet. Well that is bad so we assign it a high number like 100. At the opposite end is, No climatic effect at all and we could assign that a low number like 1. Then you have all the other Adverse events in between 100 (bad) and 1 (no climatic effect). With let's call death of one billion people being equal to 50.

Now you can do a risk assessment. Given your take on that I would say that you have 1 (probability) X 100 (adverse effect). So you have a score of 100. Let’s look at another example (more likely I think).

A high probability event (3 multiplier).

Adverse event: (50) Governments and individuals continue to call for the reduction of greenhouse gasses in the future. Millions of humans in third world nations die because they lack the industrial support from the first world or they are limited by arbitrary agreements designed to reduce their effect on the planet by modest to moderate industrialization.

3 X 50=150 Risk assessment.

So here we have a risk assessment that is worse than killing all life on the planet. Before you think that what I have done here is just BS this is how they are determining what polices are going to be implemented because of this issue. They are determining how many human beings will have to die to implement their agenda. What is the acceptable loss of human life, what is the acceptable level of human suffering?

So Amiga here is the question of the day. How many people are you willing to condemn to death or lives of suffering to forestall a climate event that you may have not have caused or can in fact affect? All in the attempt to err on the side of caution.

By Amiga500 on 1/23/2009 2:35:14 AM , Rating: 1
So Amiga here is the question of the day. How many people are you willing to condemn to death or lives of suffering to forestall a climate event that you may have not have caused or can in fact affect?

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where the developed world is helping industrialise the 3rd world...

Your post is reasonable*... if Africa was being helped off its knees already - but it is not.

*And a lot more detailed than the condensed 3 lines on risk assessment I presented.

By phxfreddy on 1/22/2009 10:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
There are infinite variety of horror scenarios that can be made up out of whole cloth. Shall we prepare for alien invasion? If you follow the precautionary principle then do.

The problem is you Latter Day Church of Global Warmers just have your religion and expect us infidels to hew to your cocamamie ideas.

No thanks for me! Take your MMGW scams elsewhere!

By FITCamaro on 1/22/2009 9:18:19 AM , Rating: 4
Oh and climatologists who's research budgets depend on agreeing with whatever the hot issue is are objective?

By Noubourne on 1/22/2009 9:54:56 AM , Rating: 1
Oh wow, I had not thought of that before!

The National Cancer Institute has just put together their 2009 budget. Quick, get over there and tell them to cancel all their grants, because work done on grants never produces good results!!

By porkpie on 1/22/2009 11:10:09 AM , Rating: 5
You think the grant process doesn't affect science badly in some cases? 20 years ago, the UN was saying that first world nations would soon see a massive heterosexual epidemic. That never happened, but it resulted in AIDS research getting much more funding than some diseases that cause ten times as many deaths.

When your research funds come from the government, exaggeration pays off in spades.

By Reclaimer77 on 1/22/2009 4:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
Cancer is real.

Climate Change ?? Not so much..

By Grabo on 1/22/2009 10:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to side with the climatologists on this. Michael Asher has an axe to grind and he's not objective.

What, really? He's going to keep digging up anything that 'disproves' a global warming point or anything he can twist into appearing as if it does. And anyone who stands against him shall be downrated. Even other bloggers aren't safe, least of all Mick...

As long as NASA thinks climate change is an issue, I dare say I will. Of course, that poll survey means nothing to masher or his underlings because they couldn't see a stop sign if they walked right into it.

By AssBall on 1/22/2009 10:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
Is climate change an issue? Well probably, considering the planet sustains human life. The question you and people who keep thinking your way are missing is: IS IT CAUSED BY HUMANS?

To date there is not enough evidence to support this. Until there is, I don't see any reason why we need to be drafting policies. Note that taking this stance has nothing to do with policies based upon many other proven negative affects of pollution, just "climate change".

By nafhan on 1/22/2009 2:51:15 PM , Rating: 3
How about some more facts:

Fact 4: We're not really sure what the natural cycle is or where it would be if humans weren't contributing

Fact 5: The natural cycle can vary widely

By omnicronx on 1/22/2009 10:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
And anyone who stands against him shall be downrated. Even other bloggers aren't safe, least of all Mick...
While this may be true, I find this article intriguing, it has become increasingly hard to sort through the BS when it comes to global warming, and that goes for both dies. Any time a new study comes out showcasing lowering or raising temperatures, both sides somehow come up with some new crazy way to fit it into their climate models. As far as I can tell, this was the point of mashers blog this time around, not to prove or disprove global warming.

By monoape on 1/25/2009 9:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
> ...both sides somehow come up with some new crazy way to fit it into their climate models.

Both 'sides'? On one 'side' are all the climate scientists on the planet (whose assessments and predictions are more based on empirical evidence than computer models), and on the other are right wing economists, a couple of scientists who work for 'think' tanks funded by ExxonMobil and a whole bunch of scientifically illiterate and dishonest bloggers, like Asher.

The distinction really is that clear.

Get your science from scientists and the confusion will be lifted.

By theendofallsongs on 1/25/2009 10:55:49 AM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of climate scientists who say AGW is a load of hooey. A lot of them are even members of the IPCC. Here's some of them:

By theendofallsongs on 1/25/2009 7:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link. Let me quote from it

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA

By thepalinator on 1/22/2009 11:23:28 AM , Rating: 3
He's going to keep digging up anything that 'disproves' a global warming point
When scientists throw a new conference to announce they've changed their minds again, you don't have to do much digging.

Oh, I love the pic also. Fits perfectly.

By clovell on 1/22/2009 12:14:41 PM , Rating: 5
Did you get the memo? Concensus isn't science.

Concensus of guys who contradict themselves on subjects which they are dubbed experts is even less scientific.

When you've something more than a poll, maybe you can fashion an arguement that's at least valid.

By CatfishKhan on 1/22/2009 10:42:49 AM , Rating: 4
Notice that none of the detractors here so far have bothered to address the substance of the article, but instead have had to resort to polls and questioning people's motives.

Some of us here can think for ourselves, and can use the data itself to come to conclusions without having to worry about majority opinions or what the motives of others might be.

By grenableu on 1/22/2009 11:15:40 AM , Rating: 2
Notice that none of the detractors here so far have bothered to address the substance of the article, but instead have had to resort to polls and questioning people's motives.
You noticed that too?

Personally I think Asher is a pompous ass most of the time, but the amount of waffling and bald-faced lying these climate nazis are engaging in is pretty disgusting. I myself have seen the NYT report that 'models say Antarctica should be cooling'. Now they turn around and say the opposite just to fit the data? Scary stuff.

By clovell on 1/22/2009 1:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
Climate models? You mean the ones that can't predict both past and future results? It's a bit hard to trust something that isn't right.

NASA? Are those the same guys who perform undisclosed 'adjustments' of raw data prior to analysis? Maybe they should stick to putting guys on the moon.

As for the IPCC quote - let me just say that recent studies in New Orleans have uncovered our limited knowledge of how traffic patterns will be affected following a Super Bowl win by the Saints. Do you see how that kind of begs the question?

By Amiga500 on 1/22/2009 3:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
So who do you trust?

Those that happen to agree with your pre-conceived ideas?


By clovell on 1/22/2009 4:47:13 PM , Rating: 3
In a word, no.

It's a bit difficult for me to explain, because I don't feel that this is a black or white issue or situation. I'm always suspect of any scientist that displays an overwhelming amount of zeal - particularly when it is in support of one idea to the discredit of another. When such zeal is evident in the conclusions of such a scientists' work, it raises a flag. Science is to be dispassionate to some degree. I'm also suspect of folks who get carried away with what could happen rather than focusing more on what is happening.

Now, that's half of it. The other half is a bit more philosophical. I've always been more of a fan of the modest scientist. That vast majority that work in a lab or in the field all day who never apear in the evening newscast. Those men and women who spend their conclusions raising further questions regarding their work and elaborating on its potential shortcomings rather than rationalizing or hiding them. These are the people that patiently devote themselves to uncovering the underpinnings of our universe. I don't find that AGW doomsday-predicting scientists fit that bill. Rather than opening an honest dialogue, I find that they repeatedly claim to have the only answer.

In the end, I'm a statistician. I trust numbers insofar as I can trust their source. When 'adjustments' are made to raw data that are not documented and justified in the public domain, my trust is lost.

By masher2 on 1/22/2009 12:25:57 PM , Rating: 3
> "Personally I think Asher is a pompous ass most of the time, but the amount of waffling and bald-faced lying these climate nazis are engaging in is pretty disgusting..."

I'm sure there's a compliment in there somewhere. :)

For the record, this new study was also coauthored by Michael Mann, the originator of the discredited "hockey stick" climate graph. The study methodology is to interpolate vast amounts of missing data from Antarctica, data which purports to show warming. Even Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC lead author and rampant climate alarmist, said of the study, "I am is hard to make data where none exists".

The actual data from live surface stations in Antarctica still shows a significant cooling trend.

By Apprentice777 on 1/22/2009 2:43:23 PM , Rating: 3
masher2 Maybe you can figure out how significant it is….but I’m seeing a new petition signed by “More than 34,000 scientist stating global warming probably is natural and not a crisis.” It’s also posted at

Doesn’t that trump the above mentioned petition??

By masher2 on 1/22/2009 2:49:32 PM , Rating: 3
That's the Oregon Petition; It's been gaining names for a few years now. I'll let you be the judge of how significant it is, but clearly the old mantra of "consensus" and "the science is settled" no longer holds water.

By the way, I'll be attending the 2009 Climate Convention mentioned in your link. Expect to see a few stories live from the convention floor.

By monoape on 1/25/2009 9:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
That petition is significant if you value the opinion of dentists, agricultural engineers, Ginger Spice and dead people in determining the validity of climate science.

And there's a good reason that the 'International Conference on Climate Change' (ooh, sounds impressive!) needs to use a totally discredited list like that - it's the best they've got.

That should tell you all you need to know about the strength of the Denier's argument.

If that's not enough, take a look at the 'keynote' speakers - three politicians and two people whose scientific opinions have been discredited by the rest of the climate science community and who work (indirectly) for ExxonMobil.

The only way to take anything from this bunch seriously is if you're so desperate for global warming to not be real that you suspend all critical faculties.

By theendofallsongs on 1/25/2009 10:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
This BS about claiming any skeptical scientist "works for Exxon" is getting pretty old. There are thousands of scientists who believe AGW is baloney. It's not just some big oil company conspiracy.

By monoape on 1/25/2009 5:50:43 PM , Rating: 2

Unless your definition of 'BS' is 'stuff I don't want to be true', you're wrong - again.

By theendofallsongs on 1/25/2009 7:35:09 PM , Rating: 3
Lol, you're going to do a lot better than that, quoting a tinfoil-hat site like "Exxon Secrets"? Yeah, bet they're unbiased huh?

Even your own site doesn't have any sort of smoking gun. It merely shows that a (very) few skeptical scientists have given a speech or been an advisor to some non-profit organization that once got some check from Exxon. Wow. Hold the presses! Who cares if they didn't actually get paid by an oil company, when we can play the old "guilt by association" game huh?

Oh, let's see how many other problems we can find here too.

a) Exxon stopped all funding years ago, yet these skeptical scientists are still just as loud as ever (even louder, in fact).
b) Enviro groups and govts give thousands of times as much to the other side. That's BILLIONS a year. And they're still doing it today. Hell, even BP gives $2M to some anti-carbon wacko group.
c) There's thousands of skeptical scientists who have never been affiliated with any of these groups.

This whole argument is just a big fat smokescreen, to cover up the fact theres no real evidence that AGW is any sort of catastrophe. When you have real proof, you don't have to resort to attacking the reputations of the other side.

By monoape on 1/25/2009 10:45:11 PM , Rating: 1
> Exxon stopped all funding years ago,... - and note that they are 'cutting' funding which does not necessarily mean total cessation.

Either you're clueless or a liar - which? As though it matters - just another nobody internet wingnut, ranting away against reality.

By theendofallsongs on 1/26/2009 12:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for proving my point for me. It says Exxon stopped funding those groups and yes, it means stopped ENTIRELY. Exxon is a public corporation, their books are public records. They can't secretly fund anything.

And yeah, it was only a year ago. So I got the date a bit off. So what, I was still right.

BTW, Nice job of ignoring all the other points, like the fact that alarmist scientists are getting over 1,000 TIMES as much funding, and they're still getting it today. If anyone is getting paid to spout BS, its the pro-global warming loonies.

By reader1 on 1/22/2009 12:06:49 PM , Rating: 1
Some of us here can think for ourselves

That's fine, but at some point you have to rely on others to act, you can't do everything yourself. You'll have to rely on someone else's conclusion eventually. Michael Asher is not someone I would rely on because he isn't smart enough.

By Dove2Three on 1/22/2009 12:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
Why not rely on your own eyes and brain? You can see these scientists changing their story every time the data changes. That doesn't mean anything to you?

Asher has opened my eyes on the climate debate. Not because I'm "relying" on him, but because the evidence just doesn't add up.

By dever on 1/22/2009 3:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
Safeguarding the most precious of human achievements -- Liberty -- is far from "doing nothing."

"Doing nothing" is letting the politically motivated take and spend your money without thought, and without critical skepticism.

By Erudite on 1/22/2009 1:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
Michael Asher is not someone I would rely on because he isn't smart enough.

Whatever else one might be able to say about Michael Asher, I don't believe that "he isn't smart enough" should be one of them - whether or not you agree with what he is saying.

I don't put much faith in the "pro-global warming" arguments I seem to hear from Jason Mick, but I'd hardly say he "isn't smart enough" either.

Just because you don't agree with someone's point of view shouldn't make it OK to judge them in such a way, especially publicly. (I would consider the comment section of a blog that anybody can read, logged on or not, public) I understand that we're all human and sometimes we judge people anyway, and sometimes it ends up here... but I don't think an attack on his character is going to gain you any points here. I like to think that most of the DT readers are more mature and open-minded than that.


On a semi-related note, this is a blog, not a news website. Don't expect the same kind of objectivity you should see on a news site on a blog.

By Reclaimer77 on 1/22/2009 4:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
Michael Asher is not someone I would rely on because he isn't smart enough.

Asher is the single best poster on Daily Tech and one of the top, if not the top, writer. He holds his ground, but he backs it up with facts and proof. Something nobody really does here. He seems to also have an understanding and knowledge of a vast array of topics. And he's one of the few here who just "gets it".

Not smart ? What have you ever done here exactly ?

You sound like just another guy who got butthurt from being Mashed :P

By reader1 on 1/22/2009 5:21:23 PM , Rating: 1
Al Gore has a Nobel Prize. Michael Asher has ~10K posts on a PC hardware site. You guys aren't losing because you're wrong, you're losing because you're weak and stupid.

By kyleb2112 on 1/23/2009 6:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
Do you believe in Gore's Ocean level predictions which were rejected by the UN? Do you believe in the discredited "hockey stick" graph? Or perhaps you believe the Nobel Prize has the magical power to transmute BS into truth if Al Gore rubs it just right.

By werepossum on 1/23/2009 7:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
by reader1 on January 22, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Al Gore has a Nobel Prize.

This would be the Algore who recently bought a condo near the beach in San Francisco?

Algore isn't (quite) stupid enough to believe what he preaches, he just knows lots of other people are, and that makes a good base of power and profit. First you scare the sheeple, then you shear them selling carbon offsets. Yes, he has a Nobel Peace Prize; so does Arafat. It's the Lefty of the Year award, awarded not by scientists but by lefty politicians. Again, it's only useful to advance the lefty agenda among the sheeple.

But now Obama is here to take care of stupid people, so don't feel too baaad (pun intended.)

By porkpie on 1/22/2009 11:06:22 AM , Rating: 3
meteorologists were among the biggest doubters
I think the meteorologists are more trustworthy here than the "climatologists", which are really just a bunch of guys playing with their computer models. The meteorologists don't have billions in research money on the line.

Anyway this survey is asking the wrong question. The question isn't "is the earth warming", its "is CO2 causing a crisis?" Ask that question, and you won't see hardly any scientists agree.

By werepossum on 1/23/2009 7:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
Climatologists are just meteorologists who aren't smart enough to actually predict anything verifiable.

No true scientist with any grounding in climate or history (human or natural) would condescend to take a survey on whether the earth is warming up since the end of the Little Ice Age . It's like a survey on whether ocean levels are dropping since the peak of the last wave, only useful for idiots.

Hey Asher
By ang sang on 1/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hey Asher
By ang sang on 1/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hey Asher
By blackseed on 1/22/2009 12:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
I did not downrate you down because you went against Asher or because I hate environment, it is because of idiotic comment that does put down ideas and a well founded discussion.

Please troll somewhere else.


RE: Hey Asher
By FITCamaro on 1/22/2009 11:04:54 PM , Rating: 3
Because mother nature raped my father.

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki