He's John Boehner - Explains the lack of coherence and cognition.

I think it is important to understand that, in their world, Boehner makes perfect sense. Repuglicans truly seem to live in the "making their own reality" world that Rove bragged about to Suskind in the classic "reality-based community" discussion. Which means there is truly no way to have a productive dialogue with the party - they are pretty much all delusional. Or captive to the delusional.

Hey, it's true that we exhale carbon dioxide. Are you some kind of commie-homo-fascist-illegal-immigrant?

"carbon dioxide is a carcinogen"

Seriously?

o
o

Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide.

Boehner could do us all a favor and exhale less. Of course, that might have toxic results, but hey...

While it isn't necessary (or even a good thing) that every Congressman be an intellectual, it is necessary for that each delegation in the house and senate have a few of them around and a modicum of respect for the concept of educated opinion. The Republican leadership is stacked with ignoramuses. They're going to be a burden to their party and their country for years to come. They could even destroy the Republicans as a national party.

And in Boehner's remarks you have the embodiment of all that is wrong with the Republican party. They are ignorant, they lack curiosity,they embrace barnyard humor as truth, and they proud of all of it.

Steve there are two stories this morning that involve Democrats. They are both huge. One is the allegation that Jane Harmon cut a deal with an Israeli spy for help in lobbying Nancy Pelosi, and the other involves President Obama's decision to let all the Bush era war criminals skate. Lots of progressives are outraged.

I know neither involves the braying of some Republican stooge, but both are important. Could you cover one of them, please.

Hearing Boehner talk about cow farts is all kinds of awesome.

We'll lock that fuckwit in a sealed room and see how long it takes him to be "impacted" by CO2 .
As our Pesident said : " You know its like they take pride in being ignorant"

If only St Ronny were still alive to learn it is not only trees in the Great Smokies which cause our problems.

Well, Steve has covered the Rahm statement in "not looking back", now, onward to Jane "Saddam kicked out the inspectors" Harmon. In addition, Gonzo using the wiretaps as J Edgar did to "influence" politicos in addition to Ms AIPAC Harmon being in cahoots with foreign intelligence agents, instead of representing our nation. Needs to be some real house cleaning in the House and protests at 1600.

Is there anything they can't screw up?

Ruminants are a significant part of the problem, but it's methane, not carbon dioxide that they produce, and it's mostly burped out.

Yes, Boehner makes a great case, by his recent utterance, for the blame the voters in his district campaign! -Kevo

I'm still waiting for the evidence for global warming. CO2 has no connection with the temperature (not that something like the "global temperature" or a "global climate" even exists). Ice shelves are growing. Polar bears are actually multiplying like crazy (populations only increase when the conditions are good.)

All the "global warming" hype is based on climate models that have proven to be extremely unreliable. Not to mention that the IPCC is not a scientific forum and some 80% of all IPCC members have no connection to the climate in their field of work (it's like hiring a professional violinist to perform neuro surgery.)

So where's the evidence? Al Gore's silly movie? Al Gore is no scientist. Al Gore is just full of hot air.

Bring me evidence that global warming exists. Actual, hard evidence. To bad, there is none.

SMorgan,

Right on! As John Boehner keeps saying, the solution to all our problems is tax cuts! That will alleviate the crop failures, catastrophic weather events, and flooding that global warming will produce.

This reminds me of multiple choice tests of the past where two comments were presented and one had to decide their veracity and whether they were related.

Regarding global warming and CO2 emissions Boehner pulled a true true but unrelated gambit.

That CO2 is increasing and that some if not most of this is from human activities is true.

That CO2 is not a carcinogen is also true.

But they are unrelated. The effects of CO2 and global warming are considerable and require attention.

The CO2 comment is garbage.

Takekaze, are you writing an elaborate parody, or are you just as stupid as a box of rocks?

What is this Kool-aid drinkers anonymous around here. Ya'll are biggest bunch of uneducated, misinfored malcontents around. The science around carbon dioxide is quite clear. It's produced more by nature then we as humans could ever really affect. The effort to regulate carbon dioxide is nothing more than a large ponzi scheme so that government can implement another tax scheme and mold human behavior.

You speak of republicans as ignorant. In reality, you demo-libs are the most uneducated of the bunch when it comes to climate change and human impact. You swallow and believe any old report that's popped out by the UN's climate change organization and left/government-funded studies research and assembled by environmentalists who are interested more in getting the next government grant.

This article and the subsequent comments are great for laugh. All of you are a joke to the human species. Please don't reproduce any more than you have already, and please stop getting involved in politics and government. You're clearly screwing it up for the rest of us.

Boehner replied: "The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. . ." And it is. Of course, no one has implied that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen, but, watch now, this riduculous claim will morph into, ". . .Leftist whackos say carbon dioxide is a carcinogen." His wording, I suspect, was NOT a slip-of-the-tongue.

To Boner and takekaze-Beauty is only skin deep but stupid goes right to the bone.
These dillweeds wouldn't believe the sky is blue if they were looking right at it.

NOTE TO READERS!
Please remember not to feed the trolls.

While it's normal to feel an impulse to supply them with reason, evidence and data, our research has shown conclusively that feeding trolls simply intensifies their behavior, as it fulfills their craving for attention and their delight in getting sensible people upset.

Remember, then: PLEASE do not feed the trolls!

Crazyfortheblue:

First point: a carcinogen is a substance known to cause cancer. No one has indicated that CO2 causes cancer. So, Boehner is not only trying to knock down a ridiculous straw man, but he also is revealing is scientific ignorance. It's a classic right-wing technique, but you already know that.

I'm curious. I assume, since you believe that you know more than scientific experts, that you believe that the earth is flat, you never consult a doctor, and you avoid all technology. But wait, how did you post your nonsensical screed above? Hmmm...

Klaatu? Gort? Got a little job for you.

Takekaze, since you asked, and couldn't be bothered to google it, the evidence is here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

You'll find a list of references at the end. Once you've read them, come back on the internet.

Someone needs to give Boehner a prescription for tylenol3 and tell him to take 100 at a time. After all, the idea that something beneficial could also be harmful is almost comical.

I watched This Week and nearly snorted out my coffee when I heard Boehner talk. Damn these guys are all kinds of funny, too bad it's only the future of all humanity that's at stake.

When pressed by Stephanopoulos, Boehner went on to say that we'll all see a 'proposal' addressing the climate issue just like the alternative 'proposals' the GOP gave to the budget and stimulus bill. So I guess we can expect another 19 page pamphlet with no numbers, no scientific data, and a cool flow chart with cows and humans in one box, tax cuts in another box, and a rainbow in the final box.

But seriously, listening to the GOP talk about health care and energy lately, it's clear they are MORE than happy with the status quo.

"The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know when they do what they do you've got more carbon dioxide."

Agreed. It IS comical. As ROF first said, CO2 is not a carcinogen and it would be comical to suggest such.

I suspect what Boehner was talking about with teh cows was flatulence. He's not yet digested that the concern about cow toots is that they are ripe with METHANE which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

More comical STILL is that John is trying to school US in science. As I recall it was a Republican who tried to break down technology by explaining to us that the internets were a series of TUBES!

Try to understand, John. There are LOTS of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is just one of them. Can someone get him an aspirin? He's going to need it.

Speaking of comical: "the overwhelming scientific consensus that carbon dioxide is contributing to climate change"...

Overwhelming? On what planet?

Global Warming and Climate Change in Perspective: Truths and Myths About Carbon Dioxide, Scientific Consensus, and Climate Models

Statement to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University, made on February 25, 2009

We don't know whether global warming exists, but it's been fully documented that bovine methane production outstrips fossil fuel emissions as a potential threat.

Will the Dems' failure to recognize this lose them 100-200 seats in 2010?

I'm not sure that Boner doesn't understand the debate as much as he is paying fealty to his true constituents - the oil, gas and energy companies that contribute heavily to his party. The fact that he and others would be so willingly obtuse to a scientific reality shows us what a depraved state the GOP is in.

There are lots of greenhouse gases, but what makes this funny is that it is the liberal greenies that are the ones that have already been trying to regulate the amounts of cow farts.

The point is that the "Science" behind global warming is crumbling. Just as the scientist that once supported the science are running away from it. All predictions have shown false to date and trends from collected data are showing the opposite effects. Its only a matter of time before the whole racket collapses.

Try this website you may be surprised by YOUR lack of scientific backing:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

I wish the global warming deniers had applied the same degree of skepticism to the "evidence" for WMD in Iraq.

But the bottom line going forward is simple: What are we being asked to do the help mitigate climate change? Not to eat thumbtacks, but to conserve energy.

This is something we should do anyway for a dozen other good reasons that have nothing to do with global warming.

What the heck is the argument AGAINST conserving energy?

So, 3 feet of snow in denver. You idiots have nothing. Man made global warming is a load of crap, made up bullshit to pass laws to restrict freedom. Shut the hell up!

Ice shelves are growing.

Umm, except that they're not. In small isolated instances, some (note the qualifier, takekaza) ice shelfs have grown in the Antarctic, while a majority of others in that region, and almost all in the Arctic, have been greatly impacted by warming.

uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKTRE50I4G520090119

Polar bears are actually multiplying like crazy (populations only increase when the conditions are good.)

Which would explain why polar bear populations are not growing, they're diminishing rapidly. Do you even research anything before posting such drivel?

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

The money quotes:

The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group reclassified the polar bear as a vulnerable species on the IUCN's Red List of Endangered Species at their most recent meeting (Seattle, 2005). They reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five are declining, five are stable, two are increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision.

The main threat to polar bears today is the loss of their icy habitat due to climate change.

From
made up bullshit to pass laws to restrict freedom
to
Shut the hell up!

Ahh, the irony! Except I doubt Roger the Shrubber sees it.

There exists a common misconception: That the fact of global warming is controversial and is being debated among scientists. The global average temperature is indeed increasing rapidly. That's the observation. There are three more important and controversial questions that are being actively debated: First, why is the global average temperature increasing so rapidly? Second, what is the natural response of Earth's systems if we do nothing? Third, what, if anything can be done and what are the consequences of our actions (as compared to our intentions)?

Regrettably, little of this is debated with clarity.

When the trolls claim there is no evidence for global warming, they are just trying to trigger a flame-war. When somebody argues that emissions caps are merely the government asserting control over industry, it is not an empty argument - it is probably entirely true in light of the fact that it is not known what effect, if any, such regulation would have. We all fear the "law of unintended consequences", and for good reason. On the other hand, some of us just like emissions and pollution controls to assist in good stewardship of the land, water and air - and global warming simply plays no role in that sentiment.

Too bad ignorance is infectious. We could all do with a little more thoughtfullness in these debates.

Isn't it hilarious that "global warming" suddenly changed into "climate change", because there actually is no EVIDENCE of "global warming"
on the planet.
So those who want to further their political agenda had no other choice than to change it to "climate change".
People who believe all this drivel are really really very gullable.
More and more scientists are coming out and admitting that there is NO evidence for all this, but no, you all invested so much in it, it is impossible for you to admit now that you were wrong all along.
I hope you will wake from your little fantasy world, before you destroy the planet with your rules and regulations that are totally useless.

Try this website you may be surprised by YOUR lack of scientific backing:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Nice try, Scot (what happened to the other "t"?). The Center for Science and Public Policy is financed by ExxonMobil to the tune of $250,000 per year. Yes, very reliable.

You see, dumbasses, you may question the IPCC, its motivations and its membership. That's fine, but the IPCC does something none of the organizations you cite dare do - subject their works to peer review. So it's not only the IPCC publishing findings, it's the scientific community accepting those findings. It's called science, try learning about it.

Danz,

Ignorance is not infectious, or all the usual readers of these comments would be back in first grade by now.

Sadly, what is true is that many people are impervious to information contradicting their beliefs. And those most prone to this intellectual failing are the most certain of their beliefs.

It would be wonderful if having 6 billion people on this planet had no effect on the climate or ecology. All of us could drive 3-ton SUV's, pave our yards with astroturf, and put up plastic elm trees (the local ash trees, planted to replace the elms, are now under threat from ash-borers).

There will be denialists still insisting that AGW is a myth when they die of starvation. Others will gradually be exposed to information and it will seep in, eventually. Probably too late to avoid some of the calamitous effects, if we're unlucky. Say good-bye to some species, and get ready for more famine and drought in vulnerable regions.

That's why it's important to laugh at idiots like Boehner who can't even get the simplest facts right. The derision will eventually get through even when dry recitals of facts won't.

I am glad you brought up the IPCC report because many of your scientist that participated in that report have come out against some of its findings and the politicizing of it.

Also, dont try to lecture me on what science is. I am a mechanical engineer and science is what i do. I am sure you are nothing but a pencil pusher. If you were for science and scientific integrity then you would agree with me that Global Warming far from "settled" and little to no action should be taken until it can be studied better and assumptions can be made with higher levels of confidence then there are to date.

Your refusal to even look or study the alternative findings only shows your lack of scientific integrity as well as that of your movement. If Global Warming was on such a firm foundation of science then you would have no problem with people studying it with a skeptics eyes. The problem is that the leading scientist advocating Global Warming have been found to be scientific frauds that have admitted to or was caught cooking the numbers. If the data backed the Theory so well this wouldn't be needed. Neither would the scare tactics. The science would speak for itself. But it doesn't so you have to have people like Al Gore drum up fear to get people to believe.

Unfortunately, one of the unintended consequences of the internet is the rapid dissemination of ignorance and stupidity. When ideology mixes with scientific illiteracy and rampant anti-intellectualism, three traits Americans have in excess, idiotic comments are sure to follow. When these unfortunate traits are combined in a politician, like Boehner, the result is dangerous denial.

The observations of climate change are real, and only the most orthodox supporters of the fossil fuel industry would deny them. The consequences of these changes, and the limits of our ability to reverse them, are certainly debatable, and should be debated using verifiable evidence, not transparent PR hackery designed by the vested interests to create doubt.

Exxon-Mobil, the coal industry, among others, have used a multi-pronged approach, primarily denial and doubt, to obfuscate the legitimate debate. If the American public had critical thinking skills, and understood the scientific method as citizens in most other developed countries do, we might take back the debate from the school yard bullies. But we rather cherish and celebrate our anti-intellectualism in this country, as the eight years under Bush demonstrated only too well. Those eight years postponed any serious discussion of the problems at what may in retrospect be seen as a critical time.

Reading this article made me let one loose myself.

scot wrote: "The problem is that the leading scientist advocating Global Warming have been found to be scientific frauds that have admitted to or was caught cooking the numbers."

You are a despicable liar.

Again glad some of you agree to an intellectual thinking on this. It is only sad that some of you are the ones that will say that in one sentence then attack the ones that are doing that but just not coming to the same conclusion as you. Which divorces you from that same thinking you wish everyone would participate in. You also attack the coal industry for pushing one agenda but have no problem with your own bias industries pushing the opposite agenda. Both have agendas and both are pushing them.

I also agree that we should be debating the real scientific evidence not some hack with a power point with so many discrepancies you lose count. Lets get the science to come forward and debate them then continue to research it like I said until we have a high level of confidence. You cant do that if you have one side saying the science is "settled" and labeling skeptics as on par with Holocaust deniers. That is the type of school yard thinking I hope you are also talking about.

Boehner's an idiot.

I guess Benet is deleting comments that embarass him. I posted this link earlier and it oddly disappeared. It proves Boehner was correct to say what he said. Will Benet show some integrity and edit his original column to admit he was wrong?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

"scot wrote: "The problem is that the leading scientist advocating Global Warming have been found to be scientific frauds that have admitted to or was caught cooking the numbers."

You are a despicable liar."

let me elaborate: When these scientist are proven wrong they change the formula they swore by so there data is right. Ill refer you to IPCC report from 1990. As well as all the "models". Hockey stick the most infamous of them all.

"You see, dumbasses, you may question the IPCC, its motivations and its membership. That's fine, but the IPCC does something none of the organizations you cite dare do - subject their works to peer review."

Its not a peer review when the only people you allow to peer review your research are people who already ideologically agree with you. That is one of the biggest criticisms against the global warming alarmists. They only let other global warming alarmists peer review their work.

Ill put it into perspective:
Approx:
Humans produce 1.915 billion tones of CO2/year

Volcanoes alone produce 39 billion tones CO2/year.

current levels are at 380ppm which historically is extremely low. levels of 180-280 have proven to show a significant decrease in plant productivity.

I am a mechanical engineer and science is what i do.

So now mechanical engineering is subject to peer review? Nobody is "unnwilling" to look at alternative science to explain warming, but it has to be, you know, science. Being the scientist you are, I'm sure you have an appreciation for peer review. Let me know when the Center for Science and Public Policy produces a peer-reviewed study denying the human impact on climate change.

As a scientist, I'm sure you can also appreciate the fact that an organization that benefits so heavily from an industry deemed to contribute to climate change should be scrutinized carefully. So I'm sure you will give the findings of the CSPP the same scrutiny you give the IPCC.

The IPCC is made up of thousands of scientists, undoubtedly some are going to question any of its findings. And that's fine, that's what science is all about.

Its not a peer review when the only people you allow to peer review your research are people who already ideologically agree with you.

Anything that is published in scientific journals is subject to peer review. Scientists don't get to "pick" who they want to review their work. Any scientist can access a study and find weaknesses in it. That's what peer review is.

Scot wrote: "Ill put it into perspective:"

You are a liar. Emissions of CO2 from human activities far exceed those from volcanoes.

Scot wrote: "current levels are at 380ppm which historically is extremely low."

You are a liar. Paleoclimate studies have found that current CO2 levels of over 380ppm are the highest of any time during the last 650,000 years and probably during the last 20 million years. A century and a half ago, before human activities began releasing massive amounts of CO2 from fossil fuels, the CO2 level was around 280ppm and had been at that level throughout the history of the human species.

You are a liar. You baselessly and dishonestly attack the integrity of real scientists who have diligently studied this issue for decades, but you yourself have contributed nothing to this discussion but ignorance, arrogance and lies.

Why don't you go post your idiotic, dishonest, ignorant, borderline illiterate BS on some website for your fellow Ditto-Heads who get their "climate science" from Rush Limbaugh? I'm sure they will applaud your lies.

"Anything that is published in scientific journals is subject to peer review. Scientists don't get to "pick" who they want to review their work. Any scientist can access a study and find weaknesses in it. That's what peer review is."

You seem to be vastly misinformed (perhaps misled) on the scientific integrity of the global warming movement.

"You are a liar. You baselessly and dishonestly attack the integrity of real scientists who have diligently studied this issue for decades, but you yourself have contributed nothing to this discussion but ignorance, arrogance and lies."

Speak of the devil. How about you show one example in history prior to the start of the man made global warming movement in the 1970s where CO2 was the cause of global warming. Until the anti-American/anti-capitalists got involved, warming always produced increased CO2 levels. It takes on average 800 years for this cause and effect relationship to occur. What happened 800 years ago? The Medieval Warming Period. Now you know why Mann, Hansen, Gore etc tried to erase its existence from the scientific record.

I don't know if Scot is a liar or weak of comprehension. The study he linked to, at the UN, said that cattle-rearing produces more greenhouse gas equivalent than transportation, but Scot apparently thinks that includes all human greenhouse gas production.

Except that transportation isn't the gamut of greenhouse gas production, Scot. In fact, it's 14 percent (look it up).

That makes your comment above at best a half-truth. Deliberate, or simply ignorance?

Bone-head is breathtakingly stupid even for a leading Republican politician. The breathing CO2 is the same mistake silly Rush made: the CO2 animals exhale and from rotting *or burning* plants is recycled surface CO2, but what we pull out of the ground adds new in the current era. It's like the difference between money circulating among buyers and sellers, versus new money created by the Federal Reserve (which BTW needs to be audited, please support HR 1207 tx.)

tyrannogenius

Tom r is just another Ditto-Head, spouting "climate science according to Rush Limbaugh".

Hey, go for it, Tom.

Thousands of climate scientists from every nation on Earth, and every major scientific organization on Earth, and every national academy of sciences of every nation on Earth including the USA, all say that human activities, principally the burning of fossil fuels, have released and continue to release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and this anthropogenic increase in CO2 is causing the Earth system to retain more of the Sun's energy, and get hotter.

The "greenhouse gas" properties of CO2 have been well understood for over a century. It's basic physics. There is no doubt about it. It's not a "theory". It's a fact.

The release of CO2 from human activities has been observed, measured and documented. It's not a "theory". It's a fact.

The Earth system is indeed retaining more of the Sun's energy, and heating up, due to the anthropogenic increase in CO2. This has been observed. It's not a "theory". It's a fact.

But hey, Rush Limbaugh and other bought-and-paid-for purveyors of ExxonMobil-funded denialist propaganda tell you that's all a Vast Conspiracy By Evil America-Hating Liberals, and that all true "Conservatives" must believe that global warming is an Evil Liberal Myth. Something about wanting to take your guns away or legalize gay marriage to save the polar bears. You know, it's "conservative".

And whatever Rush Limbaugh tells you is "conservative", you slavishly, unquestioningly believe.

You are really pathetic.

Oh, and as for the "warming leads CO2" bit?

Yes, that's true. When the Earth system gets warmer, that causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere.

In the past, the Milankovic orbital cycles caused the Earth to get warmer. That caused more CO2 to be released from the biosphere, from soils and from the oceans. And that CO2 then caused additional warming. That's called a feedback. And that feedback-induced rapid warming caused glaciers a mile high over what is now New England to completely melt away and vanish in a single human lifetime.

Today, it's not the Milankovic cycles, which take tens of thousands of years, but human activities which have released massive amounts of CO2 which is the primary driver of the warming. But guess what? Just as in the past, a warming Earth causes "natural" releases of CO2, from the biosphere, from soils, from frozen methane in permafrost, etc. So as we heat up the Earth with our CO2 pollution, we are also causing even more CO2 to be released from "natural" sources, which will further increase warming. Feedback.

If you think that's a reason NOT to be worried, then you are really, really stupid.

"Bone-head is breathtakingly stupid even for a leading Republican politician. The breathing CO2 is the same mistake silly Rush made: the CO2 animals exhale and from rotting *or burning* plants is recycled surface CO2,"

It cracks me up to see you lefties insult the intelligence of Boehner and other conservatives only to immediately display your own ignorance of this topic. Its not the C02 produced by cattle that creates more greenhouse gases than humans, its the methane they create.

"You are really pathetic.

Oh, and as for the "warming leads CO2" bit?

Yes, that's true. When the Earth system gets warmer, that causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere."

Funny how left wingers always refer to anyone who disagree with them as pathetic. Based on youe demeanor, is it safe for me to assume you get all your "news" and "facts" from the progressive blogosphere?

I see you avoided touching the MWP topic. Not surprised by that at all. Global warming alarmists by default can't admit the validity of that argument.

I guess you also can't admit that CO2 causing warming (when it reality its the exact opposite) only became a movement when leftwing, anti-capitalists in Europe (i.e. socialists/marxists etc)realized man made global warming was easy propaganda for the making. See how easy they were able to fool you?

Tom r, et al: First of all, the idea that increased human-generated CO2 would warm the climate did not start in the 70s anyway. It goes all the way back to the 19th century, where scientists realized from newly-developed spectroscopy that CO2 absorbed infrared and would warm the atmosphere. One of the most notable papers outlining that effect was published in *1896*:
Svante Arrhenius, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground", London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237–275.
Surprised? I still have my Time-Life "Weather" book from 1965 which warns of the possibility of global warming, a couple years before the Summer of Love etc.

Furthermore, the idea that a new ice-age was coming was a minority position that the media picked up on (you're supposed to be suspicious of the media, right?)

As for warming first, and then CO2 increase: yeah, it can and does happen. That's called "positive feedback" and makes the whole problem even worse because it means any warming from CO2 will lead to even more CO2 being released - get it?

And it's silly to ask for an earlier "example" of anthropogenic warming because we are currently developing the correlation between temperatures (which must be averaged over time) and CO2. Only in recent years has CO2 been so much above average and the temperature trend has been rather clear. But the bottom line is: the simplest causal expectation (e.g., absorption of IR leads to more heat) is the most expected outcome.

BTW, Boehner is still wrong about the issue anyway and looks awfully dumb, even if we won't get global warming anyway - shouldn't it matter for a national "leader" to be so damn stupid?

tyrannogenius

" ...is it safe for me to assume you get all your "news" and "facts" from the progressive blogosphere?"
No, silly, it isn't, because most of us get our scientific facts from ... drum roll ... scientists! They can disagree some, but we know the theory and general consensus. As for the silly claim the GW thing was all cooked up by "leftists", in addition to the 19th century scientists here's a quote from Margaret Thatcher in 1990:

But the threat to our world comes not only from tyrants and their tanks. It can be more insidious though less visible. The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.

Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community. No-one should under-estimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented co-operation we shall have to show. We shall need statesmanship of a rare order. It's because we know that, that we are here today.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108237

Read her whole speech - it will pummel you with cognitive dissonance.

"And it's silly to ask for an earlier "example" of anthropogenic warming because we are currently developing the correlation between temperatures (which must be averaged over time) and CO2. Only in recent years has CO2 been so much above average and the temperature trend has been rather clear. But the bottom line is: the simplest causal expectation (e.g., absorption of IR leads to more heat) is the most expected outcome."

Its only "silly" for me to ask you provide some facts because we both know its never happened before. Here is a graph from the Vostok ice core. Note the causal effect with changes in temperature affecting C02 levels. If you were to expand the x-axis to 100s of years, the gap would be roughly 800 years.

In other words, the C02 released by the ocean 800 years ago thanks to the MWP (when Greenland was actually green) is playing an extremely large part in the rise of CO2 today. Why else would Mann fudge his data and remove the MWP from his Hockey stick graph?

"First of all, the idea that increased human-generated CO2 would warm the climate did not start in the 70s anyway"

You misinterpreted the point. The 70s is when man-made global warming became a left wing, anti-capitalist movement. The discovery of CO2 as a greenhouse gas occured much earlier, as you referenced.

"BTW, Boehner is still wrong about the issue anyway and looks awfully dumb"

How is he wrong? The UN report clearly proves him correct. The methane and nitrous oxide from livestock creates more greenhouse gases than CO2 from humans.

"As for the silly claim the GW thing was all cooked up by "leftists", in addition to the 19th century scientists here's a quote from Margaret Thatcher in 1990:"

Thatcher was punishing the coal workers union for not supporting her in the early 70s. Her goal was to increase the growth of the nuclear power industry in Great Britain. You knew that right? After Thatcher's crusade against the coal workers union is when the leftwing, anti-capitalists movements in the rest of Europe started the ideological global warming movement.

Tom r:

Please read the reference more carefully. It says that cattle-raising produces more greenhouse result than transportation.

Transportation. Which accounts for 14 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

You are incorrect (wildly) in saying that raising cattle produces more greenhouse gas effect than other human activity.

If you can't get something simple like this right, how can you be expected to be believed about anything?

Tom r, that stuff about Thatcher is a theory of subjective interpretation, can you assure me you or others correctly read her mind? Wow, how much fun can we have imagining why Bush really invaded Iraq... And you still neglected the *two*-way feedback of CO2 that I and others told you.

Boehner is wrong anyway about carcinogenic, about *breathing* CO2 being a problem, and as for animals: since "livestock" are something humans raise, their use is an "industry" and therefore anything coming from them is "anthropogenic." (That word doesn't mean "comes out of people's bodies" OK?) But if you can show that lots of methane would come from wild oxen or deer anyway etc., go for it. Just remember that farm animals eating lots of hay are bad news for such gases. In any case, we need to control the CO2 output to minimize IR absorption as a risk factor, that doesn't need certainty to be good risk management.

Finally: conservation saves money and conserves a limited (non-renewable in any practical way) resource, it is therefore rational over and above any global-warming controversy (such as it is.)

Tom R wrote: "Funny how left wingers always refer to anyone who disagree with them as pathetic."

I'm not a "left winger". What made you think that I am? The fact that I recognize the scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming?

Do you also think that everyone who recognizes that the Earth is round and not flat, and that the Earth orbits the Sun rather than the Sun orbiting the Earth, is a "left winger"?

And as a matter of fact, I don't refer to just anyone who disagrees with me as "pathetic".

I reserve that word for ignorant dumbasses like you.

Charles asked Tom R: "If you can't get something simple like this right, how can you be expected to be believed about anything?"

He doesn't really care whether anyone believes him or not. He's just repeating what Rush Limbaugh told him to say, because he's a mental slave of corporate-sponsored propaganda, who has been brainwashed to believe anything he's told by the so-called "conservative" media -- no matter how ridiculous, no matter how absurd or silly, as long as it is labeled "conservative" and delivered by a bought-and-paid-for corporate-shill "conservative" mouthpiece like Rush Limbaugh, he'll believe it, slavishly, obediently and unquestioningly.

Like I said, it's pathetic.

I love the idea that one can argue science by just repeating falsehoods.

The evidence for CO2 and other greenhouse gases and the environment is clear. Greenhouse gases work as advertised. If they didn't we wouldn't be here discussing it since the only life on Earth would be the kind that might be buried under the frozen ground of Mars. CO2 and CH4 re-radiate long wave radiation BACK at the surface of the planet. That's as fixed a fact as gravity.

Bad numbers are the essence of the deniers arguments. For instance scot up above gave specific numbers for volcanic and anthropogenic CO2 releases. He said:

Ill put it into perspective:
Approx:
Humans produce 1.915 billion tones of CO2/year

Volcanoes alone produce 39 billion tones CO2/year.

current levels are at 380ppm which historically is extremely low. levels of 180-280 have proven to show a significant decrease in plant productivity.
In fact, fossil fuels burning releases approximately 27 billion tons per year as of 2004 and growing. Deforestation is estimated to add another 20-25% to that. While volcanoes release just 145 to 255 million tons per year or less than 1% of that from human activity.

Other natural sources such as the decay of organic matter in forests and grasslands, do produce far more greenhouse gasses than human activity but these are in a long-term balance with CO2 absorption through photosynthesis and various natural carbon sinks. In fact those natural processes have so far been absorbing approximately 57% of human produced CO2 or else current concentrations would be even higher. If, as there is some evidence of happening in methane releases from arctic tundra and peat bogs, the warming process triggers GHG releases that exceed these natural sinks, we are going to be in real trouble.

@Secular Animist

"I'm not a "left winger". What made you think that I am? "

If I was a left winger myself, I would resort to the standard "you're a liar" claim that we have already seen displayed in these comments multiple times. Fortunately since I am not, the answer to your question is your posting style. You can't even help yourself when responding to my point, instead assuming that I am "repeating what Rush Limbaugh told to me say". Thats another typical leftwing response. You're full of them aren't you?

BTW since well over 75% of the media is controlled by liberals, how do you know that you aren't a mental slave of their propaganda? Are you under the impression that liberals are able to see thru the propaganda from their side while conservatives are not? BTW that was a rhetorical question so no need to answer.

Btw, Tom R repeated asks us to address the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age as examples of global climate change that happened before large scale fossil fuel burning.

The answer is that there is considerable question whether either of these was a truly global event. Both of them involved relatively small long-term temperature changes (1-1.5 degrees Centrigrade) and the combination of smaller landmasses, sparser population and very limited written records make reliable estimates of southern hemisphere temperatures during those periods difficult.

In general, the indications are that during the MWP when temperatures were slightly warmer and much more stable in the northern hemisphere, that the southern hemisphere was generally cooler than normal in areas ranging from South Africa to Australia and Antartica.

The LIA on the other hand shows some evidence of widespread cooling in populated areas of the southern hemisphere but core samples in Antarctica show both some intense cold periods and also some of the most dramatic warming cycles in the ice record.

Finally, after seeing Tom R state as fact in his last post that 75% of the media is controlled by liberals, there is really no point in responding any further to his arguments. Anyone that believes the mainstream media, which is dominated by giant and generally conservative corporations, is liberal is not amenable to being convinced by any arguments or presentation of facts.

Tom R wrote: "... since well over 75% of the media is controlled by liberals ..."

You are as pathetically stupid and ignorant about the media as you are about global warming, Ditto-Head Tom.

Virtually all of the mass media in the USA is owned by six giant, for-profit, capitalist corporations. And you think those corporations are "liberals".

You are an idiot.

Of course, with regard to the question of global warming, it isn't a matter of the "media".

It's a matter of thousands of scientists, and every major scientific organization in the world, and hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies, all of which overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real, is happening now, is caused by human activities which release CO2, methane and other "greenhouse" gases, and is dangerous.

It has nothing to do with ideology. It's about science.

But ExxonMobil and other giant fossil fuel corporations have spent tens of millions of dollars churning out denialist propaganda from propaganda mills masquerading as "conservative" think tanks, and have paid professional liars like Rush Limbaugh to peddle those lies to brainwashed, so-called "conservative" idiots like you. Because they know that you will believe anything, no matter how absurd, as long as Rush tells you it's "conservative".

"Finally, after seeing Tom R state as fact in his last post that 75% of the media is controlled by liberals, there is really no point in responding any further to his arguments. Anyone that believes the mainstream media, which is dominated by giant and generally conservative corporations, is liberal is not amenable to being convinced by any arguments or presentation of facts."

Conservative: Fox News, WSJ
Liberal: CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post...the list goes on.

Clearly, anyone who believes that the media is controlled by conservatives is clearly not amenable to being convinced by any arguments or presentation of facts.

But hey I enjoy seeing lefties trying to argue that their "scientists' are apolitical and non-ideological.

Here are two more facts for you to ignore since they cause you to aler your worldview.

1) If CO2 is causing global warming, then explain what is causing the global cooling that has been occuring in the 21st century.

2) Why is there a discrepancy between surface temperature readings and satellite readings taken of the troposphere? The surface readings indicate a warming trend while tropospheric readings do not.

Well, that explains it. Anybody that thinks anybody to the left of Fox and the WSJ are "liberal" has been defenestrated through the Overton window.

Tom r, the discrepancy between satellite and balloon measurements of temperature has been resolved and explained years ago. Do a google search.

As for the "cooling in the 21st century", you do understand that the 21st century has hardly begun?

Tom R wrote: "Liberal: CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post...the list goes on."

That's a list of big, for-profit, capitalist corporations, run by ultra-rich corporate CEOs. They love the big tax cuts they got from George W. Bush. They love the policies of radical deregulation of media ownership that the Bush administration pushed, which allowed their giant corporations to gobble up more and more of America's last remaining indendent media outlets. Their agenda is the agenda of Big Business.

If you believe they are "liberal" you are a world-class idiot. But we already know that.

Tom R wrote: "If CO2 is causing global warming, then explain what is causing the global cooling that has been occuring in the 21st century."

No global cooling has been occurring in the 21st century. You are a liar.

Tom R wrote: "Why is there a discrepancy between surface temperature readings and satellite readings taken of the troposphere? The surface readings indicate a warming trend while tropospheric readings do not."

There is no discrepancy. You are a liar.

You are pretending that you know something about climate science, but you don't.

You are merely repeating -- slavishly, obediently, unquestioningly, mindlessly repeating -- the fake, phony, ExxonMobil-scripted lies that have been spoon-fed to you by the fake, phony, pseudo-ideological, corporate-sponsored cult known as "conservatism" in America today.

The one thing of value you bring to this discussion is to serve as an example of the mental degeneration, the inability to think independently, and the slavish obedience to scripted dogma, that comes from being brainwashed by the fake, phony, so-called "conservative" media.

They are lying to you, Tom. They are laughing at you. They are playing you for a fool. You and your fellow Ditto-Heads are just ignorant, weak-minded tools to them.

Wake up.

Your list of "liberal" media outlets overwhelmingly supported President Bush during the run-up to the Iraq War and during the pre-war debate over WMD. The broadcast networks routinely have as on-air guests 2-5 times as many Republican politicians, conservative activists and corporate lobbyists as they do Democratic politicians, liberal activists or labor representatives.

Despite all the claims of liberal bias, they routinely spend far more time talking about made-up controversies like Al Gore supposedly claiming to have invented the internet** or Michelle Obama's bare arms than they do over the inane and insane policy positions of the Republican party. **(hint: Gore never claimed that and several of the people who did play a major role in inventing the internet agree that without his support as both congressional rep and VP, we would have something quite different from the internet as we know it now.)

As for your point 1) on global warming, the fact that 1998 is still the hottest (or maybe 2nd hottest) year on record does not imply that the 10 years since represent a cooling trend. Particularly not when 7 (or possibly 8) of the hottest years on record have happened in those 10 years since then.

What you either don't realize or don't care about is that every single one of your talking points has been both raised by GW deniers on this site and thoroughly rebutted not once but many, many times in the past. That is why most of them get open ridicule and brief if any responses the regular posters here. It would take no more than 5-10 minutes to goto www.realclimate.org to find the response to any one of your points. If you don't want to take their word for it, it takes no more than a few hours to follow-up the links to the scientific bodies and peer reviewed journals they get their data from and compare those to the skeptics sites. I personally have done the first (check realclimate) on almost everyone of your points, and the second (look into the data in more detail) on more than half of them at some point in the last couple years. I have neither the time nor the interest in repeating the process every time a new troll comes along, but do address one or two points occassionally.

In case it wasn't obvious, my last post was addressed to Tom R.

tanstaafl, I think it's likely that your comments and mine are lost on Tom R.

He is obviously a hard-core Ditto-Head. He knows two things: "conservative" equals "good", and "liberal" equals "bad". And Rush Limbaugh will tell him what is "conservative" and what is "liberal".

If Rush Limbaugh says it is "conservative" to believe the sky is green, and that only evil "liberals" say the sky is blue as part of a sinister plot to take away his guns and force him to marry a gay, then Tom R will walk outside, look up, and admire the conservative greenness of the sky.

He won't read RealClimate -- they are all "liberals".

He won't read scientific studies about climate science -- all those scientists are "liberals". True "conservative" science isn't published in those evil "liberal" peer-reviewed journals, and anyway peer review is a liberal ideological plot to destroy Free Liberty and Capitalism. True "conservative" science is published in The Washington Times and proclaimed on Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh will explain it all to him.

He's a lost soul. I've known people who went down that path, starting back in the Nineties in the heyday of the Cult Of Clinton Hatred, and they never came back. Now they are hollow-eyed zombies. Just like Tom R.

It's sad, really.

True SA, while I address my comments to him, the real target is anyone that hasn't been here long enough to see all the arguments before.

That's a list of big, for-profit, capitalist corporations, run by ultra-rich corporate CEOs. They love the big tax cuts they got from George W. Bush. They love the policies of radical deregulation of media ownership that the Bush administration pushed, which allowed their giant corporations to gobble up more and more of America's last remaining indendent media outlets. Their agenda is the agenda of Big Business.

Not to mention, they love the ad dollars ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, et al, provide.

But those ad dollars probably pale in comparison to what the IPCC spends!

tanstaafl wrote: "... while I address my comments to him, the real target is anyone that hasn't been here long enough to see all the arguments before."

That's a worthy effort and I guess I try to do the same.

In addition to RealClimate.org, a useful site for debunking denialist rubbish like the stuff Tom R. is regurgitating here is www.SkepticalScience.com, which lists and debunks bogus denialist arguments one by one:

Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.

So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

They even track (approximately) how often various denialist arguments are posted in online articles.

Of course Tom R. won't read it, because he knows that "peer reviewed scientific literature" is "liberal" and therefore evil. So he is protected from seeing each and every one of his denialist lies debunked in excruciating detail.

Good site, thanks for the link.

Great thread. One observation: the amount of time and effort it appears to have taken to dissuade the trolls from their b.s. might be seen as a model of how these kinds of arguments are going to play out over the next...well, forever. It does appear to take a complete smackdown to deliver the discourse from their puerile insanity. Like dealing with particularly badly behaved children.

The idea that human CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to warm is a complete myth. See this letter from Chris Monckton, a climatologist in the UK:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf

Thank you Jungle Jim for demonstrating the ultimate futility of responding to deniers, there is always a new one coming along with the same damned arguments as the last. I have neither the time nor energy left to respond in detail but will note that Chris Monckton spends most of the first three pages of the linked article talking about the 1998-2008 "cooling trend" that was addressed above.

I would also point out that describing Lord Monckton as a climatologist is highly misleading, afaict he has no formal training in that field. He is a conservative politician and journalist whose first articles on climate change didn't appear until 2006. He has had rather oddball views on a number of issues and among other things, suggested strict quarantine of everyone infected with AIDS in the US or UK in an article titled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS."

You know what kills me? You Lefties are as insanely angry as you were under the BusHitler, yet everything went your way that possibly could in November. What's your problem? Having a party of dissent against the Obamamessiah and your pet projects too much for ya? Or are you all just plain psychos to begin with?

Talk about sore winners!