Is the Tea Party wrong about global warming? Yes! And no.

Summary: Climate change might pose one of the greatest threats to humanity in its history since the supervolcano Toba exploded 70 thousand years ago, almost exterminating our species. Or not. Managing this complex issue profoundly challenges our social and political institutions. We’re failing so far, with no signs of improvement. Here is post #50 in a series documenting this. There’s still time to do better. The stakes are high.

An hourglass for the world
By LucAleria; Wikimedia Commons image



  1. A vital issue reduced to a cacophony
  2. Conservatives are right about global warming
  3. Conservatives are wrong about global warming
  4. Conclusions
  5. For More Information


(1)  A vital issue reduced to a cacophony

Climate change powerfully illustrates America’s broken observation-orientation-action (OODA) loop, and how this cripples our ability to craft effective public policy responses to our changing world. It’s become politicized, with both sides focused on the success of their side — the truth a secondary consideration.

Comments frequently remind me of this. I posted a comment the skeptics at Jeff Condon’s The Air Vent about the benefits of properly citing the source of graphics. Amazingly, the folks there disagreed. “I don’t think references add much credibility to correlation sorted paleoclimatology..” After all, “climate scientists make plenty of errors on blogs just like the rest of us.” Worth a read of their tribal reactions.

I cited “In the Eye of the Storm“ by James Hanley (Assoc Prof of Political Science, Adrian College). His reply:

“Oh, lord, why did you have to reference me. I’m not on your side.”

This is a mild comment, not serious in itself, but typical of the public debate about climate. The tribe, the side, the team is what matters. Are you with the Kool Kids or against them? Articles are read to determine which side the author belongs to; all reactions follow from that. I doubt Prof Hanley knows anything about my views about climate change, but confidently guesses. That’s the rule seen in the thousands of comments to the 185 posts about climate change on the FM website.(summarized here)

After years of this the public debate about climate change has become a cacophony, leaving a large fraction of Americans with strongly-held but often factually incorrect opinions. For evidence today let’s look at conservative’s opinions about global warming (see links at the end for examination of the Left’s views). Here are two polls which, unlike most, ask fairly scientifically precise questions about global warming.

(2)  Conservatives are right about global warming

From a Pew Research poll conducted 9 – 13 October 2013. Red emphasis added.

From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not? Do you believe that the earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, or mostly because of natural patterms {sic} in the earth’s environment?

Bloomberg plots the results:

Bloomberg graph of Global Warming
Bloomberg, 9 May 2014

The detailed numbers from the Pew Poll:


Pew Poll on global warmingThe Tea Party folks surveyed here are not obviously wrong. Few means “a small number”. Two is a small number. The consensus is that the surface atmosphere has not warmed for the past 14  – 17 years (depending on the data set used). The debate among climate scientists has moved to the causes and duration of this pause. See the citations:

  1. Still good news: global temperatures remain stable, at least for now., 14 October 2012
  2. Scientists explore causes of the pause in warming, perhaps the most important research of the decade, 17 January 2014
  3. One of the most important questions we face: when will the pause in global warming end?, 25 August 2013

(3)  Conservatives are wrong about global warming

From “Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in November 2013“, Yale Project on Climate Change Communication (2013). Red emphasis added.

“Global warming refers to the idea that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result. What do you think? Do you think that global warming is happening?”

Yale: Global warming poll
“Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in November 2013”

After decades of warnings about global warming, an astonishing 23% of Americans believe the world is not warming. Based on other surveys, we know most of these people are conservatives.

Now for the even worse news, showing how ignorance rules in the public about climate change. The 47% of the people who know that the world has warmed over the past 150 years have a wrong opinion about the cause of the warming:

Yale: Cause of global warming poll
“Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in November 2013”

The consensus of climate scientists is, as expressed in the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I:

“It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

Look here for more evidence that this is a consensus. For research about the 1951 date see When did we start global warming? See the surprising answer.

(4)  Conclusions

What a mess. I see no signs that the debate about the public policy response will improve, or come to meaningful conclusions. If so, then the climate will force a resolution. Either some extreme weather — perhaps unrelated to global warming — will spark a change in public opinion. Eventually the climate will resolve the debate. The pause will end, soon or in a few decades, with slow or rapid warming. Extreme weather will increase in magnitude, in forms other than current temperature and precipitation.

What will not happen is accelerated scale and quality of climate research, accelerated preparation for extreme weather (even as seen in the past), or accelerated development of new energy sources.

(4)  For More Information

(a)  Posts about climate change:

  1. The important things to know about global warming
  2. Posts about climate change
  3. Science & nature – studies & reports

(b)  Posts about the public debate on climate change:

  1. Programs to reshape the American mind, run by the left and right, 2 August 2010
  2. Climate science: the debate, the eventual solution, and the best cheap seats from which to watch the action., 19 August 2010
  3. What does the American public want done to fight climate change?, 2 February 2014
  4. A key to understanding the climate wars (about one of our big weaknesses), 15 March 2014

(c)  Posts about climate change as seen by the Right:

  1. About those headlines of the past century about global cooling…, 2 November 2009
  2. The facts about the 1970′s Global Cooling scare, 7 December 2009
  3. Start of another swing of the media narrative – to global cooling?, 11 September 2013
  4. Global Cooling returns to the news, another instructive lesson about America, 25 January 2014
  5. A look into the GOP mind: untethered from reality and drifting in the wind, 3 March 2014

(d)  Posts about climate change as seen by the Left:

  1. A note on the green religion, one of the growth industries in America, 17 March 2009
  2. More attempts to control the climate science debate using smears and swarming, 19 October 2009
  3. Quote of the day – hidden history for people who rely on the mainstream media for information, 12 February 2010
  4. The hidden history of the global warming crusade, 19 February 2010
  5. A real-time example of the birth and spread of climate propaganda, 9 March 2010
  6. Lies told under the influence of the Green religion to save the world, 30 July 2010
  7. Puncturing the false picture of a scientific consensus about the causes and effects of global warming, 20 September 2010
  8. A new video about global warming, a Leftists’ wet dream pretending to be humor, 1 October 2010
  9. More about the forecast for flooded cities in the late 21st century, 16 October 2010
  10. Looking into the past for guidance about warnings of future climate apocalypses, 17 October 2010
  11. Lessons the Left can learn from the Right when writing about climate change, 12 December 2012 — Propagandist Phil Plait
  12. Fierce words about those “wacky professional climate change deniers”, 20 January 2013 — More by propagandist Phil Plait
  13. We can see our true selves in the propaganda used against us, 14 May 2013 — Skillful inaccurate article in The Guardian
  14. A powerful story about global warming in Alaska that’s set Twitter aflame, 23 June 2013
  15. Climate lies are the tool of choice by both sides to influence your opinion. Why is that?, 11 July 2013
  16. The North Pole is now a lake! Are you afraid yet?, 3 August 2013
  17. Climate science deniers on the Left, captured for viewing, 29 September 2013
  18. Apocalyptic thinking on the Left about climate change risks burning their credibility, 4 February 2014
  19. Climate change sinks the Left, while scientists unravel mysteries we must solve, 24 January 2014
  20. The Left sees “Climate buffoons” and “deniers”. What do they see in the mirror?, 7 March 2014
  21. This is what defeat looks like for the Left, and perhaps also for environmentalists, 17 March 2014
  22. The Left stages a two minute hate on Nate Silver, Roger Pielke Jr (& me), 29 March 2014



32 thoughts on “Is the Tea Party wrong about global warming? Yes! And no.

  1. ““I don’t think references add much credibility.” After all, “climate scientists make plenty of errors on blogs just like the rest of us.” Worth a read of their tribal reactions.”

    Really? You are going to stoop to taking parts of a sentence? That is basically a lie the way it is written so if you will permit me to clarify:

    The context matters in my opinion. Just as references DO matter in my opinion.

    My FULL quote was — “I don’t think references add much credibility to correlation sorted paleoclimatology.” It was in reference to your nonsense critique which I don’t need to repeat here.

    1. Jeff,

      (a) I have added the last clause to your quote.

      (b) My “critique” was as follows. I’ll leave it to readers to decide if it’s “nonsense” to ask for sources to be given for tables and graphics.

      I second Nick’s comment. This is a common problem on skeptics’ websites, and bad for their credibility: unsourced tables and (especially) graphics. Somebody, often of dubious reliability (e.g., Goddard) prepares a powerful graphic — and it goes viral, often without citing the source (which would ruin the play).

      It’s somewhat similar to the incidence of fake quotes so often found on conservative’s websites.

      This is not often found in the work of climate scientists, who tend to be careful about selecting and citing sources.{link to the original}

      (c) I’ll repeat a comment I posted in that thread, as it applies equally well to your comment here. Thank you for your kind explanation. You have clearly described your standards.

      (d) FYI to readers: Jeff Condon (nom de plume “Jeff Id”) posts at The Air Vent. He’s said to be an aeronautical engineer. A co-author of
      Improved Methods for PCA-Based Reconstructions: Case Study Using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic Temperature Reconstruction“, by Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre, and Jeff Condon, Journal of Climate, April 2011.

    2. It’s not reasonable to claim that I stated citations were unnecessary. It is equally unreasonable to say you did it by accident. The graph had a cite, I found you three other links. Nick Stokes wrote you a whole entire post with code. Zeke from the Berkeley BEST group stopped by and added confirmation to that post, and you run off your keyboard about tribalism. None of them are from my political or blog tribe.

      Joao, is even following your fake lead and critiquing me based on exactly the problem you created. He doesn’t even have a clue what the context was yet you have sold him that your story is accurate.

      You should be looking at this more journalistically sir. Perhaps a step back on your global warming doom nonsense is in order as well.

    3. Jeff,

      (a) I seconded Nick’s comment, which was quite clear that you did give a citation — to Watt’s website), but Watt failed to state the actual source.

      That’s an official looking USHCN graph that you have posted. But it’s not from the link that you cite. It’s actually prepared by Steven Goddard.

      Despite this being quite clear, you rudely demanded an explanation. Which I gave:

      You cited (& linked to) Watts as the source of the graphic. Nick pointed out that Goddard was the source; Watts just didn’t tell us that. I posted a reply to Nick’s comment: “I second Nick’s comment. This is a common problem on skeptics’ websites, and bad for their credibility”.

      It was a bland comment. No naming names or kicking butts. Citing sources is like mom and apple pie. Also, Moms say that giving credit to others for their work is a common courtesy. I’m amazed anyone bothered to reply.

      After more complaints, I gave additional explanation:

      In my posts about climate change, and about the social role of experts, I define “scientist” as someone who has done original work that is recognized as legitimate by peers in that field. That means a PhD, or publication in a peer-reviewed publication. Like any such definition, it’s somewhat arbitrary — but has the virtue of being operationally clear and objective.

      By my standard, you are a climate scientist: “Improved Methods for PCA-Based Reconstructions: Case Study Using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic Temperature Reconstruction“, by Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre, and Jeff Condon, Journal of Climate, April 2011.

      That you cited and linked to the source of the headline graphic is a confirmation of my original point.

      (b) “Joao, is even following your fake lead and critiquing me based on exactly the problem you created. He doesn’t even have a clue what the context was yet you have sold him that your story is accurate.”

      This is purely a problem created by you and your fans. A sane response to my bland comment would have been “Yes, citing sources for graphics and tables is a good thing.” Your rebuttals have been either reading FAILs or indefensible denials of my simple point. The confusion you created provided an opening for critics.

      (c) “Perhaps a step back on your global warming doom nonsense is in order as well.”

      Thank you for making my point. There is nothing here even remotely supporting “global warming doom”. In fact there are scores of posts saying the exact opposite. You make this assumption as tribalism: I said something critical about Watt’s post, so I must believe in global warming doom.

      (d) “You should be looking at this more journalistically sir.”

      That both sides — each madly, blindly tribal — attack my posts is IMO the best possible testimony to my fairness. Thank you for your contribution.

    4. Your review of the link is a fantasy as far as I can tell. You are the one stomping around about a lack of credibility. I asked no questions until well into our wonderfully enlightening conversation.

      Again, this particular data has been repeatedly shown here and at other blogs. It is a well known graphic in multiple forms.

      Here is another:

      and another:

      and another:

      So that was 3 minutes of work. Have I restored my credibility?

      It doesn’t seem that rude on my reading. It seems like you were provided with your references and I asked if you found them satisfactory to restore credibility.

      What I’m surprised at is that someone so deeply interested in other peoples references, yet not his own, would stoop to taking half a sentence, eliminating a critical part, and write a post claiming that I said citations are unnecessary. That is as fraudulent as Lewandowsky and it is about the same exact dataset.

      Since we’re discussing reasonable comments, a reasonable first comment would have been, your citation is incomplete, can you give me a reference? And then after you were given the reference —- thanks!

      See how easy that is.

    5. Jeff,

      (a) “Again, this particular data has been repeatedly shown here and at other blogs. It is a well known graphic in multiple forms.”

      As has been pointed out at your own website, it was the last datapoint which seemed odd on Steve Goddard’s graph. None of the graphs you show have the elevated last datapoint, which give Steve’s graph a hockey stick shape.

      (b) “So that was 3 minutes of work. Have I restored my credibility?”

      I considered you a credible source before yesterday, as seen in the three previous mentions on the FM website. My initial comment was not critical of you or your website. My follow-up comments explained that in detail.

      (c) “you were provided with your references and I asked if you found them satisfactory to restore credibility.”

      I ask the skeptic community to avoid “unsourced tables and (especially) graphics“. Not only did I not ask for references, I said the opposite: “Blogs don’t usually do the extensive foot noting of journal articles, but correctly stating the origin of graphics is not asking much”. {link}

      In the thread you provided citations (which you quoted above), to which I replied:

      I applaud extensive citations. It’s the practice on the FM website, with extensive links in the body of the text and a For More Information section at the end. … This takes a lot of time, however, and (as I said in my comment) is not the usual practice on the Internet.” {link}

      However, each round of conversation with you forces me to lower that assessment of you. Sad, really.

    6. A trivial but fun aspect to Jeff’s defense of Goddard’s graph: a skeptic fights to defend a lurid but materially wrong graph showing a hockey stick rise in warming.

      The irony.

      (this graph measures warming adjustments, rather than global warming, but still shows that Fate has a sense of humor)

    7. See now, that is exactly the problem with you. Again you have assigned me beliefs I don’t hold. First, I didn’t “defend” Goddard’s graphic, but pointed out that it is close to others on the market. I wrote this several days ago on the post in question: “The endpoint is clearly messed up somehow but it didn’t bother me because the same thing has been done by others in a much cleaner fashion.”

      Of course this didn’t satisfy you, because nothing really will at this point. You can’t claim you were satisfied, as you seem to be doing because you just got done accusing me of not wanting references, I use this now half-corrected post as my reference.

      Zeke from the Berkely group, in reply to Nick’s post giving you a 100% complete citation wrote: “So Goddard’s results are not too far off, apart from the oddity of the last point.”

      Which the journalist in you would recognize seem to corroborate exactly what I was telling you.

      I don’t think there is anything materially wrong with Goddards graphic, although it could have been done better. His methodology results in a little volatility in the graph for missing data is all. Where is your reference for the graph being materially wrong?

    8. Jess,

      I have zero interest in your detailed word parsing. I quoted what you said. My interpretation of it is accurate IMO; you are welcome to disagree. This is a tempest in a tea cup, extraordinary since there was nothing in my initial comments critical of you or your post — or objectionable. My criticism results from your increasingly over-the-top remarks.

      As for “accurate apart from the oddity of the last point”, I agree. It seems to me a daft defense of the graph. You are welcome to disagree. The graph speaks for itself; readers can draw their own conclusions.

      The primary lesson learned from this: I have more sympathy for climate scientists dealing with your community. If this is what they encountered, their behavior becomes easier to understand. Unfortunately I will have to review my posts about the ‘skeptics vs establishment’ debate on climate change; a new entry on the “Smackdowns” page might be in in order.

      On the other hand, thank you for the quote: “Perhaps a step back on your global warming doom nonsense is in order as well.” Not just the usual making stuff up defense, but also a wonderful example of blind tribalism (as if you disagree with me, so you must agree with my opponents in all things). And quite false as well.

    9. You half quoted what I wrote and used it out of context. You have now put the whole quote in and still kept the nonsense context.

      Thank you for letting me disagree with your fake interpretation that I somehow don’t like references.

    10. Jeff,

      Since I didn’t attribute it to you by name, anyone would even know you said it but for your comments.

      As for the context, you are welcome to your interpretation. There is no way to resolve these disagreements.

      The only clear error here is your statement “Perhaps a step back on your global warming doom nonsense is in order as well.” I have written dozens of posts debunking “global warming doom nonsense”. I don’t see your admission of error.

      “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

      Anyway, this is all quibbling about miniatures. The only result is that I have to write a post admitting that the professional scientists were right about engaging with skeptics (& I was wrong), as well as the rise of anti-scientific beliefs in the public as a result of the climate wars.

    11. “I quoted what you said. ”

      If you had quoted what he actually said, you guys wouldn’t be having this discussion.

      Look—it’s really obvious that you didn’t correctly quote him, you read and interpreted what he said out of context and without charity to the author.

      Now, you can’t even admit to a very basic academic error of this nature.

    12. Carrick,

      I don’t understand your comment, which bears little resemblance to actual events.

      I added the last clause immediately after Jeff complained. Aprox 50 people had seen it at that time. I told him I had done so. He then continued to complain about it, and expanded his complaint — IMO to some quite daft statements.

      I have replied to all of them. Including some quite remarkable mis-statements of what I have said.

      Readers can judge for themselves the significance of all this. As one who has gone thru hundreds of these rodeos (replying to most of the 26,000 comments here, this is IMO one of the most trivial.

      On the other hand, it has been enlightening. I now understand why so many climate scientists complain about dealing with amateur skeptics, or refuse to do so any more.

  2. Hi, I left this comment on the air vent. I would be interested in comments. I am referring to the statement about the lack of references and the quote from someone on the air vent who it was suggested (wrongly it appears) said:

    “I don’t think references add much credibility”

    I’ve seen this manifestation before. To understand this, it is first necessary to understand that there are two main methods of arguing – one (the skeptic way), takes the facts and uses logical reasoning to infer something. The other as demonstrated by Fabius Maximus, is to have a reference framework of credible sources and to argue by showing how those credible sources support their view.

    So, when a skeptic scientist makes a case they approach it thus: “here are the facts, here is how I work out what they mean and this is my conclusion”. In contrast, Fabius Maximus, might say: “this is what Mann and Hansen, and Tenberth, etc. say,”.

    One argument assumes a reasonable competency both by the author and the reader to follow the methodology to reach the conclusion – with almost no reference to experts. The other assumes a reasonable familiarity with the “consensus” of experts – and often such arguments are devoid of hard data or facts.

    For those who “argue from authority”, it is critical that they know the authority and so credibility of the source. But for those who argue “from the facts”, it is not – instead they need to get the raw data and methodology so that they can check these out.

    Both these approaches are now common in science (although the prevalence is in different subjects). And because they are such different approaches, I’m now calling them “skeptic science” and “consensus science” to differentiate them.

    Skeptic science, is science based on the data and experimental testing. It is largely devoid of arguments “to authority”. In contrast “consensus science” is the consensus view of the community of scientists. It uses data, but it is also strongly reliant on assertions from credible experts and what “consensus science” values most is the strength of consensus amongst these credible “authorities” or “scientists”.

    So, when we engage with those of a “consensus” nature, it is understandable that the first question they ask is “what is the authority you are quoting?”

  3. Summary: Climate change might pose one of the greatest threats to humanity in its history … The stakes are high.

    Global warming was invented in the 1970s (after the cooling scare). We are therefore around 50 years into this scare and so the what we can see now is perhaps half of what we expect.

    After 16 years living in the same place, I’ve noticed no discernible change whatsoever. So this year I decided to take a picture when the hedge leaves came out so that I could compare it with following years. But of course, the hedge gets older each year, the individual bushes come out at different times, and I know that short-term weather can affect the timing. So, even now I’m very unsure the effect I’m looking for is big enough for me to see.

    My mother has lived in the same town for 60 years. I’ve never heard her say this or that “is getting worse/better” with the weather. My experience doesn’t show any change, and neither does hers.

    This is half way to “doomsday” and we cannot see anything and this is supposed to be the biggest threat facing humanity? I think not!

    I’ve stood in local politics – I’ve never heard anyone come up to me and say that their life is at all affected by the date at which their hedge or any other plant affects them in the slightest. There may be someone like a farmer who has noticed, but I’ve never met one. It is hard to think of anyway that people could notice the small level of climate change we expect as already occurred and will likely occur. The most serious implication of weather is that more people die in colder months – I was even surprised to find this was true in India.

    Fortunately winter deaths seem to be on the decrease. Politicians claim that is because of extra healthcare. So, yet again any affect of the climate is so small that a simple policy change totally smothers any affect.

    I’ve trawled through the evidence (not models or “expert” opinions – but actual evidence) looking anything to back up this view about catastrophic warming and all I’ve found that is remotely credible is the following:
    1. CO2 is rising
    2. Worldwide plant growth is increasing and I’ve heard this related to the decrease in desert.
    3. There is a downward trend in tornado and hurricane activity
    4. The Arctic ice has shrunk about twice as much as the Antarctic ice has increased. There are however long term variations in ice and I’m not yet convinced this is due to increased CO2 – or perhaps a bounce back effect from the little ice-age.
    5. The most intense rain within the most intense showers has gone up (but this could be due to instrumentational changes)

    6. But by far the biggest change has been in the frequency of news reporting – when I was a kid, my parents booked a phone call between Britain and Australia. It was expensive and the call finally was connected many hours after the scheduled time. Movie cameras were very rare and expensive. It was extremely rare for anyone to happen to have one when something unusual happened. Today, everyone seems to have a camera on their phone and can share the latest weather disaster almost instantaneously.

    As a result we are all seeing far more horrific weather – even though there is no evidence any of us are experiencing it ourselves any more frequently.

    1. You might want to take a look at sea level. It’s risen 8 inches since 1900. But if it had been rising at that rate for the last 2000 years, ancient costal structures like the Punic Port of Carthage would be significantly underwater– yet it’s not.

    2. Zinc:

      Cleopatra’s palace is under water. The old Roman sea port is under water. And these events happened before the 20th century.

      Some of this is sea level change, some is subsidence. It’s not well explained, but to point to a single example is cherry picking.

      Anyway, it does seem that there has been a sea-level change, but’s important to remember that we had a period of glacial expansion from roughly 1400-1800 (the Little Ice Age).

    3. Carsick,

      Nicely said. The complex array of natural forces — many cyclical over a wide range of time scales — makes attribution analysis one of the more complex tasks of climate science.

      This is easily seen in the relevant parts of the IPCC. Their core consensus is quite vague about this question : more than half of the warming since 1951 is anthropogenic (not the exact quote, but close).

      And that’s a statement about the past. Forecasts are often even more difficult.

      These things will become clearer over time.

  4. You are wrong with your statement “(3) Conservatives are wrong about global warming”

    The Yale question is muddled and meaningless, asking three different questions at the same time and expecting a single yes/no answer. You have highlighted in red only one of the three questions, but those saying no may have been answering he others. I wrote a blog on this.

    You are right that the climate debate is a “cacophony” and a “mess”!

    1. Paul,

      I agree that the Yale poll could have been more clear. In fact, all of the polls on this topic that I’ve seen (e.g., Gallup, Pew) ask unclear questions about warming — usually about what period they refer to. That’s vital to specific, since the Earth has warmed and cooled during history.

      The Yale poll was clearer than most, and the data from it are consistent with that from other polls. While not definitive, I believe we can say with high confidence that many conservatives (including or especially people in the TP movement) do not believe that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years.

      Which is, according to the best data available today, false.

      Unfortunately this, like most information, is lost in the messy cacophony of the public debate about climate. See today’s post for more examples.

  5. Hey Fabius, so I see that Zine commented “sea level rose 8 inches from 1900 to now” but no references or links were given. This is a problem we encounter with warmist blogs all the time. Discuss!

    1. Patriot,

      I think we can cut Zine a little slack for a dozen words in a comment asking for discussion. Standards have to be relevant.

      Also, what is your point? If you refer to my comment at Jeff Id’s, I EXPRESSLY DID NOT ask for references — merely to credit people’s work when using their graphics or tables. If you consider that unreasonable, consult your mom or tenth-grade teacher.

    2. And in your blog post on it, you made a misleading quote that involved a muddled interpretation of his original comment.

      So what’s your point exactly?

      I agree that an original url link would have been better. But I think charity in reading on your part would lead to greater understanding and less pointless conflict too.

    3. Carrick,

      Again I don’t understand your comment. His quote, in any form, was quite clear. And my point was even more lavishly supported by other comments in that thread. And by Jeff’s subsequent comments here.

      “An original url link would have been better”

      There was a link.

      “So what’s your point exactly”

      My point was simple and clear. I doubt if you seriously don’t see it, unless you are trying not to. I suggest re-reading the post.

      “Charity in reading”

      The subsequent comments there and here validated my original point beyond any reasonable doubt.

  6. Regarding the geology implicated in this topic: you don’t get much of it from the head guru’s, and probably not much more from the anti-gurus. Too sobering.

    I lift this discussion from another blog: “Yes, NASA is quite polished. I would assume their mathematics and measurements are reliable as far as they go. If you will overlook the digression: there is a principle in the investigation of Nature. It was well expressed by King Alfonso 10th of Castille (1221 — 1224). After being briefed at length by the astronomers he gathered together to (unsuccessfully) get the planetary navigation tables clarified — under the old ptolemaic or geocentric system — he observed: “If the Deity had asked my advice, these things would have been better arranged”. There are many items of physics and mathematics I find way out there beyond me; but the Creation is never inherently self-contradictory. We may ask the question, along with Alfonso: “If I were designing this, what would I do?” And apply simple common sense.

    NASA appears to be saying that CO2 of itself and alone (but in conjunction with other factors) governs the temperature. Consider this: I have a planet which is to go 4 thou. mill. yrs. without ruinous temperature extremes. In that time of the order of 12 atmospheres equivalent pure CO2 will be processed through the atmosphere and buried in the strata. CO2 must always remain above roughly 0.0002 atm(?). to allow vegetable life to continue and to stop totally disastrous planetary freezing(?) and will be at about 0.0003 atm. when Man comes along. Man will be able to re-extract enough buried carbon to perhaps double that figure(?)
    Fine balance? Too much CO2 — according to NASA, runaway high temperatures: too little, perhaps runaway low temperatures — and the extinction of life due to lack of atmospheric carbon. Fine balance? Here is the punch line.

    There are two and only two known ways of keeping up the carbon supply. Donation from other bodies of Space — comets /atmospheres of other planets —- and volcanic activity. Our climate was governed with the necessary level of fine tuning, whilst the sun fluctuated as all stars do, 4 thou. mill yrs. — life continued and our climate was delicately balanced and managed –by volcanoes and comets. NASA doesn’t believe that any more than would King Alfonso.

    There is a thermostat built into the system, staring us in the face. The data are coming home very nicely.”
    The thermostat of course implicates our magnetic field, currently behaving in a far more concerning manner than temperature. More details, google “Climate Moderation Magnetic Interaction”. I am updating this regularly and am able to supply more background upon request. Regards, P.B.Heywood, ex. Geol. Surv. Qld.

  7. So Fabius has double standards and is picking and choosing which standards he wishes to apply to comments on blogs. What is the difference between my faux arbitrary requirement for references and your (apparently genuine) arbitrary requirement for credit? But it’s worse than that because JeffId and several other commenters actually discussed your faux requirement and well established the bona fides of the graph. Yet you still chose to write up this (asinine) post.

    1. Patriot,

      If you don’t understand why people should be given credit for their graphics and tables, ask your mom. Or a grade school teacher.

      I said that in reply to your previous comment. It seems quite clear, and shouldn’t need repeating.

Leave a Reply