Redstate

Good post. You make some interesting arguments on the reliability of assumption-driven computer modelling.

One question:

Are there any computer models that predict that Global Warming is NOT occuring? If so, is the data generated by these models any more or less credible?

I think what you're ultimately saying is that absent any definitive proof that Global Warming is taking place (which assumption-driven models cannot offer, you would argue), we should do nothing to alter our behavior.

However, in the absence of any definitive proof that Global Warming is NOT happening (which we can't determine because the predictive models are again not reliable), we also should not take any action to alter our behavior.

So we are at a scientific stalemate, it would seem.

Did you miss this part: "We know the Northern Hemisphere circa 1300 AD was warmer than today"? How do you reconcile that to industrial man causing global warming and we should alter our behavior?

Buy up elevated territory as near as possible to the world's major sea-level population centers.

I think the real significance of the 1300 event is that even if any current warming is man-made (and the event of 1300 was not), we know from the 1300 event that the Earth has some mechanism (which humans have not seen since) for dealing with warming. Since we are still here and the Earth did not burn to a crisp in the 1400's, we know that "warming" is not a one-way trip to doom. Something intervenes to reverse it; some mechanism we do not yet have experience with.

The notion that humans understand the climate system of this planet well enough to predict its behavior over periods like 50 or 100 years is preposterous. As Streiff points out, we have trouble getting tomorrow right.

The intensity of belief we see in computer models from people of a certain political persuasion (the one associated with SmartPeople™ telling everybody what to do) can't possibly be about science. It's a religion; it's all about faith and appeals to authority.

Half of the state of SC and a number of other states were under the ocean before man walked the earth.

Living in South Arkansas, I figure a little global warming and few more Katrinas, I'll be on easy street with ocean front property.

you're still in Arkansas :P

This is the global warming narrative that I often hear:

1. Since the start of the industrial age, the amount of carbon dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere have nearly doubled.
   
2. This increase in greenhouse gases has been caused the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other human activities.
   
3. More greenhouse gases means that more heat from the sun that is trapped in the atmosphere.
   
4. This effect has raised the earth's temperature. This is called global warming.
   
5. Global warming threatens society in many ways, including increased potential for drought and flooding of coastal areas.
   
6. The costs of such catastrophies threaten the stability of our society and the world economy.
   

What's the weak link in this narrative?

Half of the state of SC and a number of other states were under the ocean before man walked the earth.

Bill Clinton warns that 50 ft of Manhattan may be under water in 50 yrs. FIFTY FEET!!! OH MY GOD.  Shut down the economy. Will the Knicks have to move?

Columbia is over 100 miles from Charleston.

As you know, plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, fix the carbon in the form of more of themselves, and release the oxygen back into the atmosphere.

How did the world even last long enough to get to the industrial age? In all the millions of years that there have been plants ("North America was once covered with forests") they should by now have turned the Earth into a frozen ball of ice.

But that's not what happened. Obviously, there is some mechanism that regulates temperature independent of the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I'm looking at the 9/04 issue of National Geographic. On page 20, there is a plot of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 for the past 1000 years (no graphic on the web, sorry). According to the plot, from 1000-1800 A.D., CO2 never exceeded 300 ppm. In 2004, it was 390 ppm.

Even with all those plants, the CO2 level was remarkably stable. But now, CO2 is at an unprecendented level. Why?

Check out this paper: Mann and Jones (2003). Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters. 30:15. (PDF).

According to Figure 2a, the average Northern Hemisphere surface temperature in 1300 A.D. was 0.8 degrees lower than it is today.

You appear to have misunderstood my question.

I'm not interested in debating whether Global Warming is a reality or not. I'll leave that to people with far more expertise and scientific knowledge than I.

You know, scientists, geologists, political bloggers. Those sorts of folks.

Anyhow, my question was to Streiff's specific point about the reliability or not of assumption-driven computer models.

Streiff makes a viable argument that we cannot credibly rely on computer models that are predicting the existence of Global Warming. They've been wrong too many times, the argument goes, on a litany of weather and climate related predictions.

However, if we accept that criticism of these computer models, than likewise, we cannot know that there is NOT Global Warming - as we rely on these same computer models to demonstrate that Global Warming does not exist.

So, in short, if we disregard computer modelling and climate research as evidence of Global Warming, then we must equally disregard computer modelling and climate research demonstrating that Global Warming does NOT exist.

A scientific stalemate.

And so we are left with requiring a smoking gun as evidence of Global Warming (in the form of discernible climatic disturbance) or we must simply commit to not knowing.

that it being warmer in a previous age than now discounts global warming is caused by humans, meaning taking no action is more appropriate than taking action. Therefore, not a stalemate, you are talking predictions, I'm talking about discounting those predictions based on the scientific history of the planet.

Actually the past temperature of the planet in a previous age doesn't prove or disprove whether man is causing global warming.

They could be mutually exclusive.

The earth could be naturally warming, as part of the cyclical warming and cooling of the planet, AND man could be exacerbating or excelerating that warming.

Evidence of previous warmer or cooler temperatures does not prove or disprove whether man's actions are separately leading to a warming of the planet.

Soon and Baliunas confirmed that from 800 to 1300 A.D., average temperatures in many regions worldwide were 2 to 4 degrees or more higher than the allegedly sweltering 20th century. It's referred to as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), and the extra warmth made life better, not worse. It is not only the arcane techniques of paleoclimatology, such as testing core samples of glacial ice for radioisotopes, that testify to the MWP, but history - such as people's contemporary accounts of what they grew in their fields.

Decent wine grapes grew in Merrie England. (No more, alas.) Olives grew in 13th-century Germany, where St. Albert the Great also noted abundant fig and pomegranate groves in Cologne and the Rhine valley - places too cold for those crops today. Renaissance culture awakened and flourished throughout Europe.

The MWP also explains why Greenland, now essentially a glacier, could credibly be called Greenland. It was a Danish colony, and things actually grew there.

Following the MWP, the Greenland colony died out as average temperatures plummeted 3 to 5 degrees - about 2 degrees colder than our climate today. This Little Ice Age (LIA) finally moderated but lasted in most places until about 1900.

Because of Soon and Baliunas's paper, Mann's hockey stick was not so much broken as shattered. Interestingly enough, the two studies don't entirely contradict each other. The Mann "hockey stick" study used such a small number of temperature record samples to create its dramatic trend line that the margin of error is substantial. Indeed, it's so wide that you could draw a variety of lines through the chart - including a trend of global cooling.

Soon says: "They're showing incomplete sets of data. If you do that, it's easy to show the curve you want people to see. For explaining this, they called me a `right-wing extremist.' I don't care what wings are. I want to know what the facts are."

The Soon and Baliunas study included more up-to-date research published in the four years since Mann's study had been released.

Soon speaks enthusiastically of logic and measurement. "One of the most important pillars of the claim that CO2 is producing global warming," he says, "is the thermometer readings taken over the last 150 years. They show warming from 1900 to the 1940s. But the amount of CO2 produced then was negligible compared to the next period - from the 1940s to the 1970s - when there was cooling. So how can the CO2 be producing the warming? That is the contradiction. They have yet to show why this would be."

(snip)

He says: "No one in Washington gets large grants by saying something isn't a problem. Meanwhile, the $10 billion thrown at climate modeling research in the last 15 years was wasted."

"I believe you guys in the Catholic Church have a concept called original sin," Michaels explains. "Picture this: It's 1992 and there's a hearing. Senator Albert Gore says he thinks global warming is a serious issue, and do you think it would be worthwhile to spend $1 billion or so studying it? No one is going to speak up and say it's an overblown problem. If he did, all his colleagues would take out their knives and throw them into his back before he could leave the hearing room."

Excellent Link

"One of the most important pillars of the claim that CO2 is producing global warming," he says, "is the thermometer readings taken over the last 150 years. They show warming from 1900 to the 1940s. But the amount of CO2 produced then was negligible compared to the next period - from the 1940s to the 1970s - when there was cooling. So how can the CO2 be producing the warming? That is the contradiction. They have yet to show why this would be."

What a stretch.  If you have a valid point, just make it.  No need for the bad history.  

My whole problem with all the talk of models, is that people forget what models are.  Some people try to use models as substitutes for experiments, treating as evidence to support theories, when in fact models are the expression of theories.

A model of the Earth is not the same as the actual Earth.  We lack the ability to simulate that level of detail in a computer, so models have a lot of gaps, so to speak.  When we create a model, we fill in the gaps with our assumptions, biases, and favored theories.  So, when people who think man-made climate change is a fact, come up with models that show it happening, we really shouldn't be surprised.

Models are just used to obscure the basic fact that we really can't do experiments in climate science, and any predictions that theories make will take generations to see, so in practice the theories are scientifically worthless.

1000 years ago, there wasn't actually anybody measuring atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels or temperatures.

Thus, any chart going back that far is using proxies.  So, when looking at these charts, ask yourself these questions:

1. Are these proxies valid?
   
2. Are these proxies being used for the entire chart, or does the chart shift from the proxies to live measurements in the last 100 years?
   
3. Is it possible that slight differences in the mathemtical formula used on the proxies to produce the chart might produce contrary results, and if so, how was one formula chosen over another?

Yes, Soon & Baliunas are the teacher's pets of the anti-Global Warming community. Loved by Sen. Inhofe and the like.  And to give credit where credit is due, they certainly raise interesting questions about the hockey stick theory.

However, there are a number of critiques that should be noted if one wants to have an objective discussion of climate change.

First, ithey are in a very distinct minority of the scientific community. That doesn't mean they are "wrong". But are in a decided minority among credible scientists.

Second, their study was financed, in part, by the American Petroleum Institute. So it is reasonable to ask whether Soon might have had any incentives to arrive at the conclusions that he did.

Third, the EPA itself fought efforts by the White House to revise an EPA report on environtmental policy with a reference to Soon's study. They rejected its reference, stating the revisions "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change."

Fourth, a core piece of Soon's conclusion - and  a frequently cited argument against Global Warning by the skeptics - is that the "Medieval Warm Period" was warmer than it is today.  That finding has been called into question for a relatively simple reason.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/302/5644/404

As stated in Science Magazine, "Many papers have referred to a "Medieval Warm Period." But how well defined is climate in this period, and was it as warm as or warmer than it is today? In their Perspective, Bradley et al. review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe. Large changes in precipitation patterns are a particular characteristic of "High Medieval" time. The underlying mechanisms for such changes must be elucidated further to inform the ongoing debate on natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change."

In short, it may have been warmer in some parts of the world, and cooler elsewhere. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the world was in fact warmer overall in the Medieval Period.

So there's the Soon & Baliunas study. Certainly based on reasonable data, but not without a number of flaws.

The history I present is inarugable.

Contrary to a post as above Iceland was a an exporter of grain to Scandinavia in the 14th century and Greenland had two thriving colonies. We also know from tree rings, core samples from bogs/swamps, etc. that it was warmer in the 13th/14th centuries than today. Needless to say, we know it was warmer before the Ice Age than during it. From 1550-1850 there was the Little Ice Age.

So, having disposed of that, are you arguing the history of the 7th Day Adventist Church because that's all that's left.

I think your summary of the global warming narrative is excellent, and it is indeed a cogent story. The atmosphere currently holds about 750 gigatons of carbon; terrestrial plants have about 600 gt C. We are taking each year about 5.5 gt of C from the ground, where it has been out of circulation for hundreds of millions of years, and putting it into the atmosphere.

Ice core measurements of sequestered air samples now go back 650,000 years, and current CO2 levels are 30% higher than anything during that time.

What I'm saying is that the climate may very well be getting warmer but it is part of a regular cycle of climate change and not due to human endeavors. So no matter what we do, it is going to happen just as it has in the past, and we'd better learn to live with it.

Others have pointed out the rhetorical and scientific problems with your numbers 1-4. Five is questionable because any effects from slow climate change will take place slowly, over decades or centuries (Hollywood movies notwithstanding). Number six is highly questionable. Humans are exceedingly adaptable, and will find ways to generate economic activity (a.k.a. work) to get around any dislocations that are caused.

I made a flip comment above (#3) which no one bit off on. If you were to present this idea to an investor, he'd tell you two things: first, he already thought of it, and second, he'll pass because he can't price the risk, since the return is too uncertain. You may place your faith in today's climate models. But you can't say that they are signalling a threat for which it's worth wiping out huge chunks of existing human activity.

...but didn't jump in. If we grant that the science is at a stalemate, then what do you suggest we do? Act now (and act how?) on the assumption that warming may be both real and dangerous? Or sit tight and wait for a better understanding of the science?

would be my answer.

2. Does not necessarily flow from 1.
   
4. Does not necessarily flow from 2 or 3 as we know the Earth has been warmer and colder in the past than it is today.
   
5. Is a leap of faith from 2-4. It could much more plausibly be the result of a natural cycle of climate change which can be proven to exist.
   
6. Maybe true, but as we much more likely than not have nothing to do with climate cycles we can only do what we have always done: adapt.

If you view the entire body of science, not just climatology but other disciplines as well, it is difficult to believe in Global Warming brought on by human activity rather than, in my view, the more likely that we are in the midst of a gradual climate change. In this case, the prudent course is minimalist and adaptive because there is nothing we can do that will change anything.

On the other hand, if you are a believer in Global Warming you're going to sell your worldly chattels and wait on the hilltop.

I'm looking at the 9/04 issue of National Geographic.

Yeah, and I bet you buy it for the articles, too. A thousand years, eh? My what a long time. Here, look at this instead. Now that's a long time. And a much more useful length of time when we're talking about something the size of a Class-M planet.

That graph poses a couple of questions, one of which is, "300, 390, what's the difference?" That much variation is just not a big deal on this old Earth. The concentration of CO2 has been wobbling around between 180-or-so and 300-ish for half a million years. It goes up; it goes down. It appears to do this in a sawtooth wave with a period of 90,000 years or so. The current rise in CO2 concentration began about 1500 years ago. Most of the current rise took place before humans invented the steam engine.

I will agree that there has to be some effect from burning all these hydrocarbons, but it doesn't look to me like any variation we see is outside the bounds of what the system does anyway. In other words, as we all suspected, we are a nit in the grand scheme of things.

The planet already has a system for regulating CO2, and it is nowhere near taxed. Photoplankton in the oceans are huge consumers of atmospheric CO2; they are as big a factor as all the plants on land. They are also really good at multiplying as necessary; a population of photoplankton can double in 24 hours, as anyone whose swimming pool filter broke down can tell you.

We can tell from satellite photos how these little plants in the ocean are doing, because they turn the water green where they are prevalent. Let's just say that the oceans are still blue. So there is huge capacity in this system to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. I do not know what triggers that system, but obviously something does, because it happens on a regular cycle.

it was global warming that enabled the first great surge in human civilization, at least according to Prof. Steven Mithen, whose After the Ice: A Global Human History 20,000-5,000 BC I've been reading and which I recommend. In it, he writes:

Soon after 20,000 BC global warming began...by 12,000 BC the climate had started to fluctuate, with dramatic surges of warmth and rain followed by sudden returns to cold and drought. Soon after 10,000 BC there was an astonishing spurt of global warming that brought the ice age to its close and ushered in the Holocene world, that in which we live today. It was during these 10,000 years of global warming and its immediate aftermath that the course of human history changed. (4)

 

 With or without fossil fuels, global warming will happen again, but if our ancestors learned how to live with it there's little reason to believe that we can't.

Correction: "The current rise in CO2 concentration began about 1500 years ago."

Make that 15,000 years ago.

When you look at the remedies being proposed by the global warming faithful (you may recognize them because they spell it with an upper-case "G" and "W"), I think that efflorescences of human civilization are exactly what they want to prevent.

A standard Class M planet comes with a limited amount of iron sulfate in its oceans.  Keeps the phytoplankton from booming and turning the whole thing green.  Standard issue, no refunds.

Your graphic makes a very convincing case for the correlation between temperature and CO2.

Here's the Epica ice core data that was referenced in the article pliny cited (click on atmosperic CO2).

I haven't gone through it thoroughly, but it seems to contradict the Vostok ice core data you've reference.

Of course, Neil Stevens upthread has called into question the ice core method anyway.

"No one in Washington gets large grants by saying something isn't a problem. Meanwhile, the $10 billion thrown at climate modeling research in the last 15 years was wasted."

I have heard this narrative before: Climate scientists have invented global warming so that they can get money.

How many people have gotten rich off of climate modeling? When a university researcher gets a grant, he/she must put that money toward research. There are very strict controls in place to make sure that happens. It's not like they get to take that money home and spend it on fancy cars.

The common scenario is that scientists adjust their interests to things that can get funded. It's much easier to do that then to falsify data in order to dupe politicians into appropriating money for your pet field.

The Epica data shows

concentration of CO2 as 184.4ppmv  21676 years ago   

and

CO2 at     265.2ppmv   9067 years ago, with an almost continuous rise in CO2 concentration between the two times.

That seems to correlate quite well with the Vostok ice core data.

a limited amount of iron sulfate in its oceans

Limited (everything is limited) but not invariable. There are holes in the bottom of the sea through which iron sulfate is injected into the oceans. We don't really understand that system very well either. It might be cyclic. It might even be triggered by temperature variations in the atmosphere as the compressive force the atmosphere exerts on the planet changes with density.

My point is, there's a lot going on here that we humans understand only dimly. The religious fervor with which some people are pushing these obviously over-simplistic models of how the world works is suspicious; especially when what they propose as a solution is a board of SmartPeople™ empowered to tell everybody what to do. Those same guys advocate that for every problem we have. They are the force in politics that argues for rule by philospher kings. Here they come again with a "scientific" reason why we need rule by philosopher kings. I call BS.

"...there's a lot going on here that we humans understand only dimly."

That's why I'm inclined towards the cautious approach.  We don't really know how the whole thing works so it's good to let the planet do its thing without interfering too much.  Dumping all this Carbon into the atmosphere is incautious.  We don't know for sure that it won't disturb a balance, we have pretty good indications that it will increase the temperature with negative side effects for us, and we can be certain that man-made CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by the Gigaton has never happened before so we can't be sure the planet has a way of handling the extra carbon that also allows for our continued enjoyment of the place.

Re:  philosopher kings, I've never seen anyone advocate rule by scientists.  What do we have, one president who ever had a science degree?  About a dozen Senators or Reps who are MDs, along with three or four microbiologists/biologists?  Don't be silly.  We're ruled by lawyers.  Scientists don't make policy decisions, ever.  They measure, record, poke and prod and tell us what they've found.  They can also tell us what they expect to happen in the future but its the lawyers who make the decisions about what to do.

You're right. In fact, the BBC article that pliny linked to talks about how Vostok and Dome C data agree with each other. I misread the timescale in the Dome C data. I guess I should keep my day job.

Then I guess the global warming people are saying that the peak we're at now (390-400 ppm) is higher than past ~100,000 year peaks (<300 ppm).

Dumping all this Carbon into the atmosphere is incautious.

The term "all this" is of unknown significance. The amount may be significant to the operation of the planet, or it may not be. Nobody knows.

You advocate caution. OK, for how much longer are humans likely to be doing this? Twenty years? Thirty? Not much more; we'll figure out this fusion thing sooner or later. Thirty years is for sure a nit. These are 90,000-year cycles. How is it "cautious" to turn the world upside down to avoid the effects of thirty more years of something that might not be significant anyway?

Actually it is rather arguable. By people with (I'm assuming) considerably more scientific and climate expertise than you, me, or most people on this blog.

From Science Magazine:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/302/5644/404

""Many papers have referred to a "Medieval Warm Period." But how well defined is climate in this period, and was it as warm as or warmer than it is today? In their Perspective, Bradley et al. review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe. Large changes in precipitation patterns are a particular characteristic of "High Medieval" time. The underlying mechanisms for such changes must be elucidated further to inform the ongoing debate on natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change."

There is this notion among Global Warming skeptics that it is accepted as fact that it was warmer in the 13th century. And the use of the Greenland example is common.

But the premise that it was warmer in one part of the world therefore it was warmer throughout the world is obviously a dubious one.

So, in short, the history is by no means inarguable.

If it get too cold, put your coat on. If it rains, put up an umbrella. Global warming is a theory caused by the industrial revolution allowing per capita productivity to rise suuficiently to permit society to support a bunch of educated idiots who have nothing better to do with their time than sit around postulating theories to secure government grants to allow them to sit around postulating theories which are then embraced by uneducated idiots led by Al "The Dufus" Gore.

let me rephrase it.

It is only arguable by those who ignore the record.

We know crops grew in Northern Europe that cannot grow there today because of the growing season. Ergo, we know temperatures in early medieval Europe were warmer than today unless we are willing to believe some large scale fraud involving the residents of Europe at that period involving falsifying their chronicles and literature and business accounts and dumping an immense amount of residue in their refuse pits just to pimp scientists centuries in the future.

I read your Bradley quote. It runs in contradiction to the art, literature, and artifacts of that time to the extent that it doubts what we otherwise know happened. So I have to assume Bradley is either being misquoted or has made a decision to ignore information from outside his area of expertise -- not an unusual happening when dealing with scientists.

And true, you don't know what you don't know, but when we see the hash made of the climate facts in Europe where we have contemporaneous descriptions of crops that can no longer grow there, how are we supposed to give credence to the same "scientific" method for divining past climate changes in areas such as Australia, Oceania, Sub-Saharan Africa where there are no written accounts, or at least ones that have been discovered.

But even the Bradley citation acknowledges that period was warmer than the 1550-1850 era. So it goes back to my original point. Sure we have climate change. Only a moron could deny it. But to attribute modern climate change to human induced Global Warming when there are equally severe periods of warming and cooling in the past verges on dishonest.

may have improved with the departure of

two previous residents.

No, it hasn't.

It's very cold here in Denver. According to my gas bill, the average temperature last month was two degrees colder than November 2004 (and my gas bill was three times higher!). I believe Ice Age Onset has begun.

Assuming they get tenure, academic scientists have the best job security in the world. There's no need for them to create bogus theories.

"get rich". He said get money.

I'd agree, the scientists don't get rich from grants but they do build a reputation, get famous, teach at a better university, get book deals, hit the lecture circuit, get invited to cool parties all based on their work.

The research driving the money or the money driving the research is a pretty circular argument. For instance, in EPA, an agency I did quite a bit of work for, the politics of the subject drives their grant allocation. No doubt. Global warming, ruminant methane reduction, environmental justice, etc. On the other hand, a lot of the people who decide what causes get grants came out of academia and were really well versed on what were considered cutting edge topics.

Lots of scientists claim their research is important. Are climate scientists are better at making their case than scientists in other fields?

What about the earthquake researchers?

Or the people who that the earth going to get hit by a giant meteorite?

Are these people not as media savvy?

there is sexy research and there is grunt research. Take medicine. You may be the leading authority in sleep apnia but the money is pretty scarce and even if you cure it no one's going to name a School of Medicine after you and you aren't getting a book deal of Lifetime TV movie.

If you want fame then you want a sexy disease. AIDS. Cancer. Currently flu. At one time Sickle Cell Anemia was hot. Not so much anymore.

I suspect earth sciences are the same way. I don't see any federal or foundation sources of funds that are going to help earthquake scientists. Or tsunami prediction. No one cares... until they hit. Climate change has deep pocket foundations, EPA, and Energy throwing grants their way.

You've managed to ignore the central thrust of my post. I'm not arguing about whether it was warmer (or cooler) at different points in previous eras.

That is obviously true.

The point you seem to be ignoring (intentionally or otherwise) is that simply because it may have been warmer in, say, Early Medieval Europe does not in any way mean that other regions or continents, much less the entire globe, was warmer as well.

I asssume you recognize that simply because it's hotter in France does not mean it's cooler in North America, Asia, and/or Africa.

You are attempting to draw a conclusion as to whether there was  or was not Global Warming (emphasis on Global) based on evidence that one region of the globe was warmer (allegedly).

Now, as to whether we as a society have got to a point where we discard current scientific analysis (culled by experienced scientists) based on the accuracy of 14th Century "art, literature, and artifacts" (culled by political bloggers), that raises a whole new set of amusing issues that are reserved for another diary.

1. Well if this is obviously true we have no disagreement.
   
2. Not at all. I merely say considering the crappy job done by climatoligists in defining what we know, and apparently, if your quote of Bradley is correct, deliberately disregarding what we know how can we trust them where there is no written record? We can't.
   
3. Agreed. And...?
   
4. No. My point all along has been a) it's very possible and b) so what? Climate change happens. The issues are 1) is man responsible and 2) can the course of climate change be forecast with anything vaguely resembling accuracy. I say no emphatically in both cases.
   
5. Sure. What do the people who were actually alive at the time know about what crops they grew or the weather compared to the omniscience of "experienced scientists." And herein lies the arrogance and fraud of the Global Warming priesthood.

1. Well if this is obviously true we have no disagreement.

Chuckle. Good effort.

2. I merely say considering the crappy job done by climatoligists in defining what we know, and apparently, if your quote of Bradley is correct, deliberately disregarding what we know how can we trust them where there is no written record? We can't.

"Deliberately disregarding" information that we "know". How do you know this? And how is it that what you claim we "know" is in fact the definitive truth? Your confidence in "data" that was recorded 600 years ago is truly impressive.

Is it your position that there is a greater likelihood that the mathematical, statistical, and scientific recordings of people in the 14th Century is more likely to be accurate than that of scientists in the 21st Century?

Are you really that confident that some monk or some lord or some wizard from the Medieval Times was straight, flat accurate in recording everything that they "know"? Wow.

3. Agreed. And...?

Well, if you agree then you have stipulated that we cannot definitively know that the world was indeed warmer in the Medieval Ages.

4. No. My point all along has been a) it's very possible and b) so what? Climate change happens. The issues are 1) is man responsible and 2) can the course of climate change be forecast with anything vaguely resembling accuracy. I say no emphatically in both cases.

Well, to arrive at your emphatic conclusion, you are basing your conclusion on the much of the very same assumptions that drive the support for the notion of Global Warming.

You see, whether you're looking back 600 years or you're looking forward 200 years, you are inherently relying on a set of assumptions that drive computer modelling and scientific testing.

Apparently, one man's assumptions are another man's emphatic conclusion.

5. What do the people who were actually alive at the time know about what crops they grew or the weather compared to the omniscience of "experienced scientists." And herein lies the arrogance and fraud of the Global Warming priesthood.

The people who were alive at the time thought the world was flat. The people who were alive at the time thought leeches cured diseases. The people who were alive at the time believe the sun and all the planets orbited the earth. And the list goes on.

They, um, got a fair amount of things wrong back then when it comes to issues of science, geography, geology, and health.

It's not clear to me why we, in the 21st Century, should rely on people in the 14th Century for direction in our scientific pursuits.

Lastly, I have to ask, as I've grown more and more curious: are you in the scientific field or have any formal scientific training?

I don't, and do not, for a second, pretend to know the answer to most of these scientific debates. I leave that to the people who have some expertise in the area, let them debate and argue and hash things out, and go from there.

Just curious.

or we'll send you another President. You have your choice--Hillary, Wesley Clark, or Huckabee.

a waste. It's been real and it's been fun but it hasn't been real fun.

But otherwise, I'll pass on any of them.

Out of curiosity, as a former St. Francis county resident, where in AR do you reside (in general terms, if you don't want to give out specifics)?

My sentiments exactly.  To those banging on the Doomsday Drum, I say "Adapt or die; if you won't adapt, you die."

The same people making these predictions I'll guarantee are sitting in cozy air-conditioned offices or riding in noisy airplanes on their next trip to one of the big MSM studios or fundraiser parties to make their next speech.  If they're asking me to give up my automobile and oil heater in favor of a horse and buggy, I want to see [i]them[/i] do it first.  Of course, they won't...

Cheer up, Streiff! Don't let these thigns get you down.

All this banter is just blogging. Not to be taken too seriously.

We're just a couple of guys (or girls) arguing about a bunch of stuff we kind of, maybe, possibly know something about. But probably not really.

I'm assuming neither of us are scientists or have any real scientific training. So it's not like either of us particularly know what we're talking about.

So we're just shouting in the wind, and having some fun.

It's all good.

About an hour east of Texarkana.