RoR: Forum

I have reached my limits with these irresponsible alarmists to the point where I just "Unfriended" two NCSSM classmates who ought to know better for their negative snide remarks about this link on my Facebook Wall. "Self-sacrifice as a virtue" is a pernicious and pervasive attitude that undoubtedly drives these Chicken Littles to preach to us to curtail industrialization and comfort. I have no interest in others' attempts to force me to wear their hairshirts based on secular versions of the apocalypse!

Post 1

Thursday, July 28, 2011 - 12:24pm

Most of those who are preaching self-sacrifice aren't doing it out of virtue... They have a major ego investment in feeling like they are one of the elite, that they are being politically correct, and they want their group to control everyone and to recognize how smart they are.

The chicken-little and self-sacrifice stuff is just what they feel is the most effective rhetorical pry-bar to move others to their side. Without logic and reason, they usually deliver their arguments cast as sarcasm and ridicule. Those are forms that feel more frightening to people who value the opinions of others above what their own minds might tell them.

Progressives always attempt to steal the moral high ground (with a lie), then to use scare tactics (with a lie). The goal is always control (that's why they have to lie... they can't tell you what their real goal is).

Along the way the progressives pick up supporters who may not be progressives at all, but will adopt some progressive positions because everyone else has adopted it - out of the fear of standing alone, or it seems like a game where that is the winning side.

When I see someone talking about global warming, I wonder if they are just another useful idiot in the loyal supporters herd, or are they more deeply attuned to seeing an elite group gain more control and like the way environmental causes have lots of cover, a strong facade of moral standing, and works well to scare the ignorant?

The progressives were brilliant in generating environmentalism as early as they did and keeping its purpose under the radar of libertarians and conservatives for as long as they did - decades and decades of the colleges and universities making it look like fighting for global governance to 'save' the planet was a righteous crusade that no one could object to. Cap and Trade would have been a giant cash-in for all of that long effort - it would have spread to other nations, come under the auspices of global organizations, provided direct taxation that pulled from the those who produced and sent to those who didn't, and transferred control to an elite. Al Gore, Hillary and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama could have drawn straws to see who would be in charge of planet earth.

Post 2

Thursday, July 28, 2011 - 5:20pm

It is always fun to psychologize about our enemies, but if you want to actually be informed, you should read the paper. I found it pretty dense. I understand feedback from working with servos, but that is all. So, I relied on the plain text and could not judge whether the data presented and modeled actually support the hypothesis. (I have found peer-reviewed papers that were flawed like that, leaving me wondering how "reviewed" they actually were.) In any case, the upshot here is that the UN IPCC models are incomplete and the bottom line is "we don't know." That is not to dismiss AGW (anthropogenic global warming).

Those are two or more questions: Does AGW exist? and What should we (who? you or I?) do about it. Myself, I considered forming the Michigan Citrus Growers Association.

It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.

In simple terms, radiative changes resulting from temperature change (feedback) cannot be easily disentangled from those causing a temperature change (forcing).

[A]ll of the IPCC models therefore exhibit net positive feedbacks. Also, since all climate models have net feedback parameters greater than zero, none of the climate models are inherently unstable to perturbations.

Note that the differences ... exist not just at zero time lag, which is where feedback estimates from these regression coefficients have previously been made, but for several months when radiative flux leads and lags temperature. Also, note the change in sign of the radiative imbalances ... depending upon whether radiation leads or lags temperature. As we will see, this behavior gives us clues about the relative roles of forcing versus feedback in the data.

[W]e are still faced with a rather large discrepancy in the time-lagged regression coefficients between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in satellite data versus the climate models. While this discrepancy is nominally in the direction of lower climate sensitivity of the real climate system, there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult.

We hypothesize that changes in the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation during the El Ni�o and La Ni�a phases of ENSO [El Ni�o/Southern Oscillation] cause differing changes in cloud cover, which then modulate the radiative balance of the climate system. ... [F]or the ocean-only data, the signature of radiative forcing is stronger over the oceans than in the global average, suggesting a primarily oceanic origin.

Post 3

Thursday, July 28, 2011 - 5:45pm

Michael writes, "It is always fun to psychologize our enemies..."

Well, if AGW is correct, then why are is he calling its supporters "our enemies"?

Being that Michael is an anarchist it makes it hard to understand what enemies he and I share in the political arena. Anarchy and totalitarianism both put the initiation of violence into the economic market. I'm not comfortable with either variation on rights violations.
----------

He goes on to say, "...but if you want to actually be informed, you should..."

Michael, I am informed about what I wrote, and it's critical for Objectivists to understand the tactics of the Progressives (which was the subject of my post). I don't need condescending posts like yours where you try to reduce what I've written to "psychologizing."

Post 4

Thursday, July 28, 2011 - 6:37pm

Mike,

*****************
I relied on the plain text and could not judge whether the data presented and modeled actually support the hypothesis.
*****************

Take a look at Figure 3, which graphs the radiative energy (gains and losses) recorded over time on top of high-point and low-point temperature recordings. What you see is that, observationally, there is a both a lot of radiative energy gained before a temperature maximum, and a lot of radiative energy lost after a temperature maximum. By "a lot" I mean that it is a lot more than climate change models predict.

Climate change models predict that only a little bit of radiative energy will take us to temperature maximums, and that this radiative energy will stick around for a long time after a temperature maximum. This is called the "Greenhouse Effect" -- when radiative energy sticks around because of an atmospheric "ceiling" trapping it in.

Now that we know that the scientific models don't match reality (don't match observations), how can we explain the observations? That's easy: If radiative energy is something that gets lost into space almost as fast as you build it up, then you will get the twin-observations discovered from satellite data:

1) an awful lot of radiative energy is required to raise temperatures (just like an awful lot of water is required to fill a bucket with a hole in it)
2) an awful lot of this radiative energy won't stick around to cause further trouble (because it will be lost fast)

Another way to say this is that the Greenhouse Effect itself is not even a good theory to base predictions on (i.e., it doesn't correspond well to reality).

Ed

p.s. A direct measurement of a Greenhouse Effect would be heat trapped at 8-10 km above the surface of the earth. A reference point would be surface temperature. If a Greenhouse Effect occurs, the temperature will consistently rise faster and farther at 8-10km up than it will on the surface. To my knowledge, no scientific study has ever proven -- using the direct measurement just outlined -- that a Greenhouse Effect has consistently occurred on planet Earth. I've never seen science showing temperatures at 8-10km up consistently rising faster or farther than surface temperatures.

The whole "global warming" theory is predicated on a Greenhouse Effect which, itself, has never been proven.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/28, 6:57pm)

Post 5

Thursday, July 28, 2011 - 7:42pm

"The whole "global warming" theory is predicated on a Greenhouse Effect which, itself, has never been proven."

And I would be very surprised if the the use of the Greenhouse Effect wasn't applied to AGW as the way to achieve political success in moving more towards global governance, government control over industry, and redistribution of wealth (nationally and globally) - plus lots of new opportunities for graft.

Post 6

Saturday, July 30, 2011 - 12:41pm

The AGW camp has posted a rebuttal here for anyone who cares.

Just to be clear, I share the link in case anyone wants to rebut the rebuttal, not because I support the rebuttal.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/30, 12:57pm)

Post 7

Saturday, July 30, 2011 - 5:38pm

I'll make a start at it, Luke.

Trenberth & Fasullo (RealClimate) say this:

************
The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text.
************

Okay, normally this would be a good criticism of a scientific study, specifically one involving empirical investigation. This study, though, was not so much about investigation as it was about math. The authors simply took pre-existing data and used math in order to determine the relation of the data to observations. Here is an easy example:

Let's say that you are trying to find the relation of 2 number series:

N = (N-1) x 2

and

N = (N-1) x 4

Starting with an N of 2.

Here is how the first series looks:
2, 4, 8, 16, etc

And here is how the second series looks:
2, 8, 32, 128, etc

And let's say you are trying to figure out how they relate to one another. Let's say you are trying to find a coefficient of regression between them. Let's say you find it. Let's say that you discover the numerical relationship between these 2 number series. Imagine the illegitimacy of some chump coming along and saying:

"But you don't have error bars or uncertainties!"

Mathematical relationships, such as the example above, do not have "uncertainties." Once you find the mathematical relationship between the 2 number series, that's it and that's all. There is no more investigation. There is no more discussion. You have your regression coefficient, and you are done.

Of course, if you take from sources which do not agree with one another, then you introduce uncertainty. But it is perfectly acceptable to state outright that one data source regressed against another leads to one regression coefficient (without any mention of uncertainty).

The Spencer & Braswell (Remote Sensing) paper stated the sources outright, so this criticism by Trenberth & Fasullo is insufficient.

Ed

Post 8

Saturday, July 30, 2011 - 5:48pm

Let me expand on that point.

Let's say there's a record of kids that went to a certain high school between 1990 and 2010. Let's say that there were 19,001 kids who went to that school in that time period.

Let's say you are trying to discover the relationship of height to the probability of being on the basketball team. You notice that kids under 5 feet tall never made the team, that 10% of kids between 5 and 5 1/2 feet made the team, that 20% of kids between 5 1/2 and 6 feet made the team, and that a full 40% of kids over 6 feet tall made the team.

You will have all the numbers, all of the heights, and the basketball roster for all of the years. You will come up with a regression coefficient for height against basketball playing for that 20-year time period in that school. It will be one specific number.

And it will not have "uncertainties."

Ed

p.s. But if you want to extrapolate from your closed data set -- if you want to make inductive (predictive) inference -- then you will introduce uncertainty, and statistics comes into play.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/30, 6:21pm)

Post 9

Saturday, July 30, 2011 - 5:57pm

Thanks, Ed. I have noticed a strong degree of "intellectual bullying" among the well-trained elite regarding their support of AGW. I appreciate your stab at their bloated egos.

Post 10

Sunday, July 31, 2011 - 2:45pm

The glaring problem with AGW and their models, uncalibrated or not, is that the physics of the greenhouse effect demands, if that is what is driving GW, then when the blanketing greenhouse layer traps the long wave radiation, it does so in the thermal mass that is that blanket; no matter if it is H20 or H20 driven by CO2 in some yet uncalibrated effect, the required signature is an increase in temperature trends at and around 10km.

If long term GW is drvien primarily by solar variability, then the physics says that we should see the trends mostly at the surface.

So, what do multiple independent data sets(weather balloon and temperature inferred from satellite sounder data)indicate, as far as heating trends?

No observed heating trends at mid altitudes -- where the greenhouse thermal blanket does its blanket trapping of long wave radiation. The GW trends are prediminately surface effects, which lean towards solar variability as the long term driver...which is further confirmed by long term observations of the polar caps on Mars.

As well, there is one more problem with CO2 as primary driver; it has never been shown to be the primary driver in the historical record, whether from massive past events of atmospheriuc loading from volcanic action or any other record. This leaves the AGW argument based on uncalibrated claims that man's loading is a new, never been experienced regime in the history of CO2-- as if massively larget step inputs from widespread volcanic activity did not lead to runaway GW in the past, but lower rates of laoding from mankind and his carbonated Coke cans with the green Polar Bears was kicking the atmosphere into a whole new regime of greenhouse global warming.

Well, there needs to be evidence of increased greenhouse effect -- temperatures at altitude -- before this has any credibility. The data points only to solar variability.

We know there has to be an enormous stabilizing effect in the atmosphere, because H20 dominates as a greenhouse gas; the oceans would provide an infinite amount of H20 to drive an ever warmer, and hence ever more moist atmosphere if H20 driven greenhouse effect had unstable feedback. But from observations of earth full disk imagery, earth's albedo, of which cloud cover is a major determinant, is incredibly stable over a very narrow range. If it was not, then solar loading on the earth would vary drastically, because albedo is a direct term, not a fringe or indirect term. A 5% change in albeda has the same impact as a 5% change in solar output would.

What keeps earth's albedo so constant over such a narrow range? (We could muck with this, with particulates, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, nuclear exchanges and widespread fires, etc... and even all of that step loading is resiliently tolerated...but none of that is CO2.)

This stabilizing feedback, if it dominated massively buffered H20 in our ocean/atmospheric system, for sure dominates the contributions of fringe CO2, way down in the noise. The counter to that is only hand waving 'what if' arguments that are nowhere calibrated by actual experience. The only place that CO2 dominates H20 as a greenhouse gas is in the tweaked and uncalibrated computer models of folks fishing for funding, abusable by politicos like Gore whose entire credentials consist of he once took a single semester survey course at Harvard.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/31, 2:46pm)

Post 11

Sunday, July 31, 2011 - 3:05pm

Roy Spencer's website helps tell the story.

Source:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

***********************
It is well known that most of that warming is NOT due to the direct warming effect of the CO2 by itself, which is relatively weak. It is instead due to indirect effects (positive feedbacks) that amplify the small amount of direct warming from the CO2. The most important warmth-amplifying feedbacks in climate models are clouds and water vapor.
***********************

Recap:
Emitted CO2 hardly warms the earth at all, but clouds and water vapor are supposed to provide the positive feedback necessary to amplify the effects of emitted CO2 (in order to warm the earth by a meaningful amount).

***********************
... all twenty climate models tracked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now suggest cloud feedbacks are positive (warmth-amplifying) rather than negative (warmth-reducing).
***********************

Recap:
All IPCC scientists make the same basic assumption that clouds cause warming (positive feedback).

***********************
Imagine you are out in space, observing the Earth, and feeling the radiant energy it gives off from sunlight reflected off of clouds and from the infrared (heat) radiation it emits in proportion to its temperature.

Now imagine that the Earth�s surface and atmosphere suddenly warm by 1 deg. C, everywhere. In this case the Earth would immediately give off an extra 3.3 Watts per square meter of infrared energy (just as a hot stovetop element gives off more infrared energy than a warm one).

This example represents the �no feedback� case�only the temperature has changed in the system, resulting in extra infrared energy being given off, at a rate of 3.3 Watts per square meter for every degree C of temperature increase. But in the real world, any source of warming (or cooling) causes other changes in clouds, water vapor, etc., to occur. These can cause extra warming if they either increase the amount of absorbed sunlight (e.g. fewer low clouds), or reduce the rate of infrared radiation to outer space (e.g. more water vapor, our main greenhouse gas). These warmth-amplifying changes are called positive feedbacks.

Alternatively, cloud and water vapor changes could decrease the amount of absorbed sunlight or increase the amount of emitted infrared energy, thus reducing the warming. This is called negative feedback.

That number (3.3) thus represents the magic boundary between positive and negative feedback. If satellites measure more than 3.3 Watts per square meter given off by the Earth per degree of global warming, that is evidence of negative feedback. If the number is less than 3.3, that is positive feedback.
***********************

Recap:
If satellites measure more than 3.3 Watts per square meter per degree Celsius temperature increase, then negative feedback occurred -- either from lower absorption of sunlight to the earth, or from higher emission of infrared (radiant) energy from the earth (to outer space).

Fun fact:
Getting more than 3.3 Watts per square meter per degree Celsius temperature increase would disprove all IPCC climate models.

***********************
The 20 climate models tracked by the IPCC have feedbacks ranging from about 0.9 to 1.9 (all corresponding to positive feedback since they are less than 3.3).
***********************

Fun Fact:
Getting more than 1.9 Watts per square meter per degree Celsius temperature increase would disprove all IPCC models.

***********************
When low cloud cover is observed to decrease with warming, is the cloud change the result of the warming, or is the warming the result of the cloud change?
***********************

***********************
Decreasing low cloud cover caused by warming would be a positive feedback, since it would let more sunlight in. But what if, say, a change in atmospheric circulation patterns caused the decrease in low cloud cover? In that case, warming would be the �effect�, rather than the �cause�. And as we shall see, this can give the illusion of positive feedback � even when negative feedback really exists.
***********************

Recap:
Decreased "low cloud cover" lets more sunlight in, which -- if caused by initial warming -- would be a positive feedback. If, however, the decreased low cloud cover is what it is that initiated the warming in the first place, then feedback "looks" positive, even if it is not.

***********************
For instance, if the Earth warms by 1 deg C and our satellites measure only 1 watt per square meter of extra radiant energy being given off, since that is less than the magic 3.3 value we might be tempted to say that strong positive feedback is the cause. But this assumes the change in radiant energy is the RESULT of the warming.
***********************

Fun Fact:
Getting only 1.0 Watts per square meter per degree Celsius temperature increase could disprove all IPCC climate models, if the warming was actually a result of the change in the radiant energy (rather than the cause of that change).

Ed

Source:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/31, 3:40pm)

Post 12

Sunday, July 31, 2011 - 3:35pm

And the "finale":

*********************
The slopes of the striations seen in the right panels of Fig. 4 (relative to atmospheric temperature) correspond to strongly negative feedback: around 6 Watts per square meter per degree K of temperature change (6 W m-2 K-1). In fact, even though we expect feedbacks diagnosed from the data to be biased toward zero, here the lines fitted to all the data have slopes actually approaching that value: 6 W m-2 K-1. Translated into a global warming estimate, a feedback of 6 W m-2 K-1 would correspond to a rather trivial 0.6 deg. C of warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
*********************

Recap:
If you take enough care to match your climate model to satellite data, then you get a model that predicts about 0.6 degrees C of warming for every doubling of atmospheric CO2.

This is notably different from the estimates you get if you do not take sufficient care to match your climate model to satellite data, such as is the case with IPCC:

*********************
Statistical estimates of model response uncertainty, based on observations of recent climate change, admit climate sensitivities--defined as the equilibrium response of global mean temperature to doubling levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide--substantially greater than 5 K. But such strong responses are not used in ranges for future climate change because they have not been seen in general circulation models. Here we present results from the 'climateprediction.net' experiment, the first multi-thousand-member grand ensemble of simulations using a general circulation model and thereby explicitly resolving regional details. We find model versions as realistic as other state-of-the-art climate models but with climate sensitivities ranging from less than 2 K to more than 11 K.
*********************
--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15674288

*********************
The commonly accepted range for the equilibrium global mean temperature change in response to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, termed climate sensitivity, is 1.5-4.5 K (ref. 2). A number of observational studies, however, find a substantial probability of significantly higher sensitivities, yielding upper limits on climate sensitivity of 7.7 K to above 9 K (refs 3-8). ...

After accounting for the uncertainty in reconstructions and estimates of past external forcing, we find an independent estimate of climate sensitivity that is very similar to those from instrumental data. If the latter are combined with the result from all proxy reconstructions, then the 5-95 per cent range shrinks to 1.5-6.2 K, thus substantially reducing the probability of very high climate sensitivity.
*********************
--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16625192

*********************
A recent synthesis suggests that the increase in global-mean surface temperature in response to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, termed 'climate sensitivity', is between 1.5 and 6.2 degrees C (5-95 per cent likelihood range), but some evidence is inconsistent with this range. ...

Our estimates are broadly consistent with estimates based on short-term climate records, and indicate that a weak radiative forcing by carbon dioxide is highly unlikely on multi-million-year timescales. We conclude that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 degrees C has probably been a robust feature of the Earth's climate system over the past 420 million years, regardless of temporal scaling.
*********************
--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17392784

*********************
In response to a doubling of CO(2), the radiative effect of CO(2) causes mean surface air temperature over land to increase by 2.86 +/- 0.02 K (+/- 1 standard error), whereas the physiological effects of CO(2) on land plants alone causes air temperature over land to increase by 0.42 +/- 0.02 K. Combined, these two effects cause a land surface warming of 3.33 +/- 0.03 K.
*********************
--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20445083

With the notable exception of:

*********************
A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01-0.03 degrees C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO(2). Through a further review of related studies and facts from disciplines like biology and geology, where CO(2)-change is viewed from a different perspective, it is suggested that CO(2)-change is not necessarily always a negative factor for the environment. In fact it is shown that CO(2)-increase has stimulated the growth of plants, while the CO(2)-change history has altered the physiology of plants. Moreover, data from palaeoclimatology show that the CO(2)-content in the atmosphere is at a minimum in this geological aeon. Finally it is stressed that the understanding of the functioning of Earth's complex climate system (especially for water, solar radiation and so forth) is still poor and, hence, scientific knowledge is not at a level to give definite and precise answers for the causes of global warming.
*********************
--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18760479

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/31, 3:36pm)

Post 13

Monday, August 1, 2011 - 5:10am

I have seen people criticize Dr. Roy Spencer by claiming that he corrupts scientific objectivity by accepting funding from corporations with an interest in refuting AGW. This is a little like saying that defense lawyers corrupt objectivity by accepting funding from clients. Of course Spencer will mount an appropriate argument to defend his claims. Certainly enough government scientists have similar motives to achieve opposite results. So do prosecutors. What gives?

In terms of "convicting" AGW, I think we have too many overpaid (and overzealous) prosecutors and too few underpaid defense attorneys!

Post 14

Monday, August 1, 2011 - 8:48am

Years ago, I did my undergraduate thesis work for the head of GFDL at Princeton(we share the same birthday, I found out, on my birthday), calibrating mean turbulent field closure models applied to atmospheric modeling. I understand how atmospheric models are calibrated: barely, with difficulty. I don't think that has much changed.

Short term predictive weather models are every day ground truth calibratable, as the truth of today's weather inevitably rolls in every single day. Even so, state of the evolving art is barely 10 days at increasing levels of uncertainty. Longer term predictive schemes based purely on past/known cycle analysis are also possible, but are much more general, less locally specific, in their predictions, and are useful mainly for likely trends, with large uncertainties.

The practical result is 'spaghetti plot' look ahead of ensemble(ie, multiple model runs with tweaked unknown input parameterization) model data output, of competing models, none of which clearly dominates based on track record.

What I don't understand is, how is it fundamentally possible to calibrate _climate_ models? It is not. That means...they are not only uncalibrated, but not calibratable.

What I do understand is, all these complex models are tweakable; in fact, must be tweaked.

But, what are tweaks without the discipline of feedback via calibration? They are untested hypotheticals.

If we cherry pick the ensemble results for the alarming use cases, we can make political hay/get political attention/garner add'l funding for further study. If abusable politically, the polit sci folks will, in a heartbeat, glom onto the ensemble results that are most usable/aligned with their agenda. That isn't science, but it is political science.

I think, mostly, abusable for political arguments. Leg lifting. In this case, literally, leg lifting over the commerce of others.

It is transparent and unsightly.

Post 15

Monday, August 1, 2011 - 1:38pm

Very well said, Fred. (I like the way that rhymes :-)

Those in the scientific arena who want to do science will lose interest in the climate models when they see the limitations imposed by not being able to calibrate them. In contrast, those who want to use 'science' to attain political ends will gravitate towards the models (because they can't be calibrated to reality).

You hit the nail quite squarely in asking what, without feedback data, is the tweak being used for? It's not steering the model towards reality as revealed by new data like short-term weather models... then what is guiding that tweak? If someone were to summarize all of the tweaks applied over time in a graphical way, the motivation of the tweakers would become embarrassingly obvious. Oh, wait, that exposure has already happened, hasn't it? The emails.

Post 16

Thursday, August 4, 2011 - 2:58pm

Wider Window on Changes in Arctic Sea Ice

Post 17

Thursday, August 4, 2011 - 3:54pm

An interesting point from Stephen's link:

********************************
... for about 3,000 years, during a period called the Holocene Climate Optimum, there was more open water and far less ice than today - probably less than 50% of the minimum Arctic sea ice recorded in 2007.
********************************

Also, Roy Spencer was on TV recently, and he said that man-made global warming might increase the temperature of the earth by 1 degree Celsius in one hundred years from now.

He added that that would not be much of a problem (certainly not enough of a problem to justify any legislation, such as Cap & Trade legislation), and that we would likely have moved toward more use of alternative energy sources by then.

Ed

Post 18

Sunday, August 7, 2011 - 1:41pm

Every single one of the six people with whom I exchanged a Facebook "Unfriend" over this flap came from NCSSM. One has to wonder for what purposes the state grooms these "elites" when they cling to views like this one. The social pressure on 16-18 year old students to conform to certain views even at a "non-traditional" high school can be incredible. The AGW proponents usually do enough homework and have enough "public master debating skills" to beat the daylights out of the dissenters. Bleh!

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 8/07, 1:42pm)

Post 19

Monday, August 15, 2011 - 6:05am