Global Cooling: More FUD from Drudge

Global Cooling: More FUD from Drudge

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change – and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling.

The above referenced article is trotting out the same tired argument that the sun is responsible for the warming trend and will soon begin to cool. This has been roundly refuted again and again. China has just passed the U.S. at the world’s number one CO2 emitter (largely due to all the cheap products they make for the U.S. and Europe). It’s no coincidence that some of the most important energy legislation in decades is even now being voted on in the House and Senate. The coal, oil, and automotive lobbies are in desperate full court press. Trillions of dollars are at stake…bring on ‘Dangerous Global Cooling.’ Matt Drudge’s self-serving mockery of science is sickening. Rogues, all of them.

Comments (15 comments)

Dennis Fisher / June 22nd, 2007, 4:21 pm / #1

Actually CO2 is 0.03% of that atmosphere and man produces 5% of the 0.03%.

Hey Sean, this guy is very convincing. What do you think?

BlackSun / June 22nd, 2007, 5:23 pm / #2

I think people are in denial, and the science is air tight on global warming. This is a false debate. Show me a substantive change in the global science consensus and I’ll listen. You won’t find it. I’ve already provided all the references and facts time and time again, even setting up a special page. There will always be contrarians.

Global warming denial has now reached the level of 9/11 conspiracy theories. (Which 33% of the population believes, along with the 56 or greater percent that “disbelieve” evolution).

The debate on AGW has long been over. It is a time for action.

Dennis Fisher / June 25th, 2007, 9:04 am / #3

Sean, the science is far from air tight on global warming. Keep an open mind.
Your reference Article “Climate Change Facts” is flawed and i will point out some of them.

BlackSun / June 25th, 2007, 9:28 am / #4


When the IPCC or the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences change their position, then I will listen. Until then, you’re wasting your time and rolling the dice with Earth’s future. I won’t participate in that kind of folly. You’re welcome to keep looking for loopholes.

The ‘open mind’ fallacy is just that. When looking at factual debates, it is not enough to consider that there are two viewpoints. We also must consider and weigh the probabilities of each. In this case, the probabilities are overwhelmingly in favor of AGW. Again, I won’t be drawn into what I consider a false debate. If you want to hold your point of view, go ahead. But don’t pretend the facts are on your side. You’re not arguing with me here. You’re arguing with the vast, vast majority of the world’s top climate experts and scientists.

Dennis Fisher / June 25th, 2007, 10:09 am / #5

> Misleading argument 1: The Earth’s climate is always changing and this has nothing to do with humans.

That is true for the most part, but the moist credible theories I have
see are the ones that point to man’s agricultural practices altering
the water vapor and therefore GHGs. Also, mans pollution in particulate
matter and contrails can actually cool the earth. Their claims of CO2
being the cause is the bogus part. Water vapor makes CO2 almost

> Misleading argument 2: Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the
> atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way
> round.

What was taught before it became profitable
to rewrite the science books. Henry’s Law was well known before AGW
became in Vogue. That is why the earth greens after ice ages. Ice core
CO2 and temp measurements prove that. CO2 lags temp by 600 to 1400
years. In any real field of science, that is game over.

> Misleading argument 3: Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions.

That too is 100%, and why weather forecasters can’t tell you the
weather 2 weeks out. Anyway, find me a GWP (Global Warming Potential)
for water vapor, they don’t exist. How can you have a model, if you
don’t define water vapor? Garbage in garbage out.

> Misleading argument 4: It’s all to do with the Sun – for example, there is a
> strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of
> sunspots on the Sun.

That is 100% true and reconfirmed just this week. Also, the sun
started increasing coincident with the industrial age. That is also
logical. Warming earth make crops more productive, people stopped
starving and had time to invent. Starving people don’t have time to

> Misleading argument 5: The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays.

That too is proven. BTW, what is blamed for all other climate cycles?
The sun, why is it different this time? Also, CO2 is at record highs,
temperatures are not.

> Misleading argument 6: The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action.

That hasn’t been proven. Are you suffering? Is anyone? We are after all
at record CO2 levels. Crop yields have surged.

>Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.

Their “scientific understanding” if politically biased. The father of
scientific meteorology claimed it was whooie just last week.

> Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will
> continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor
> the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice.

Once again, what is the GWP for water vapor? This is pure crap. They
seem to follow Goebels who claimed tell a lie often enough it becomes
the truth.

>The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change.

There is the motive, source of money, and the reason CO2 is identified
as the cause. There is no money in blaming the sun.

> We must also prepare for the impacts of
> climate change, some of which are already inevitable.
> This document was compiled with the help of the Royal Society Climate Change Advisory Group and other leading experts.

Climate Change Advisory Group? Now there is a real unbiased source.
Lets get ALL our information from they! Great Idea. What happens to their funding if it isn’t CO2 and man made? You got it, the money goes elsewhere.

Dennis Fisher / June 25th, 2007, 10:12 am / #6

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

Dennis Fisher / June 25th, 2007, 10:24 am / #7

Sean, i also have some issues with the “26 Climate Change Myths”
put out by those guys from “New Scientist” I see some Bias and other questionable information,. I guess thats why the call it “New Scientist”

Dennis Fisher / June 25th, 2007, 10:41 am / #8

> • Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

3 to 5% of 0.0038% of the atmosphere. I bet you calculator will show 0
if you divide that out.

> • We can’t do anything about climate change

We can do a lot, but it won’t work, and it will direct money from more
important causes.

> • The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong

If you believe the little ice age and medieval warming period never
occurred, then have at it. BTW, the IPCC no longer uses this “credible”
temperature chart. Imagine that.

> • Chaotic systems are not predictable

If they were everyone would be working on wall street and billionaires by now.

> • We can’t trust computer models of climate

What will the weather be in 2 weeks?

> • They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

They did, that isn’t debatable, just look at the Newsweek in 1975.
Search The Cooling world. The New Scientist ha ha

> • It’s been far warmer in the past, what’s the big deal?

True and it wasn’t caused by man or CO2.

> • It’s too cold where I live – warming will be great

That is what drove the Renesaunce.

> • Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

True. Mother Nature produces 95% of CO2 and warming increases her production.

> • It’s all down to cosmic rays

Part of the sun theory. Look up the rest your self

> • CO2 isn’t the most important greenhouse gas

Water vapor is by far the most important one.

> • The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

By some measurements, and the longest continual thermometer record.

> • Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

Central Antarctica is. The oceans and coastal parts aren’t. The GHG
effect doesn’t warm the oceans, so what is warming the oceans must
also be warming the atmosphere, ie sun.

> • The oceans are cooling

Wrong, but you would expect that with all this supposed glacier melting going on.

> • The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

In any normal field of science that would be the conclusion. CO2 went
up, temp fell, clearly CO2 is causing temp to increase. WTF?

> • It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

Yep, you have Roman Ruins and Chaucer wrote of growing his grapes and making his wine.

> • We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

True again, do they claim otherwise? The 1996 IPCC reports claims so.

> • Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

This theory is getting more and more bizarre, will it make pigs fly too?

> • Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

In any normal field of science that would be the conclusion.

> • Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell

Forget Ice Cores that happened between 1940 and 1980 see above.

> • Mars and Pluto are warming too

Yep, due to Martian coal burning power plants and SUVs.

> • Many leading scientists question climate change

Real scientists do.

> • It’s all a conspiracy

No, just bad science.

> • Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

What a joke. The pain in my ass is caused by GW also.

> • Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

True, do they doubt that? Try to plan something of an ice cube.
Greenhouses actually increase their CO2 levels. CO2 is plant food.
Wouldn’t more food make plants more productive and healthy? Every
study I have seen proves so.

> • Polar bear numbers are increasing

You can still hunt polar bears in Canada. What records they have of
then show no danger.

Dennis Fisher / June 25th, 2007, 11:47 am / #9

Sean, “The ‘open mind’ fallacy is just that. When looking at factual debates, it is not enough to consider that there are two viewpoints. We also must consider and weigh the probabilities of each. In this case, the probabilities are …”

Sean im so surprised you said that, if you apply this philosophy to your Atheism and consider the weight of whats at stake you might turn Christian

BlackSun / June 25th, 2007, 4:02 pm / #10

if you apply this philosophy to your Atheism and consider the weight of whats at stake you might turn Christian

…on what evidence?

BlackSun / June 25th, 2007, 5:27 pm / #11


Every point you have raised has been addressed time after time after time by the very articles I’ve linked to on the Climate Change facts page. You haven’t taken the time to read them, nor have you read the recent 30-page report by Hansen, et al.

You have done nothing but recount some of the most empty and misleading sound bites from talk radio or other “tin-foil hat” purveyors. This is not science. This is a bunch of meaningless opinions.

If you go through the links, New Scientist (one of the world’s leading science magazines) has already addressed and refuted each and every point you make. I frankly don’t even know why you try. You’re out of your depth, being no expert in chaos theory, tipping points, ocean currents, finite-element modeling, nor I daresay meteorology. Common sense sometimes fails, and is never a substitute for analysis. The truth is often counterintuitive.

I find it highly entertaining when laymen think they can weigh in on such topics. Personally, I know when I’m out of my depth, (such as with climate change) and I know when to defer to consensus and let the scientists do their jobs. I suggest you do the same.

The scientists have spoken.

BlackSun / June 25th, 2007, 8:46 pm / #12

I have to add a further comment on the psychology of denial of scientific facts. The global warming deniers are similar to evolution-deniers, in that they fail to understand what constitutes proof, the impossibility of negative proof, and the significance of probability. They usually do not defer to Occam’s razor, they fail to effectively differentiate high probability from low probability theorems, and the overall process of observation-theory-experiment-proof which composes the scientific method.

In a sense, an attack on such a well-established scientific consensus as anthropogenic global warming represents an attack on knowledge itself. It betrays a lack of understanding of the painstaking and definitive processes involved in doing science, the winnowing and error canceling effects of peer-review, and the care that is taken before publishing results.

Some of this is debated under the rubric of philosophy of science which calls into question the nature of scientific methodology and the possibility of any certainty through inductive reasoning.

But in an ultimate sense, many people prefer to substitute heuristics (simplified model or subjective shorthand) for real knowledge. While heuristics can be useful tools for solving problems, they often lead to cognitive biases. This is especially true when reducing unbearably complex subjects down to the level of “common sense.” This often occurs when scientific topics are discussed by laymen, whether in the media or not.

One fact stands unassailable: scientific debates about the biggest questions such as the origins of the universe or the fate of the earth will never be settled over cocktails or on blogs. Which is why the truth is to be found in academia, professional societies, peer-reviewed journals and the like. These sources are by their very nature opaque to most non-expert outsiders.

Dennis Fisher / June 27th, 2007, 8:01 am / #13

This last post sounds honestly like a cowardly dodge.

You did not address any of the issues i raised. And I Raise plenty just so you know your seemingly


Global Warming Facts are suspect.

Just because you have an link doesn’t make the conclusion valid. If Mt Killimanjaro is not melting, why are we being told it is? Why isn’t there a GWP for water vapor? And if there isn’t how can you have a valid model?

If a layman like my self can totally blow away the information put out by the most Prestigious

New Scientist (one of the world’s leading science magazines

) using Google ha ha and a calculator no wonder the public is confused. Where there is smoke,,,something is covered up.

I have given you specifics, what are your specifics to the point i have raise?

and dont play dodge ball

Dennis Fisher / June 27th, 2007, 8:02 am / #14

My Main Points are these Sean,

Occams Razor:
“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.”

Sun Warms Earth and Oceans, Earth and Oceans Release CO2 and H20,
Global Warming is due to a natural phenomenon. Simple, and accurate.

AGW: CO2 is at a record high but temperature is not: Needs to be explained away.

The oceans are warming, GHG effect doesn’t warm the oceans: Needs to
be explained away.

CO2 increased AFTER temperature, yet CO2 caused temp to increase:
Absurd and needs to be explained away.

BTW,apply consensus methodology to GW. GW fails the scientific method.

BlackSun / June 28th, 2007, 3:57 pm / #15

OK, Dennis. Look, don’t delude yourself. This is not a debate with me. You are debating the world’s best and brightest minds. If it was just one magazine, if any of the silly points about water vapor or solar variation had any validity, we’d know by now. If it was that simple, the situation would not be so serious. Cooler heads would have prevailed given what’s at stake. In fact, the more we learn, the more frightening the consensus has become.

Trust me, you haven’t blown anything away with “google and a calculator.” If that were true, then what would be the point of all the painstaking work that’s been done? Why bother getting a Ph.D. or launching satellites, or drilling ice cores?? Again, what you are doing is attacking the foundations of knowledge itself. I will defend your right to hold these opinions, but don’t pretend your opinion can change the facts at hand.

If it could, maybe you could cure cancer or solve the energy transition, or figure out how to resolve the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity. You should be able to accomplish a lot with “google and a calculator” if science was really that simple. It’s not.

Dennis, easy to tear down the work of others, hard to do any real original research. You can’t win this one. Let it go. You don’t want to be on the side of the flat-earthers.

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.