They'll Love Me Even More, Now

I doubt many of the Libs who have been commenting here heard it, I didn't either. A post of mine on photographs of Polar Bears on ice resulting from wave action is said to have been mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show today. I didn't get to hear it, but would love to, if anyone has a clip. His website also graciously gave me a link - cool.

Read this on Global Warming, too.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Comments

[Zifnab]

Happy Birthday. You've now offically been fluffed by the Limbaugh-mister. Enjoy it while it lasts, cause he's the best they've got.

[Dan Riehl]

lol Downplay it all you want, it doesn't happen to a blog everyday. And I'll take Rush's 20 million listeners to Olbermann's couple hundred k viewers anyday.

[Legalize]

I love it when wingers link and cite themselves as authority for whatever the hell creepy conspiracy theory they come up with next. Although, congrats, Riehl. I understand that for dishonest hypocrites, getting mentioned on the Limbaugh show is akin to getting your letter published in Penthouse.

[RepusYort]

Dear Rush,

I never thought it would happen to me, a small conservative blogger in an unnammed state, but I was all set to deliver this pizza and .........

[yyy]

What I want to know, is has Rush nominated Dan for the Nobel Peace Prize yet?

[Legalize]

"I never thought it would happen to me, a small conservative blogger in an unnammed state, but I was all set to deliver this pizza and ........."

Ugh, they ALL start out the same way!

[RepusYort]

Of course. If it ain't broke why fix it? Suspension of disbelief is as important to the penthouse forum as it is to Sci-Fi.

[djangone]

Oh how embarrassing. You're quoting Tim Ball. A quick article on this long-debunked quack:

"Tim Ball: Finding New Ways to Fudge His Credentials"
11 Oct 06
In a September 26, 2006 letter to the Royal Society, Dr. Tim Ball, the leading signatory, identifies himself as "Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg."

Not quite. From 1988 until his retirement in 1996, Dr. Ball was a Professor of Geography at that university. He has not, since, had any official position at U of W or at any university. So, he is not now a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg and, arguably, never was.

It raises the question: if he is this cavalier about the factual accuracy of his own record of employment and credentials, how could he expect us to believe any of the rest of what he says?"
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-finding-new-ways-to-fudge-his-credentials

[Legalize]

Don't you see; it doesn't matter whether or not Dr. Ball is actually qualified to make any of the claims he makes, but whether or not his ideological bona fides are in line with those of the hive-mind - er echo chamber - er, whaterver .... In other words, it doesn't matter if Riehl and Rush are wrong about everything because "they see the big picture."

[djangone]

A little more on Ball. Truly, he's just your kind of guy, Dan.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/dan-johnson-wins.html

'Among the various '''embellishments''' to Ball's resume are claims that he was the first Canadian Ph.D. in climatology, that he was Professor of Climatology at U Winnipeg for 22, 24, 26, 26, 32 or maybe 64 years and that he has lots and lots of scientific publications (he has 4, as far as anyone and ISI can tell).'

Ball also fronts an astroturf group, 'Friends of Science,' funded by oil and gas corporations: http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science

I'll be your 'self-correcting mechanism' for this post. You're welcome, don't mention it.

Dan, I have to ask why you even bother to continue this blog, given that (1) you haven't proven you can write at a college freshman level; (2) you're too lazy to check your sources (how long would it have taken to discover that Ball was a quack?); (3) you're dishonest in the dullest fashion; and (4) you're always, always wrong.

[djangone]

A little more on Ball. Truly, he's just your kind of guy, Dan.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/dan-johnson-wins.html

'Among the various '''embellishments''' to Ball's resume are claims that he was the first Canadian Ph.D. in climatology, that he was Professor of Climatology at U Winnipeg for 22, 24, 26, 26, 32 or maybe 64 years and that he has lots and lots of scientific publications (he has 4, as far as anyone and ISI can tell).'

Ball also fronts an astroturf group, 'Friends of Science,' funded by oil and gas corporations: http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science

I'll be your 'self-correcting mechanism' for this post. You're welcome, don't mention it.

Dan, I have to ask why you even bother to continue this blog, given that (1) you haven't proven you can write at a college freshman level; (2) you're too lazy to check your sources (how long would it have taken to discover that Ball was a quack?); (3) you're dishonest in the dullest fashion; and (4) you're always, always wrong.

[templar knight]

Yeah, right, diangone. We believe you. And I wonder why you would comment at Dan's blog if you believed any of the drivel you just posted. You're envious of Dan, and his blog's success. That is obvious. Or show me the sitemeter at your blog, and prove me wrong.

[djangone]

templar, I have no idea what you're saying.

[RepusYort]

He's saying you're just a big old jealous poopyhead, cuz Dan's all like cool and stuff and the head quaterback of the High School team acknowledged his existence and you're not even president of the AV club, djan.

Or at least that's what I think he's saying. I haven't been in high school or watched Heathers in years, so I might be wrong.

[Seitz]

More on Tim Ball, from the Calgary Herald's statement of their defense:
http://tinyurl.com/25lxyj

"(a) The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming;

(b) The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;"

It's really not surprising that Dan, outed by his commentariat as a liar and deceiver on an almost daily basis, wouldn't understand the importance of peer review in the scientific community.

[The Raging Patriot]

ApplePie, Why won't you answer the question? What caused the several events of global warming throughout earth's history?

Will you answer the question, or will you just go away, or will you call me names?

[Legalize]

R.P., the warming you describe took place over centuries at a gradual clip. The warming that is being described relative to "global warming" has taken place over the past 100 years, at a much more rapid clip. To account for the warming that took place before scientists seriously studdied such events, nay before there were PEOPLE around to study such events can only be done by looking at past events and trying to piece them together. Today, of course, science can monitor changes AS THEY OCCUR, and test any number of theories on those changes, compare them with others, have their peers review their studies, and reach a consensus - which is what they have done.

I don't really see the hand wringing over warming and cooling that occured before humans were present, with the proper technology to monitor those changes.

[The Raging Patriot]

What about the warming and cooling that took place when humans were present. Think of the Little Ice Age that occurred between roughly 1500 AD and 1700 AD. What caused the warming after the Little Ice Age? There are other examples of rapid climate change throughout human history as well.

Again, what caused it?

To take decades of data and use it to postulate a theory that negates tens of thousands of years of data that does not support said theory is absurd.

Again, I see no answer from anyone.

[Legalize]

You see answers, but choose to not aknowledge them. The warming that occurred prior to the warming that has occurred, roughly since the age of industrialization, is not of the same type or of the same rate or with the same consequences. There were no folks in 1500 measuring such events; there were no instruments; there was no credible way of monitoring the events as they happened.

I don't purport to be an expert on any of this, but it is more than reasonable to deduce the following:

--where previous monitoring did not and could not occur while previous warming occurred - no consensus.

--where recent monitoring both occurs and is capable of producing a lot of data, in real time, from infinite perspectives - consensus.

Can the science be politicized by Al Gore, for example, to further his own ends? Sure. That doesn't mean his science isn't correct. This is especially clear given that one of the prime arguments against consensus is that doing something about it will harm the U.S. economy, because (a) those who supposedly would stand to be harmed by regulation, are coming out in favor of the consensus; (b) there are numerous and documented means of creating profitable markets around correcting the problem (emissions trading and creating cleaner fuels are already quite profitable); and (c) the long term savings associated with regulation are also numerous and documented (preserving property values, preserving public health, and freeing ourselves from the costs of being bound to events in the Middle East are obvious benefits as well).

Decades of current data are not being used to negate tends of thousands of years of other data; current data is simply more capable of measuring trends based on more accurately testable theories, thereby producing more predicatble results. I mean, I have more faith in modern technology to measure phenomena more so than NO technology to measure such phenomena.

[Kite]

Just wanted to say congrats on getting mentioned on Rush's show. Don't listen to the liberal downers who would steal your moment in the light....you have expressed your views and people have taken notice.

They're just mad that Air America went belly up and folded while the conservative talk radio stations continue to flourish.

[The Raging Patriot]

Legalize,

You say: "The warming that occurred prior to the warming that has occurred, roughly since the age of industrialization, is not of the same type ..."

How do you know that? In order to know that, you would have to first answer the question that no one seems to want to answer. I'll ask it again: In all the past warming events throughout earth's history, what caused it?

You continue: "...or of the same rate or with the same consequences.

This is factually wrong. Again, I refer to the Little Ice Age which was preceded by a sharp warming period from about 700AD until about 1200Ad. True, there were no instruments with which to accurately measure temps, but it is historical fact that there were multi-year droughts which initiated the first collapse phase of the Mayan civilization. Also, the Aletsch and Grindelwald glaciers in Switzerland and the glaciers in Iceland were substantially smaller than they are today. I will also mention that radiocarbon dating proves that trees grew in Canada much further north from about 900AD to about 1100AD, than modern trees.

In 985AD, settlement of Greenland began. By 1350, many of the settlements had to be abandoned due to encroaching glaciers.

The bottom line is that throughout all of earth’s history, there have been warming and cooling trends to the extent that human activity was greatly altered. Climate change is the norm, not the exception.

The fact is that the “humans are causing global warming” pimps are ignoring past warming and cooling trends and putting there eggs in a basket made from a “theory” based on a few decades of out of context data.

Now, I’ll repeat the question and try to focus and not divert the topic: What caused the global warming that has occurred throughout earth’s history.

[The Raging Patriot]

What caused the global warming that has occurred throughout earth's history?

...tumbleweeds roll through a vast valley of silence ...

[djangone]

Raging Patriot, did you just call scientists 'pimps'? Wow. And the condescending tone, very very cute. Combined with the mistaken 'there' in a place where grade school grammar calls for a 'their,' and I see we're up against an intellectual heavyweight.

Now read a little and don't come back until you're done:

'The natural causes of past climate variations are increasingly well-understood, and they cannot explain the recent global warming. [M]odeling studies indicate that the modest cooling of hemispheric or global mean temperatures during the 15th-19th centuries (relative to the warmer temperatures of the 11th-14th centuries) appears to have been associated with a combination of lowered solar irradiance and a particularly intense period of explosive volcanic activity. When these same models are forced with only natural radiative forcing during the 20th century [see e.g. Crowley (2000)] they actually exhibit a modest cooling trend. In other words, the same natural forcings that appear responsible for the modest large-scale cooling of the "Little Ice Age" should have lead to a cooling trend during the 20th century (some warming during the early 20th century arises from a modest apparent increase in solar irradiance at that time, but the increase in volcanism during the late 20th century leads to a net negative 20th century trend in natural radiative forcing). In short, given natural forcing factors alone, we should have basically remained in the "Little Ice Age". The only way to explain the upturn in temperatures during the 20th century, as shown by Crowley (2000) and many others, is indeed through the additional impact of anthropogenic (i.e., human) factors, on top of the natural factors.' (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=167)

If you really care for answers, they're out there. They take five minutes to find. Just root around here: http://www.realclimate.org/. The link before that is to a point-by-point dismantling of a Wall Street Journal editorial that you seem to have been influenced by. It'd bear some reading, because I imagine what'd happen next is that you'd bring up the 'hockey stick' myth, if I bothered to read your posts anymore.

And that's it for my help--I'm not going to reply again to someone who's either too lazy to look for himself or too dishonest to see the facts, and moreover who's enough of an ass to call researchers 'pimps.'

[The Raging Patriot]

I have read the very sources you point to. I don't put much credit in "it appears" or "should have".

And this is yet another "theory" as to what may have caused the warming trend after the Little Ice Age. The science is faulty in much the same way as the "humans are causing global warming" science is. They are using a POSSIBLE cause for the Little Ice Age to explain all of the past climate changes.

According to Dr. Richard B. Alley, the Evan Pugh professor of geosciences at Penn State: “Past climates changed abruptly, suggesting that abrupt changes in the future will also occur.”

You have yet to answer the question because you can't answer it. You only have your commie lib attacks. Sorry, but getting all twisted over typos is no way to discuss anything intelligently.

Again, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question. Now, try to focus.

What caused the global warming that has occurred throughout earth's history?

The only FACT that can be ascertained is that periods of warming and cooling are the norm.

[The Raging Patriot]

What's the matter, diangone? Typos are all you have?

Still Googling away feverishly trying to find SOMETHING?

I'll tell you what you'll find; you'll find predictions based on flawed computer models with little regard for past events that occurred before industrialization. In other words, conclusions that scientists came to based on guesses.

You've been owned.

Typical commie lib.

[djangone]

Good god, I wasted ten minutes on a twelve year old. Never again.

[The Raging Patriot]

Yep, just what I thought. You still can't answer it.

Good bye, commie lib.

[charles]

when the proponents of AGW start to call it a theory (which it is)rather than science (science is not a consensus, it either provably is by the ability to reliably duplicate results consistently or isn't) i will begin to place more faith in their veracity

at this point in the debate both sides of the topic are relying too heavily upon discrediting the messenger rather than disproving the message

at the request of certain individuals posting in these comments i have been perusing real climate.org and they are just as guilty of the "if, maybe, could be,and might etc." as anyone else

until they come up with something better than extrapolating computer modeling i will remain sceptical

[The Raging Patriot]

Charles,

Exactly.

But even Real Climate, as pointed out by diangone, points to natural phenomenon as a culprit of past global warming.

That's why the commie libs don't want to answer the question; because the answer itself degrades the whole "humans cause global warming" nonsense.

The only facts that exist at this point are: 1)global warming is occurring. 2)global warming and cooling has occurred throughout earth's history as a result of natural causes.

Are humans causing the current state of global warming? Perhaps, but we just don't know. To flatly state that humans are causing global warming is irresponsible, bad science, and those who pimp it are either idiots, or people with a political agenda; mostly commie-lib types.