Posted in: Science

NASA Scientist: Global Warming Is Nonsense

NASA scientist rejects climate change

Another scientist has pushed back against the doom-and-gloom climate change predictions from the United Nations and other governmental agencies.

Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume.

In an interview, he laughed off man-made climate change as nonsense and a money-making industry for the green lobby, which approaches the subject with a religious fervor. Explained Woodcock:

“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…”

Added Woodcock:

Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”

Politicians and journalists — two groups who ordinarily lack any scientific training or background — insist that the global warming debate is settled and there are no dissenting scientists.

So-called green guru Dr. James Lovelock also questioned the climate change movement (which used to be called global cooling and then global warming). He described the environmental movement as becoming like “a religion, and religions don’t worry too much about facts.” He added that “It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain.”

In perhaps a further contrary development for the climate change adherents, it’s been reported that the polar ice cap is actually expanding rather than contracting: “… In fact, receding Arctic ice rebounded between 2012 and 2013, growing by 29 percent into an unbroken patch more than half the size of Europe and within 5 percent of what it was 30 years ago, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Last month near the South Pole, a Russian ship carrying scientists and tourists traveled to the bottom of the Earth so passengers might document global warming and shrinking ice caps. But the ship got stuck on ice that was thicker than at any time since records started being kept in 1978.”

Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder, has also publicly expressed the opinion that “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years… no actual proof, as it is understood in science, actually exists.”

As The Inquisitr recently reported, Americans are apparently increasingly becoming convinced that global warming and/or climate change is a hoax.

Do you accept the conventional wisdom about climate change?

[image via Shutterstock]

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

154 Responses to “NASA Scientist: Global Warming Is Nonsense”

  1. John Hickman

    And how much is he being paid, and by whom??

  2. Anonymous

    Little by little the truth is coming out. AGW is a scam

  3. Stephen Mattison

    Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

    The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

    Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

    Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change — without any expertise in the matter.

    Moore Claims There Is "No Scientific Proof" That Humans Are "Dominant Cause" Of Global Warming. On February 25, Patrick Moore, who used to work at Greenpeace before becoming a communications consultant for the nuclear and fossil fuel energy industries, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to deny that humans are the dominant cause of climate change:

    There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists. [U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2/25/14]

    Contrary To Moore, Actual Climate Scientists Have Extensive Scientific Proof Of Man's Impact. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Kingdom's Royal Society released a report on February 26, 2014, saying that "[i]t is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate." NASA has explained some of the evidence showing that recent warming is due to an amplified greenhouse effect rather than an increase in solar output:

    How do we know that changes in the sun aren't to blame for current global warming trends?

    Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy output of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over this time period. So the sun doesn't appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past 30 years.

    If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
    Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can't reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases. [National Academy of Sciences, 2/26/14; NASA, accessed 2/27/14]

  4. Guy Beebe

    Any theory, that can neither be proven nor disproven, is not science. That climate changes is not in question. Separating out the effects of CO2 from all of the thousands of interdependant variables in hundreds of differential equations (including heat transfer, both radiative and convective, fluid dynamics, of both the atmosphere and oceans) is completely and utterly impossible. And that assume we even know the equations. We don't.

  5. Anonymous

    Does Dr. Wooddumb offer a guarantee with his opinions on global warming? Not very likely. The good doctor should consider giving his pitch to the Arctic polar bears, the melting Siberian permafrost, the lack snow cover in the western Sierra's, etc. Why is it necessary to offer every loony like Dr. Wooddumb a public forum? We don't know what his motive is, but more than likely it's money. The only reason a knowledgeable person like the doctor would make misleading public comments is if he has been bought and paid for by the extraction industries.

  6. Anonymous

    So what you are saying is that with no actual scientific proof we should destroy the world's economy because we "think" that man may have something to do with the slight increase in global temperature? You solution will do more harm than the unsubstantiated good you claim.

  7. Karl C Thomsen

    I live in Alaska, for about the last 8yrs Alaska has been about 8 degrees warmer. When these clowns say the ice is expanding the volume of the ice is shrinking. Check it out. The ice on the planet is disappearing. And weather man is helping it or not, a little humility goes along way. There has never been 8 billion people on the planet before polluting it that we know of. But for a dollar everything is possible.

  8. Gary Ashman

    Do facts become not facts if an author is being paid by the "wrong" person/entity? Why not debate facts rather than casting aspersions on a person's honesty?

  9. Anonymous

    Did you even bother to read the article?

    "Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute" yet Dr. Leslie Woodcock – IN THE ARTICLE – clearly, and succinctly, disputes your propaganda.

    "Conservative media"? No kidding? Name a news organization that trumpets the global warming/climate change/the sky is falling routine that isn't liberal &/or progressive. Name one, Einstein.

    You pathetic drivel is way beyond the expiration date. You, and the rest of the True Believers, have faith, but little else. Prophesy for us, Stevie – tell us when all this global warming is really going to happen. Tell us when the ice caps are going to disappear, tell us when the polar bears will be extinct, or the glaciers melt.

    You True Believers are batting a big fat .000 on you "models" so far.

  10. Anonymous

    Okay…Well this is not going well, so lets regroup and go with the "income inequality" gambit, or I like the "Maximum Wage" proposal that was out last week. Or we could just go back to "Occupy Wall Street" but I think they're on to that one too, darn it! Let's see, how else can we repackage "Almost Socialism" in a way they will buy in to? Quick before the election, that will make it harder to just do "Executive Orders". Hurry!

  11. Guy Beebe

    Do you know a thing about mathematical or computer modeling?

    I do. I've written the programs, played with the outputs, and examined the best way to prove your point by tweaking the results.

    Do you know what the most important to remember fact about computer modeling? Garbage in, garbage out. That means, if you put nonsense in, if your assumptions are wrong, if the equations aren't right, the model is useless. Just so I can't be misunderstood, the current so-called climate models are completely and utterly useless.

    The models don't even ATTEMPT to model climate. At least they admitted that was a complete impossibility. What they do, is separate out one single variable, out of hundreds if not thousands, and assign an overly simplistic relationship to another single variable, apparently picked at random. In this case CO2 and Temperature.

    This is not science. It isn't even a good try at a convincing scam. If a theory is presented, that can neither be proven nor disproven, it is not science. Even if temperatures DO actually increase, it does nothing to prove that it was caused by CO2. Model the globes climate for the past 10,000 years, show every bit of your work, and then maybe you'll have something. It won't happen for another 100 years, at least.

    Why? Because to model the actual climate, would require understanding thousands of interdependant variables in hundreds of linked, differential equations. CAN NOT BE DONE. A relatively simple physical system of three masses, called the three body mass problem, HAS NO SOLUTION.

    Science? No. Consensus is not science. Consensus is, however, political science.

  12. Anonymous

    Does AM.Image offer a guarantee on his opinions? How about "99% of the world's smartest people" – will they "guarantee" that climate change will happen?

    You True Believers never answer for the failure of all your fack charts, phony graphs, or make-up data sets………………….you just keep repeating the lies………………to encourage yourself……………because no one else believes you.

  13. Anonymous

    Hard to say why Woodcock would say "There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years". There are many things that a climate skeptic could say. Some are more ridiculous than others, however, and on a scale of 1 to 10, this one is an 11. There are no complicated computer models involved in calculating atmospheric CO2. You just measure it. For pre-modern data, you use ice cores. That's it. Two centuries ago, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was about 280 ppm. Last year it crossed the 400 ppm mark.

  14. John Hickman

    Gary Ashman
    Because there are so many "special interest" groups pushing their objectives regardless of the truth that the source of their motivation becomes a legitimate question. I would much rather it not be so, but it is the nature of the world we have presently built for ourselves.

  15. John Hickman

    tmbwv , I'd be much more concerned about the off chance that we could destroy our environment. And our economy is rebuild-able; our world is not. And if it dies….. well do I really have to state the obvious?

  16. Stephen B. Billings

    It has nothing to do with Conservative it has to do with Science. The Earth's climate has changed and will continue to change over the years as it always has done. I would venture to say that the trash man creates does more damage than the burning of fossil fuels. We have too many volcano's that are constantly spewing CO2 into the air.

  17. Gary Ashman

    John Hickman I just think inferring that someone is bought and paid for is character assassination, and doesn't refute what the person is saying.

  18. Anonymous

    I like your "Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute".

    Here's something that is definitely not in dispute : "You're an IDIOT".

  19. Christopher L. Baker

    So…the earth is only "1,000 million" years old now? Interesting thing to say for an emeritus professor…He's off by about 3.5 billion years. I honestly can't fathom a true scientist making such a misstatement, when the age of the planet has been known for half a century now…If anyone asked me the age of the Earth, I'd say 4.5 billion years (rounded to the nearest 100 million years) consistently, every time…because it's a demonstrable fact. Also, it's been demonstrated that CO2 levels have in fact gone up substantially…higher now than in the past several hundred thousand years. It's possible that I'm misunderstanding the definition of the term "significantly increased." I would think "almost doubling" would be "significantly increased."

  20. Anonymous

    The AGW religion is being shown for what it is. A scam to redistribute money form wealthy countries (US) to less wealthy countries. Very little science involved. All we actually know is the earth has been warmer and colder in the ancient past, before humans, and it will be again, with or without us. CO2 is good for plant and food production too. Ask, why would they pick a naturally occurring gas that nearly all lifeforms EXHALE as the GHG to demonize and blame global warming (opps, climate change) on? WE EXHALE CO2! IT IS GOOD!

  21. Anonymous

    The AGW religion relies on easily manipulated minds like am.image.

  22. Anonymous

    This is a problem. Too many people believe history started the day they were born. It didn't. The earth is at least 4.5 BILLION years old and has gone form a molten rock to an ice cube more than once. The last 40-50,000 years have been abnormally stable in comparison.

  23. Fred Fussell

    I do not see where this man is a climate scientist. Sure there is much more water vapor affecting our climate, but then is he attempting to imply that CO2 does not have an affect? There are a few folks like him, very few, that the climate denies trot out, but this certainly does not negate that there is more CO2 in our atmosphere, and there is nothing else occurring to account for the increase in temps.

  24. Robert Turner

    Only a true loser has time to write that much fiction that no one cares to read. Ohhh, the college of art and design, that explains it.

  25. Stephen Mattison

    Climate Myth…
    Climate's changed before
    Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

    What the science says…
    Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

    A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, and this somehow tells us that humans can't be the main cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research and simple logic show this is not the case.

    It's important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It's worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas the Earth would be a ball of ice.

    These forces are called "forcings" because they force changes in the global average temperature.

    Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to such forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out past temperature changes, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Looking at many different periods and timescales including many thousands of years ago we've learned that when the Earth gains heat, glaciers and sea ice melt resulting in a positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. There are other positive feedbacks as well and this is why the planet has experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past.

    In summary the past reveals our climate is sensitive to small changes in heat.

    What does that mean for today? Over the past 150 years greenhouse gas levels have increased 40 percent mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This additional "forcing" is warming the planet more than it has in thousands of years. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify this additional warming.

    The Earth's climate has changed in the past and ice cores and other measures tell us why. Based on this knowledge, and other types of evidence we know the human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate.

    The 'climate changed naturally in the past' argument is a logical fallacy known as non sequitur, in which the conclusion doesn't follow from the arguments. It's equivalent to seeing a dead body with a knife sticking out the back, then arguing the death must be natural because people died naturally in the past. It fails to even consider the available evidence.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

  26. Sharon Reynolds

    Paul Cherubini: Better yet how does he explain the fact that Mars has an atmosphere primarily composed of CO2 and is one of the coldest places in the universe?

  27. Anonymous

    You see, the earth is billions of years old and has gone through numerous climate changing events long before man went from a single cell in the muck to walking upright.

  28. James Sparks

    Stephen Mattison And how do we know that the CO2 is causing the slight increase in temperature and not the slight increase in temperature that is causing the increase in CO2?

  29. William Lansford

    Funny, Dr. Woodcock's own biography shows that he is NOT a climate scientist and makes absolutely no mention of his ever having worked at NASA. You'd think that an accomplishment of that degree would be in there…wouldn't you? Also, he apparently has a pretty poor grasp of science if he thinks the planet is "1,000 million years old" i.e. 1 billion years old when it is a well established FACT that the Earth is 4.54 Billion years old (that's 4,540 million for you old timers). As for his spurious claims about water vapor being "the most powerful greenhouse gas"? That was disproved many years ago and shows a real lack of understanding of the dynamics of earth's climate systems. Just more recycled anti climate change trash. Enjoy the read: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

  30. William Lansford

    Paul Cherubini Total BS. World wide temps have been rising steadily for the last century and the last ten years have produced the highest annual averages on record. With the coming El nino event 2014 is now on course to be the hottest year ever recorded. Even if average temps were to drop a whole degree C (Highly unlikely) it would still not signal an end to climate change as the average temp would still be substantially higher than historical averages. In fact, almost all global climate models predict things like colder winters in the Northern hemisphere. Only foolish and ignorant people think only in terms of heating.

  31. Stephen Mattison

    James Sparks , Seriously?
    Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The majority of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels to produce energy, although deforestation, industrial processes, and some agricultural practices also emit gases into the atmosphere.

    Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm. This phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup of greenhouse gases can change Earth's climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and to ecosystems. The choices we make today will affect the amount of greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere in the near future and for years to come.

  32. William Lansford

    Sharon Reynolds That would be because Mars has almost no water vapor in it thin atmosphere. Heck, it has almost no CO2 in it's atmosphere either! The atmosphere of Mars is nearly non existent compared to Earth's. Oh and Mars is in no way "one of the coldest places in the universe. This past winter the low temps in Detroit were in fact colder than the same latitudes on Mars.

  33. Darel J. Coterel

    Stephen, the challenge with the greenhouse effect experiments conducted by the likes of Tyndall in the 1800s is just that. They were conducted inside an actual greenhouse, hence the name. See the biggest challenge is whether or not Earth or any other planet is a closed system. The experiments you speak of were conducted in a relatively closed environment of actual greenhouses. In other words, the gases were enclosed in a solid glass container. To replicate that in the Earth's atmosphere or any other planet, one would have to enclose the planet in a big glass ball. In the greenhouse, infrared rays and gases can not penetrate the solid glass panes. Simply put, the Earth's atmosphere is not solid and there are no glass panes like in the greenhouse. This is one of a few reasons the greenhouse effect remains a theory. The actual greenhouse in someones backyard retains heat fundamentally different in at least two ways. One, it is designed to prevent convection and two, it is designed to reduce airflow. The Earth's atmosphere is not in that it allows heat to escape through convection and air is allowed to flow freely. It is much more complex than the backyard greenhouse.

  34. Martee Robert

    There is a large group of scientist that believe CO2 increase is an effect and not the cause of global warming.

  35. Thomas Dews

    John Hickman Our world will end eventually but "Man Made climate change" wont be the reason and I will give you a 100% certainty on that one. Know if you want to discuss "Man Made Nukes" that we all of a sudden don't fear then I'm with ya.

  36. Stephen Mattison

    Darel J. Coterel , You seem to be under the impression that the only experiments conducted on the effects of greenhouse gases were conducted in the 1800's. The text I referenced came from NASA and their point was that this is basic scientific knowledge that was first revealed at that time not that no further research has been conducted since then.
    Why is that every time a single rogue scientist comes out and says "climate change isn't real because…." all the denialists come out and say see I told you, yet not a single scientific institution or scientific academy anywhere in the world supports their claims?

    "It must be difficult, if not downright embarrassing, to be a climate change denier these days. After all, the scientists they've attacked have been exonerated, London's Sunday Times newspaper ran a retraction and apology for an article deniers were using to discredit climate change science, and more and more denier "experts" are being exposed as shills for industry or just disingenuous clowns. (Naomi Oreskes's excellent book Merchants of Doubt offers insight into how the deniers operate.) Meanwhile, evidence that fossil fuel emissions contribute to dangerous climate change just keeps building.
    We use the term deniers deliberately. People who deny overwhelming scientific evidence without providing any compelling evidence of their own and who remain steadfast in their beliefs even as every argument they propose gets shot down do not demonstrate the intellectual rigour to be called skeptics." ~David Suzuki

  37. Anonymous

    Proven or unproven….shit's happen….ACTIONS are needed!!!!

  38. Anonymous

    Global warming…global cooling…hurricanes…tornados…typhoons…avalanches…mudslides…wildfires, etc, have been happening since long before man arrived, and will continue to happen long after we are gone. Besides, one good volcanic blast, and we are cooling again…

  39. Paul Cherubini

    William Lansford, you did not answer my questions about why there has been a pause in warming for the past ~ 17 years despite ongoing rises in CO2? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend
    And why, in 1996, did the climate modelers failed to predict there would be this extended pause in warming that would last until 2014 and counting? What are you going to do if the pause continues for another 10 -15 years?

  40. Darel J. Coterel

    Stephen Mattison "I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming" Dr. Stephen Schneider – Climate Scientists and and advocate of the greenhouse effect. By the way, the same guy who trumpeted the Global Cooling mantra back in the 1970s then switched to warming. See, this is the problem, right? There's too much tit-for-tat mostly in the political arena but it is even in the scientific community. Former NASA Scientist such as Dr. Leslie Woodcock expressed his opinion regarding the matter as being "rubbish" when it comes to being man-made. I don't deny climate changes it's the insistence upon the cause being man-made and almost complete denial when it comes to natural things such as the solar cycles. When I see legitimate scientists openly argue, it makes me even more curious about the so called consensus and it's not helpful when people who are obviously politically motivated resort to discrediting and name-calling. That's intimidation not scientific method.

  41. Floyd Howard Jr.

    We need to put an emissions tax on any intestinal flatulence based on the decibel level of the escaping gasses! Monitoring stations could be created that would contain high amp microphones that would pinpoint any abrupt animal discharges of methane gas. NSA could oversee the technical operations and Homeland Defense could then arrest the miscreants and round up the animals. Studies have shown that most of the methane flatulence comes from Washington DC! We need to tax the government first until they cannot print anymore money and then every living thing that breaks wind. Soon liberal progressives will decriminalize drug crime, rape and child molestation and use the money they save to conquer global warming!

  42. Anonymous

    Fred Fussell He has you covered, pal. More and more scientists are stepping forward and speaking up. Too bad your parents never passed any common sense on to you.

  43. Guy Beebe

    John Hickman
    Civilization is always, at best, three meals away from anarchy. I will clearly state. There is nothing in even the worst case predictions on global warming that worry me as much as giving venal, corrupt and oppressive leaders even greater power. I will take a natural disaster every time, because at least they are fair.

  44. Guy Beebe

    John Hickman

    Well gee John, there are thousands of scientist dependant upon Federal Research grants into, you guessed it, AGW. Surely they are completely unbiased, completely incorruptible, and all-round stand up fellows…

  45. Stephen Mattison

    Darel J. Coterel , Dr. Woodcock makes three basic statements in the above article all of which have been readily addressed by the scientific community at large and have been debunked as false or misleading statements.

    1. "The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial"

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

    2. "water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas"

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

    3. "There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm

    Your point "solar cycles"

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    "Consensus"

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

    And yes, I recall in the 70's where some scientist were saying the earth was cooling. At that time there was no consensus within the scientific community and there were in fact some scientists who were stating the earth was warming. Since that time advances in science, technology and computing has grown exponentially. The data is in and an overwhelming consensus has been reached among the world's leading climatologists, scientific institutions and academies. Simple math dictates that percentage, albeit a small one, of "scientists" (often not experts in climatology) will disagree and question the findings of the greater scientific community at large. To give their "opinions" the same weight as the greater scientific community is illogical at best. It is also well documented that there is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science and to block action.

    http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html

  46. Mitchell Baxter

    Mr. Lansford, you say that Dr. Woodcock is not a "climate scientist." Pray tell, what exactly do you think chemical thermodynamics is? "The study of the interrelation of heat and work with chemical reactions or with physical changes of state within the confines of the laws of thermodynamics."

    "Climate science" is a new field, so relatively few people over the age of 40 have a "climate" degree. Look at the faculty of a climate PhD program, and you'll find physicists, chemists, oceanographers, meteorologists, economists, statisticians, and public policy experts. Which of these are most competent to talk about the effects of heat and carbon dioxide on water in the atmosphere?

    As to whether he is a former NASA scientist, his own resume shows NIST, so it's possible the British reporter who interviewed him and wrote the article confused the acronyms. As to which is more distinguished and relevant, I'd go with NIST over NASA.

  47. Donnie Atkinson

    No matter which hypothesis is correct, they're at least finding rubies in Greenland where all the ice has melted. Makes for an interesting TV show! HA.

  48. Susannah Buchanan

    Mars is not one of the coldest places in the universe. It is 55 degrees F on a warm day. Now obviously Pluto is much colder. This "magazine' must be for conservative quacks. I personally have never understood why conservatives can't stand the idea that global warming exists and is man made. It's science. Just like evolution. Get over your weirdness and let's work on the problem. BTW when you read that some PhD has said such and such, google the guy and find out who he works for or if he is peer reviewed. This Woodcock dude is the laughing stock of the scientific community.

  49. Paul Alvarez

    Why do we build Co2 machines? Large greenhouses need them, in order for plant life to not only flourish, but simply grow. You can't be "GREEN" and be anti-Co2. Not possible.

  50. Susannah Buchanan

    I'd love to know WHY it is so important for some people to argue against global warming. If I thought it was made up or crazy, I just wouldn't bother to read about it or respond. I've been studying global warming since 1985 (before it was a political issue) and to me it presents such a dreadful future I try all the time to educate people about it. That's why I read these articles. Why do you deniers?

  51. Corbin Powell

    One, of many reasons, we saw a "stagnation" is the absorption of thermal energy by the “heat sink” of the ocean.

    And one thing is correct, the perception of climate change is dependent on the time interval you are looking at. Over a very small period (17 years) we've seen less growth in global temperatures yet, when yo look at a longer interval (say, 130 years) you see the extreme increase in temperatures within a VERY small time frame and that the stagnation is really just a tiny blip in a vastly more important trend.

    Then there's the reality that you are using statistical trickery. By choosing 1998, one of the hottest years on record thanks to an unusually strong El Niño, you effectively abuse very real data. But, if you look at temperatures between 1999 and now, wait for it, you have a warming trend again!

    http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures/climate/Climatechange.pdf

  52. Rick Kolan

    So I guess the melting of polar ice is simply imaginary, as is the gradual rise of ocean temperatures…

  53. Kan Hedges

    There's a huge amount of evidence from multiple sources that CO2 has increased over the last century. Even most denialists won't touch that point (they prefer to question whether increased CO2 makes any difference at all).

    Why do the denialists have to trot out doddering old scientists who aren't even climatologists to make their tedious "hoax" claims?

  54. Timothy Ellis

    Bunch of idiots arguing if the train is coming or not. How about you all just lie down on the tracks and take a nap. We will continue the discussion later.

  55. Paul Alvarez

    If so, why did NASA report that Co2 actually causes atmospheric cooling?
    If Co2 is causing warming, why are we in a cooling trend?
    This man made warming issue rubbish. Even Al Gore knows that.

  56. Jim Valko

    An ice age is coming. Something that has happened regularly for millions of years. Preceding an ice age CO 2 levels rise. The atmosphere warms at first, but then, since the earth is 70% water, the water warms and turns to vapor, it then raises to the sky, turns into clouds, gets caught in the jet stream and goes to the poles where it eventually snows and turns to ice. The ice ten moves down from the poles and covers much of the earth. For the next 100 thousand years the earth sits in ice which eventually melts. Then the CO2 levels lower and we start again. The big question, the REAL BIG question, is why the earth go into an ice age? Is it because of the sun? Or, is it because every couple of million years the earth's soil become deplete of minerals and it's the earth's way of remineralizing the soil?

  57. Guy Beebe

    Corbin Powell

    So, their models didn't take into account a subsystem, of unknown importance, of unknown impact. Sort of invalidates the model doesn't it? Unless you are going to assume, that all of those subsystems, unknown effects, and other variables will all just balance out. Oh, there's everybody's favorite word. Assume.

    This whole thing is ludicrous. Modeling, in simple, well understood systems works. In carefully managed ranges of behavior. For short durations. Which is more complex? The economy, or the climate? Trust me, the economy is orders of magnitude simpler than the climate. Yet, despite the best efforts, there is no working model of the economy. If there were, they wouldn't have to come to us for money. They could fix all of our problems with their pocket change. Would you bet your life and livelyhood on any economy model?

    That is the fallacy of the Warming Alarmists. The IPCC report was sparse on definitive climate predictions, but were absolutely SURE of their projections of economic impact. How does that even make sense? Worse yet? They want to charge us more NOW than the projected worst case costs will ever be, to fix a problem that might never be.

    So, the message seems to be, "Pay your hundreds of trillions of dollars in silence, and be thankful we saved you!" Good work if you can find it.

  58. Guy Beebe

    Have the US government spend as much on competing theories, and maybe, just maybe, it will actually be science. Scientific Method does not close off debate. It does not belittle the opposition. Consensus? That is not science. It is, however, politics, or political science.

    But it doesn't matter. I really don't care if the world is warming or not. I don't really care whether it is caused by man or not. There is no palatable solution. Sure, we could kill of 90% of the world's population. Sure we could drive 95% of the world's population into indentured servitude or slavery. The cure is worse than the disease. I'll take the worst global warming has to offer, rather than accept any of the "solutions" proposed by the corrupt, venal, and oppressive leaders that merely plan to use this to increase their own power.

  59. William Wilson

    Hit piece to create doubt using last bits of hopeful denial. Ex NASA person who does not agree with 100% of all scientific organizations that study it. Yes there are a few and the have no peer reviewed papers that discredit the thousands of peer reviewed papers and settled science.

  60. Anonymous

    Why is it that liberals WANT to feel guilty about their existence on earth. Conservatives know why we're suppose to be here. You have to start here to reach the original and final dimension that doesn't contain physical matter. That's where the most intelligent life is.

  61. Stephen Mattison

    Guy Beebe So you're saying the US should give 3% of scientists the same total sum of funding that 97% of scientists received combined? And what about the rest of the world? Do they only fund biased scientists or is it more logical to accept the fact that they've reached the same conclusions?

    Dr. Michio Kaku on climate change deniers:

    "I think they're lacking some of the background and they get intimidated. Because the skeptics are not fools, they're not stupid people. They also read a lot but then they put it in in an ideological context and they see everything through this lens and they don't do the homework. They don't do the computer programs. They don't critique the mathematics.
    And so for us there's nothing to debate. We cannot debate them, because they have no programs, no data, no formulas. There's nothing but ideology." ~Dr. Michio Kaku

    http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/23/climate-change-is-not-debateable/

  62. Anonymous

    Global warming is not 'nonsense' strictly speaking. It is political.. a tool to empower an agenda and one that gladly attacks even the average American citizen if they dare even have the slightest doubts.

  63. Michael Fellion

    You folks can argue all day but at least one thing is certain from the ice core studies, 800K years of data on climate, CO2 has zero effect on causing climate change, it has never caused a climate change in all that time. The current rise has zero correlation with climate change and that rise continues while the earth's average temperature per giss data has not risen since 1998 on average just like it did not rise from 1940 to 1980, it is still colder than in 1000 AD and a bit warmer than in 1625 the depths of the little ice age. If solar gain increases again we will warm, if it drops we will cool. The tiny problem only God knows the answer to that. I suggest a solution to the climate change problem, stop building on sand bars, below mud clifts, in marsh lands, flood plains and do not live behind levees has built in 1850. A few will have to move the rest will not be effected. With increased CO2 plant mass will increase which will help feed the 10 billion people which will shortly live on this planet regardless of it warming or cooling.

  64. King Jmoke

    Really global warming? I'd say it is cooling or normal weather.
    I believe that "global warming" is the religion of liberals, where algore is their prophet, the scientists is their god, and their phony peer reviewed climate journal is their bible:

    Record Subzero Days in Midwest…
    Great Lakes Approaching 100% Ice Cover…
    MARCH MISERY: 2,071 record low temps set…
    4,406 record cold temperatures in January; 1,073 Snowfall records…
    BRUTAL WINTER INTENSIFIES…
    HISTORIC ICE STORM UNFOLDS IN SOUTH…
    Hospitalizations From Sledding Crashes…
    Ice from TX to NC…
    Cars Abandoned on Snow-Covered Roads…
    Residents Cook Food In Fireplaces…
    City Fines Residents Up To $100 For Not Shoveling Sidewalks…
    Panicked Shoppers Fight Over Food…
    'Snow Rage' Afflicts Locals…
    Man Puts Gun To Plow Driver's Head…
    Psychiatrist: 'Tremendous Amount' Of Seasonal Affect Disorder…
    FAA Grounds Flower Delivery Drone…
    NWS: Mid-Atlantic Storm 9th Biggest Ever Recorded…
    SNOW IN 49 STATES…
    Great Lakes ice breakers exhausted…
    Thousands Without Power…
    Residents Cook Food In Fireplaces…
    100-car pile-up on PA turnpike…
    Philly Snowfall Shatters 130-Year-Old Record…
    Pregnant woman killed by snowplow in Brooklyn…
    Great Lakes ice breakers exhausted…
    800-Pound Runaway Snowball Slams Into College Dorm, Knocks In Wall…

    Let us pray:
    ALGORE is my shepherd; I shall not think.
    He maketh me lie down in Greeneth pastures:
    He leadeth me beside the still-freezing waters.
    He selleth my soul for CO2:
    He leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his own sake.
    Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason
    I will fear all logic: for thou art with me and thinking for me
    Thy Gore’s family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square Gorey foot mansion,they comfort me.
    Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence:
    Thou anointest mine head with nonsense; my obedience runneth over.
    Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of my life:
    and I will dwell in the house of ALGORE forever……….

  65. Matthew Zachary

    Its the height of irresponsibility to say global warming is a hoax…given people are dying and economies are being sapped by increased storm activity among other things. That's a little too cavalier an attitude given those consequences…ice cores people, that's all you have to look at and more than enough proof. Lets do the things that will stabilize the climate, making these statements just makes it worse!

  66. Stephen Mattison

    Michael Fellion

    Climate Myth…
    It hasn't warmed since 1998
    For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Bob Carter)

    What the science says…
    For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

    No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

    Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends — and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables — like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity — not by cherry-picking single points.

    There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') — tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

  67. Christina Atteberry

    Honestly If you think pollution is not harmful and is not heating up our atmosphere then I invite you to sit by the tail pipe of your car while it is running and breath deeply.

  68. William Lansford

    Mitchell Baxter Sure 'cause them stupid brits don't knoe nuthing 'bout ENGLISH. And of course, NASA is not a very well known institution. Fact is, his specialty is fluid dynamics which I suppose you could say is a part of climate science in the same way you could claim that breeding lab mice is a part of biology. All of that aside he still apparently lacks some pretty basic scientific knowledge. ANY high school science student can tell you the age of the earth and if you bothered to read the link I provided you'd see that hes argument is shear NONSENSE. The interaction of water vapor with the atmosphere is a well studied and well known quantity.and was LONG AGO discarded as a source of global climate change.

  69. Guy Beebe

    Stephen, they created this whole disparity by funding only the side they wanted to hear. Honestly, not only is there nothing there, there CAN'T be anything there. Their models don't even pretend to model climate. That they decided to try to model the CO2 relationship to temperature, and pretend that no other factor can possibly intrude?

    Well, let's just say, that wouldn't fly when designing a fuel pump, let alone serve as the sole reason for remaking the entire world economy. Foolishness. You want to try predicting? Fine, do so 100 times, and if you are correct almost every time? Then, maybe we might have a reason to listen. However, this is not a new scam. Snakeoil salesmen have been working this con for centuries. Why does it seem new and more valid this time?

    Then, use the media, hammer away at the message. Proclaim every bad thing that happens is because your worst case is "just around the corner". We had people claiming the newly discovered phenomena, the polar vortex was proof positive of AGW. How, can that be? They incorporated a newly discovered major climate driver into their models, and nothing changed? Riiiight. Looks more like the logical fallacy, begging the question. Wherein, since you are sure that your conclusion is correct, you know the answer to every question.

    However, that is NOT science. It isn't even acceptible in a HS debate.

    You can't have it both ways. If it IS science, you can't lay claim to every new phenomena, every newly discovered variance, until it has actually been studied. Its effects added to models, and evaluated for overall impact.

  70. Anonymous

    Sharon Reynolds: Now that's funny!! Could Mars be colder because it is MILLIONS of miles farther away from the Sun than the Earth ??

  71. Dave Jordan

    Also imaginary are the green piece tourists who were ice bound in he arctic, and had to be rescued…by an ice breaker no less..kinda IRONICLE huh rick……..follow the news much?

  72. Stephen Mattison

    Guy Beebe , If you choose to ignore science and would prefer to buy into a conspiracy theory of epic global proportions that's your business… The science is sound, there is an abundance of evidence and the planet is warming.

  73. Ian Campbell

    It's not about the science, it's about the money and controll !!

  74. Dan R Barnett

    Sharon Reynolds The highest atmospheric density on Mars is equal to that found 35 km (22 mi) above the Earth's surface where it's darn cold and many miles closer to the sun.

  75. Dan R Barnett

    Stephen B. Billings The burning of fossil fuels includes the manufacture of most types of trash which agreed is doing incalculable damage to our environment. There seems to be no debate that the earth's atmosphere reflects a certain amount of solar radiation back to the earth, I learned this in grade school in the 60's before greenhouse climate change was ever an issue. The ratio of reflection is closely studied and that ratio is rising by clear scientific measurement far faster than anytime previously in the long history of the earth.

    But I believe it is far too frightening for the average person to contemplate what a serious threat to climate could mean and it is far easier to believe quack science by a few deniers paid for their contrarianism if that contrarianism lets you sleep easier. Rising oceans, bigger storms, hotter temperatures, mass extinction; too scary. For now, better the air conditioned bubble where the television tells you everything is okay, nothing to see, and all these scientists are a bunch of liars making money off of a hoax.

  76. Stephen Mattison

    Paul Cherubini

    Climate Myth…
    It hasn't warmed since 1998
    For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Bob Carter)

    What the science says…
    For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

    No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

    Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends — and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables — like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity — not by cherry-picking single points.

    There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') — tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

  77. Anonymous

    Sharon Reynolds The atmosphere of Mars is less than 1% that of earth (i.e., few CO2 molecules, spread far apart), and Mars is more distant from the sun. Not complicated.

  78. Anonymous

    Sharon Reynolds The atmosphere of Mars is less than 1% that of earth (i.e., few CO2 molecules, spread far apart), and Mars is more distant from the sun. Not complicated.

  79. Steven H Bickel

    Paul Cherubini : There has been no smooth trend at any time during the past 150 years of data at woodfortrees.org because it appears are too many variables. 17 years is not long enough … you seem to be focusing on the short term to support your own ideas as opposed to step back and look at the entire 150 years or 1500 years etc. etc.

  80. Steven H Bickel

    Paul Cherubini : There has been no smooth trend at any time during the past 150 years of data at woodfortrees.org because it appears are too many variables. 17 years is not long enough … you seem to be focusing on the short term to support your own ideas as opposed to step back and look at the entire 150 years or 1500 years etc. etc.

  81. Mark Sebastian Orr

    At last, a monumental media slip-up has allowed the truth to slip through.

  82. BuddyL-o Bandsdohandstands Mobct-img

    Global warming is real… the pollution is real.. this was written by a NASA SCIENTIST.. when this planet's time is up then they and select people will live on a different planet… they've found water in mars… ever seen the movie total recall? THIS IS REAL PEOPLE… what do you want the glaciers to totally melt? the sea level rises (significant amount of land goes underwater) and 80% of the world's drinking water is depleted… seriously?? Global warming a scam? yeah who cares you'll be dead anyways, let's not worry about or kids… wow lets wake up and look outside people

  83. BuddyL-o Bandsdohandstands Mobct-img

    Global warming is real… the pollution is real.. this was written by a NASA SCIENTIST.. when this planet's time is up then they and select people will live on a different planet… they've found water in mars… ever seen the movie total recall? THIS IS REAL PEOPLE… do you want the glaciers to totally melt? the sea level rises (significant amount of land goes underwater) and 80% of the world's drinking water is depleted… seriously? wake up and look outside, who cares we're all trapped in a bubble anyways and our generation will make it? get real

  84. Wade Goodwin

    How can we dump millions and millions of tons of garbage, plastic, and carbon into the environment with out having affect. Basically we are killing ourselves or at the least adding nails to the coffin. Regardless if global warming caused by man is true or not we sure are not helping except to make it worse.
    Remember we make the bed we have to lay in. denial is the sign of being an idiot.

  85. Nathaniel Bobo

    We need to let people know scientists have been wrong about there theories for deckades these are the people who predicted doomsday ffs…

  86. William Lansford

    Stephen Mattison , folks like the author of this article simply choose to ignore the facts. NEWS FLASH: The facts don't care

  87. Lucas Geer

    Mars is no where near the coldest place in the universe let alone outr solar system you idiot, did you seriously just say that?

  88. Jonathan Atkinson

    Neither are most of the climate-change bed wetters. In fact, a lot of these "scientists are "social scientists" or "political scientists." Global warming is about nothing but money, politics, and social agendae. One of these days, you people who have foisted it on the rest of us are going to pay the price.

  89. William Lansford

    This only serves to show how little you know about climate change. Please, do a bit of research rather than drinking the Koch-Aid.

  90. William Lansford

    Paul Cherubini I'm sorry, I thought calling your "argument" total BS was my answer. The reason average global temps have dropped over the last 17 years is because they HAVE NOT DROPPED. That is yet another outright lie told by climate change deniers. The facts really don't care what you think.

  91. Phil Medina

    He must be a Republican, a scientist that's a Republican that has to be a first

  92. Matthew Puthoff

    If Dr. Leslie Woodcock knew what he was talking about, he'd realize that burning fossil fuels also produces wator vapor, so the whole "water vapor is a more abundant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide" argument doesn't disprove anything. When HYDROcarbons are burned, two HYDROGEN atoms bond with an oxygen atom to create water vapor.

  93. Anonymous

    A chemical engineer weighs in on climate change and spouts some false information as fact (C02 increases are documented, proven and reproducible). A PHD doesn't mean someone isn't an idiot. Giving credence to idiots suggests that you yourself are an idiot.

  94. Steve Gorzula

    Such interesting comments! Are we environmental scientists suffering from "geriatric hippy syndrome" (a hangover from the 1960s)? It seems that natural environmental changes cannot ever be considered and that evil capitalism must be behind everything. Che Guevara would be proud.

  95. Ian Craik

    Read the definition of 'climate scientist' Any local weather man can claim to be a climate scientist. What do you think all those thousands of 'climate scientists' were doing before this became an issue? And, the term 'peer reviewed' only means a bunch of students who have all been taught the same thing, agreeing with each other. The truth is buried way beneath a bunch of pseudo intellectual sound-good terms. Give people a trendy word that sounds plausible, and makes them sound smart and they'll never even question what the hell it really means.

  96. Ian Craik

    At one point half the planet was covered in ice. That there is ANY ice left only means that the ice age is not finished yet

  97. Ian Craik

    William Lansford Oh Christ, are you people such complete robots that throwing out 'Koch brothers' or 'Faux News' every time you have a disagreement makes you think you have the inside track on a conspiracy? If your "research" is done by only "researching" the work of people you agree with, then you're not a "researcher", your just a puppet.

  98. Ian Craik

    Did the billions of bison, elephants, and other wildlife we wiped out in favor of domestic cattle not fart?

  99. William Lansford

    Ian Craik I have actually read and studied BOTH sides of the question and have found that every denial paper is easily debunked. THAT is why I side with the majority of scientists on this issue. Should you attempt to do the same you might even find your own narrow mind changed.

  100. Anonymous

    Does anyone fact check the primary claims of this author? -from 2012 to 2013 the arctic ice increased 29% and is near 1983 area. FACT: this is cherry picking from record melting in 2012 and falsely states data from National Snow and Ice Data Center. WHAT THIS AGENCY REALLY CLAIMS: Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis- Oct. 3, 2013. 2013 September arctic sea ice was 6th lowest on record. Arctic sea ice area in millions of square km in September: 2013- 5.5, 1983- 7.5 . As anyone can plainly read, the arctic ice is radically melting. Check the claims before accepting anything from FOX NEWS and their ilk. Fair and Balanced my ass…these are LIES…LIES…and more LIES. Terrance Stewart- arctic researcher

  101. Anonymous

    William, were you there (or any living historian) 4.5 Billion years ago to verify the earth started then? What a moron. Just like believing in global warming. All false and not proven by science.

  102. Paul Cusack

    Paul Cherubini Get your facts straight. Every decade has been warmer then the last. Look up global dimming if you want to explain a cooling effect. Most of you global warming is nonsense types lack any and all true facts. The sun is entering a grand minimum. I bet you never even heard of global dimming which is empirically proven. Stop trusting "scientists" that are funded by interests. Look around the world, it is clearly evident climate change is HERE

  103. George Kennard

    Bobby H Smith, thank you for your response. A nihilistic attitude and claiming that I cannot get the water from the river because the bucket has a hole in it etc … won't get anything done. However, I feel that we can do much about nature if we of the world work together instead of against each other. Many things and much is possible if we have the good sense to put aside politics when the world and nature is at stake. ALSO, I DID STOP SOME REALLY BAD AIR POLLUTION AT MY HOME YEARS AGO WHEN I WORKED AS A POLLUTION INVESTIGATOR FOR THE COUNTY. A SMOTHERING RELEASE OF CRUDE OIL FUMES ALMOST RENDERED ME UNCONSCIOUS AT ABOUT 3:00 AM. SO, I PUT ON SOME PANTS ONLY, RUSHED FROM MY HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE AND LOCATED THE SOURCE. IT WAS THE VALERO FACILITY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BAYOU. I VISITED THEM THE FOLLOWING MORNING AND LEARNED THAT THEY FILLED A BARGE WITH CRUD WITHOUT USING A VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM CAUSING THE AIR RELEASE. I THREATENED TO CITE THEM A VIOLATION IS IT EVERY HAPPENED AGAIN TO ME OR COMPLAINING NEIGHBORS, SO IT STOPPED. I NEVER EXPERIENCED THIS AGAIN. SOOOOOO, SOMETHING CAN BE DONE IF COMPANIES COOPERATE EVEN IF ONLY BECAUSE AIR REGULATIONS ARE ENFORCED.

  104. Daniel E Hofford

    Let me try and be kind to you since you started out with a legitimate question. First, do you realize that the 30's (dust bowel) were hotter than the 80,s or 90's or since 2000? And did you know that the agricultural practices were mandated by gov't?
    But, to your point…there is nothing wrong with using energy sources other than fossil fuels as long as those sources are chosen by people and markets. There is everything wrong with using them if the are forced on people by coercion. That is a very bad thing and if you want to know why you need to read a slim volume called The Law by Frederic Bastiat.
    I thought I could get out of here without calling you an idiot, and I'd like to so let me point out that the construction of your first paragraph repeats a logical fallacy every time you write a new sentence. You ask a question and then proceed to generate more questions that are founded on what you are asking. No, you can't do that. It's a petitio principii fallacy. You can't assume the truth of what you are asking to ask about what you are asking. 'Junk' is not only pejorative but you are already assuming to be true what your initial question was asking. Why would we want to decrease resource consumption? What plausible reason would there be for doing that? What makes you say fossil fuels are not environmentally friendly? Plants have been on a starvation diet of CO2…they think it''s wonderful and the biomass has increased as a result which sinks more CO2. What the f*** is the problem and why are you assuming the truth of that which you are asking about? The green movement is not about being green and clean, it's about being a Watermelon and control!

  105. Daniel E Hofford

    Thank you for making me think of Einstein who said there were only two things that were infinite. The universe and human stupidity and he wasn't sure about the universe.
    There are no guarantees, my child. Sorry, that is the world. We might spend a gazillion dollars to protect us from aliens landing and taking over. The probability is small but hey, the Precautionary Principle will have its pound of flesh. Creating a Leviathan State, destroying free markets, freedom, prosperity and sentencing a large part of the world to basic poverty is not necessary EVEN IF WE ARE CREATING WARMING. Adaptation is the far better alternative to mitigation. Have you never thought of that?! Or do you want the whole planet to look like N Korea the way most Progressive Pukes do?

  106. Jeff P Zacher

    Guy Beebe Imagine Newton's equations missing the moon for a decade and a large crowd of folks labeled "gravity deniers"….

  107. Daniel E Hofford

    Dear Adrian, Your innumeracy is showing. What does 280ppm mean? It means that 99.99972 parts of the atmosphere is not CO2. 400ppm means that you now have moved CO2 to .0004 % or 99.9996 parts of the atmosphere is not CO2. Are you really going to tell me that .00012 parts of the atmosphere can account for any of the warming we've seen? Really? This is magical thinking. This is just mind boggling nonsense. And you can't say you know this because the only thing that has gone up with temperature is CO2 or that you can't imagine another cause. That's like an islander saying he 'knows' that putting a headset on causes a plane to land. Are you aware that the more CO2 is added to the atmosphere the less heat any molecule of it can absorb and re-radiate? Are you aware that ice core data show CO2 lagging temperature by 800 years? Maybe you should stick to Nuke Dukem. Remember, Woodcock said 'significant.' So you, at the very least would have to ask him to clarify what he meant by 'significant' and not just assume that 400ppm IS significant. If you think it is, perhaps you could enlighten us all and tell us why, in terms of atmospheric physics and chemistry, not in terms of the latest you heard on MNBC.

  108. Bob Danley

    William Lansford if what you are saying is true then how could this be? We all were depending on you to save the planet. And you let us down.

  109. Anonymous

    William Lansford you're actually the one whose expertise isn't in atmospheric energy or you'd know the law for calculating the temperature of any volume of atmospheric air is the Ideal Gas Law. Not the Green House Gas Law.

    The people who claim they believe the magic James Hansen's Gas story are the ones whose jobs depend on government paychecks: grants, huge allotments of money for production of work which has no 'correct' or 'incorrect' it's "belief."

    That's academia and politicians. "Belief Based Magical Gas Properties" that overthrow the Ideal Gas Law.

    I'm in avionics and the fact you aren't afraid of aircraft over your head proves I know how to calculate atmospheric temperature from the proper parameters or there'd be no computerized flight.

    You're a mouthy wannabe who hasn't ever held human life in your hand based on how much you know about how to calculate temperature of volumes of atmospheric air.

    Big mustache

    or life spent making sure peoples' lives held in my hand

    don't ever discover the hard way about a "Magic Gais Trace Species function in the mathematics"

    I, and aeronautic/avionics specialists worldwide who invented computer calculated global atmospheric temperature modeling,

    "forgot"

    as we keep the space age in flight over your confused head?

    My bet without even looking is your entire life has been spend measuring without accounting for your being correct, with human lives successfully passing it.

    Every avionic navigational device must have a license number written down every single time it's cracked open so if one of us doesn't understand how to calculate the temperature of a volume of atmospheric air,

    the dying stops as soon as possible.

    You're a huckster selling magical gas :

    blocking 30% of the light, from the fire of the sun,

    to surface sensors, on earth, caused them to all show

    more energy arrived on those surface heat sensors,

    than when

    more energy arrived on those surface heat sensors.

    The ignorance of the Green House Gas Believer Club is so profound they defy the field that

    taught you gas mechanics and computer programming regarding atmospheric temperature

    knows the laws that govern gas mechanics related to atmospheric temperature.

    The same people whose folly you believed on are the ones who have the reputation of Michael Mann
    Kevin Trenberth,
    Phil Jones

    and James Hansen.

    Everyone should go look up "The it's a travesty email explained" or something along that line and come to understand exactly what the academics like this huckster named Lansford think are proper science, and proper science communications.

    You should also look up at the same time, "Phil Jones the scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled since 1998. Okay it has but it's only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

    Then you should look up "Phil Jones February 2010 BBC interview" and look at question 2 and watch him try to snake his way out of what he had to admit or get indicted.

    Then compare the sound of them to the sound of this Landsford character.

  110. Anonymous

    William Lansford you're a clown. All people really need is to go look up

    "The background behind the "it's a travesty" email.

    Enough said. Fraud incorporated, lying and denying, while they told the entire world through the voice of government it had been getting warmer, warmer, warmer.

    Everyone go look up "Phil Jones: "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled since 1998. Okay it has but it's only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

    Then go look up "February 2010 BBC Interview Phil Jones" where they made Jones admit when it actually stopped warming: or be indicted.

    His best guess, just outside absolute statistical certainty? Not 1998.
    1995.

    Watch him worm around when the BBC asks him "isn't it true the world has been cooling slightly?

    Of course it had been and, has continued to. It's why there has been admission warming stopped 17 years ago.

    Go look up "Scientists admit warming stopped 17 years ago" and do some homework after what I've shown you.

    Go look up "the atmosphere obeys the Ideal Gas Law."

    Go look up what the 'n' stands for in PV = nRT.

    Then come back and listen to this Landsford character rant that "you all just don't understand."

    We understand Landsford, remember: those who can't, teach. Everybody else, works.

  111. Anonymous

    You couldn't have been more wrong about that one, if you tried. There are 57 major climate models based in percent CO2 influencing warming, which is what led one group of men called The Right Climate Stuff comprising 20 ex N.A.S.A. engineers and astronauts decrying James Hansen and his
    climate models projecting rises in infrared referenced gas species.

  112. William Lansford

    Allen Eltor I SERIOUSLY DOUBT the validity of everything you say. Your complete inability to put together a coherent sentence in the English language speaks volumes for your lack of education and the fact that you feel the need to insult me rather than to address my points speak volumes for your total lack of character. Additionally, I fail to see how Clapeyron's Ideal gas law applies to global climate change in any but the most rudimentary way. It is simply a combination of Boyle's law and Charles' law that is used to explain how the density of a gas decreases as temp increases and volume expands. Oh, and when you pull your head out of the Koch bros' ass maybe you should do a little research on world wide temp trends. You see, in FACT while heating has slowed slightly it has not stopped and temperatures continue to climb. 2014 is now predicted to be the hottest year on record to date.

  113. William Lansford

    Allen Eltor you do understand that "Climate Gate" has been thoroughly debunked? Such is the weakness of reading hacked emails out of context. you're about 5 years out of date

  114. William Lansford

    Daniel E Hofford Apparently you don't understand what you read very well. CO2 increases water vapor on the atmosphere? PLEASE, by all means…explain how THAT works!

  115. Bob Danley

    William Lansford …I did. I know where you got that 74 percent and it's a flat out falsehood. Twenty-two percent of Germany's power comes from renewable sources. Of that twenty-two percent only six percent comes from solar power. I was in Germany and I don't recall ever seeing a solar power panel there. Let alone a farm of solar panels. If you're getting your data from the EPA then it is falsified data; the EPA needs to justify their existence. What is the number two source? The number three? Fourth source? You're gullible. Want to buy some carbon offsets? I have as many as you want for the one time low, low price of $100 a credit. Of course each credit is printed on a separate sheet of paper, so the more credits you purchase the more trees get chopped down.

  116. Bob Danley

    William Lansford Climategate debunked? No it wasn't. Who debunked it? When? How? The e-mails are a matter of record. Don't even try to spin it.

  117. Bob Danley

    Elliot Mabeuse all those agencies (including the military) and businesses have one reason for doing so. Money.

  118. Alex Compton

    So i guess I will try to respond in order. First, please link data to support your temp claim, I would honestly like to see it, as I have not found it on my own. While the homestead act and its expansions did promote settling the plains, but I would also ask you to produce that agricultural practice legislation or at least enlighten me in the way the government mandated those practices. More to the point, agricultural practices being mandated by the gov or not does nothing to disprove my contention that humans can effect the earth on a large scale. It seems you think of me as a socialist, that would turn to the government for every solution. So let me blow your mind. Markets could sort out this energy mess, but fossil fuels have a huge advantage given by the government in the form of taxes incentives, infrastructure investment, and emergency funds, perhaps Bastiat would agree that money spent cleaning up oil spills is money wasted. Taking those benefits to the industry away cold turkey is an expensive proposition for your and my pocket book, but it is necessary if you truly want the markets to decide and I would consider it a huge victory for green movements if governments no longer favored and supported fossil fuels. You are right that I did beg the question, though I think I only did it once, with the green lobby question. By definition of the fallacy this doesn't disprove my argument, it simply doesn't prove anything. My use of the world "junk" was a lazy lumping together of many pollutants such as lead and mercury, which are regulated, with greenhouse gases, which are not. If you want to take offense to my pejorative term for lead, feel free. I am confused as to why you started out saying I had asked a legitimate question, then quickly call me an idiot (ad hominem) and dismiss my question.

    I advocate a decrease is resource consumption because if resources are consumed faster than they are replenished, then eventually we will run out, I assume that is a bad thing and I have been led to believe that this is the current state of affairs. Plants produce their own food, they are not on a starvation diet. Photosynthesis like all chemical reactions must to balanced, plants would need more water, and other nutrients to make use of more CO2. Which means less water for us. That "watermelon" term is clever and unfortunately "green-washing" is a great way to look environmentally friendly without being so. Lastly, all anyone wants is control what makes the green lobby any worse than the oil lobby in that regard?