T Nation

Warmest in 400 Years



The panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree F during the 20th century.

There is clearly dissent in the GOP about this -- with the usual ultra-conservative Texans going against the more moderate, intelligent Republicans, who advise them to use their brains for a change and wake up and smell the coffee:

The report was requested last November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.

My advice to the remaining naysayers in the GOP: you make yourself look like fools by continuing to deny what is obvious to a large part of the electorate. Stop it, or your whole party will pay come November.


I don't think that anybody has denied that global warming exists, it's the cause nobody can aggree on. The problem is that the information is so tainted and so politicized, that finding out true, real, objective information is not possible. Perhaps, we will find that what is causing the relativly mild rise in temps is the hot ass air coming from the news media and the politicians. Either way it's fine with me, I hate winter.


Three quick points.

How did they produce so much CO2 in the midddle ages such that the temperature today is still cooler than it was ~500 years ago?

It appears the global temperature has been slightly dropping since 1998. How can this be?

The algorithm (Al Goreism?) hockey stick graph you are showing has been demonstrated to show the hockey stick curve with random data and appears to be flawed.


Fuck, I just started a thread on this.

Oh well. it's got the whole article on it though.


Hspder's off of vacation and is now going to school us all on the horrors of Global warming.

I have a couple of questions.

  1. How can they be sure of mean global temps 400 years ago when there had not been a real expedition west of the Mississippi until 200 years later? and they are proposing to know the global mean temps of 200 years prior? Horse shit.

  2. This panel of "panel of top climate scientists" are still using the long debunked and discresdited "hockey stick graph". Why should they even be given the time of day?

You really should have waited before posting. This just makes you look like an idiot. No - it makes you look flat assed stupid.


The consequences of Global Warming are not only... warming. The fact is that we really don't know what the real consequences will be short term, much less long term.

Even if it's "just" warming, the consequences to no only the sea levels, but whole ecosystems we depend on might be disastrous.


Let me repeat the quote:

The report was requested last November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y

So go and ask him. He's a Republican and everything...


One quick point: risk management.

And before somebody asks "what are YOU doing about this", well, in August I am moving to where I can take public transit to Stanford, selling my two cars, insulating my new home up to the highest available standard and installing solar panels.


Why? To sell newspapers and get ratings.

Most of the objective scientists have fled the field because they didn't want to waste their lives.

The ones pumping out the bullshit are happy to use scare tactics to get grant money.


What you are doing is meaningless but at least you are practicing what you preach.

If the theories are correct the amount of CO2 in the air has us locked in a warming cycle we cannot get out of in our lifetimes.

In order to make a meaningful change in CO2 levels we would have to stop burning things.

Imagine the quality of life worldwide if we slashed our energy production so drastically.

Risk management tells me we are foolish if we act on the bad data.


I don't think stupidity is limited to one side of the aisle or another. The sad thing about this is a bunch of ignorant politicians are just playing into the scare tactics of the enviro whacko brigade.

I just bought another honking huge SUV. My thermostat is set at 60 degrees this summer, and I burn open fires whenever I get the chance.

Oh - and I fart like a stud horse.




hspder Gore seems a bit confused.

Global warming.....(eye roll).

Let's see we control both houses, the White House and the Supreme Court. I'll take my chances...

Go hug a tree hspder.


Hmmm. Sounds like government.


Actually, I've been doing consulting work for the past few weeks. Not much time left to argue with you guys. I did miss having people disagree with me for a change, so I?m back for the day (tomorrow I have to fly out again?).

Apparently people seem to be amazed at our new Fed Chairman that, contrary to Alan "La-la-land" Greenspan, actually has a slight connection with reality. Now that having a connection with reality is "en vogue" again, I'm getting more requests for consulting engagements in a week that I got before in a quarter...

Don't get me wrong: I know Bernanke very well and there's very little we agree on, but at least he doesn't live in some make-believe land like Greenspan does. And I appreciate all the work he's generating for me. :slight_smile:

Talking about new people, and going back to the environment, you do realize that Bush's new pick for Treasury, Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry Paulson, has strong views on the environment and is Chairman of the Board of Directors of The Nature Conservancy, Co-Chairman of the Asia/Pacific Council of The Nature Conservancy and Chairman Emeritus of The Peregrine Fund, Inc. (http://www.peregrinefund.org)?

Furthermore, I've personally seen Paulson attend one of Al Gore's presentations, and they seemed pretty chummy.

Those will be some fun meetings Bush and Paulson will have...


Hmmm. MSNBC's graph doesn't look like the one from the report...

See page 3: http://www.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676.pdf

Also, see some criticism even of this report, which is seemingly being overblown (somehow the study's conclusion of "plausible" has become "likely" or even unqualified): http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=715#more-715


True. But does that mean we should just say "screw it!" and not care about our kids, grandkids, great-grandkids, etc.? It is our responsibility, as parents, not only to educate them, but also to provide for the best future they can have -- doesn't that include starting to clean up the mess the generations before them created?

It's a question of trading quality of life now for quality of life in the future. Clearly, you can't have the cake and eat it too.

Uh? I must have missed that class then... I thought that the implied volatility generated by unreliable data increased the value of covering ALL the possibilities (including the most extreme ones), not decreased it.


You write this shit to me on purpose, don't you?


Yup. Both parties do it.


Condemning billions of people to shortened uncomfortable lives because we eliminate most of our energy in the hopes that four generations later the CO2 in the atmosphere drops and the temperature returns to a mythical "normal" point all because incredibly flawed data and a slanted analysis indicates man made CO2 may be slightly increasing global temps?

By your risk management standards I am amazed you are brave enough to get out of bed in the morning or cross the street.