More commentary from my favorite climate contrarian! I’ll put
Schn00dles’ remarks in italics and my comments following. He’s referring to this post.
Hi Dan. Let me say before starting, that being a contrarian (or a brake) is not as fun as it might be supposed. The information and the graphs are all made available in handy publicity forms for the people who sign on to the current public band wagon. Disagreeing responsibly takes some diligence. Thank goodness this discussion is taking place in internet times. Otherwise, building a rebuttal of current hysteria would be a real tough task. So, to begin.
Surely CO2 can serve to trap heat in the atmosphere, but as Dan’s study shows, so do many other molecules and particles. And surely the sun is the biggest provider of heat. One study does not the earth shake. And I doubt if you had the climate science to disprove this study, you would win a Nobel. Generally, negative studies are not selected for publication, or grants. Moreover, few scientists want to dedicate their lives following around other scientists in order to disprove their findings. Plus, billions of dollars have been spent to find a positive relationship between C02 levels and global warming. With several billion dollars in research grants I could probably find the bones of Adam and Eve.
In other words, you’ve got nothing to contradict the research finding that CO2 is the main driver generating global warming. If you think the entire world’s climate science community was unable or unwilling to fairly examine the CO2 evidence in peer review and study replication, and that they’ve been unwilling to do so for decades, and they’ve managed to hide that fact even though it’s all published in plain sight, then you truly fit the quote about conspiracy theorists. By the way, there is much more than one study on CO2. If you want more references, there are plenty here on the IPCC pages.
As for the second point, I believe Dan is cleaning up the historical record in hindsight. Check out this fun snippet from 1972:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4JX1S9YZBo
This supports exactly what I said: there were reports in the popular press but little in science press and journals. To refute what I said, you need to show that a significant fraction of the climate science community was predicting global cooling. (Spoiler alert: it wasn’t.)
For the third point, you have to ask, “Gee, why does it stop at 650,000 years ago?” Well, the final graph is quite instructive. If you look at C02 levels, proceeding back in time, they began to rise enormously about a million years ago – all accomplished without the benefit of modern industrial techniques.
That’s right. No one is claiming that the only possible source of CO2 in the entire history of the world is modern industry.
Now look at what the climate was like during these periods.
(My graphs aren’t showing. But what it indicates is that we have been in an ice age for the past 3 million years approximately.)
Shocking but true. High CO2 and ice coexisted in the deep past. How could this happen? One example: if volcanic activity clouded the entire atmosphere of the planet, you could get high levels of CO2 along with high albedo — increased reflection of sunlight from the earth — and that lack of sun causes cold. (One of the wilder plans to stop warming is to pump tons of reflective material high into the atmosphere.) But the situation today is different than three million years ago. Today the preponderance of evidence shows increasing CO2 to be the major driver of warming.
Finally, I’m very glad that Dan brought up the current legislation surrounding second hand smoke. The science of second hand smoke hazard has been very well debunked:http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/secondhand-smoke-charade
But still we are stuck with the hysterical legislation which ensued.
Well, not many people like to breath second hand smoke anyway.
Really? A 1998 editorial by the Cato Institute? Well that sure trumps the current findings of the World Health Organization, the National Institute of Health, the CDC, the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Cancer Institute, the EPA, the American Heart Association, American Lung Association, America Medical Association, etc. etc. etc.
But when you make C02 a “pollutant” as defined by a federal agency… how would you feel about not being allowed to breath unless 50 feet from the entrance of any public building? Or, more realistically, about some bureaucrat determining your level of energy usage – entirely on the basis of their bureaucratic whim? E.g. No outdoor bbq? Drive less than 10 miles per day? Closure of important industries, and on and on…?
Global warming cynics are not your enemy here, friends.
I’m not going to argue policy with you. I might agree with you on some of that stuff. My only points here are that global warming is happening and that CO2 is the major driver. If you deny these things because of policy concerns, it’s a kind of “tail wagging the dog” scenario.