Well, It IS The Home of the Creation Museum, After All

The Kentucky legislature holds hearings on global warming, and forgets to invite any actual scientists.

And now, the actual, real live quote that will make every good Kentuckian squirm, about the lack of scientists discussing a scientific issue:

“Well, I mean, where are we going to get scientists?” [Providence representative Jim] Gooch asked. “We’re limited here in Kentucky to what we can do. I don’t know how we’d necessarily get scientists to come here.”

And now, the Lexington Herald-Leader for the win:

A short drive to the east, at the University of Kentucky, geologist Brandon Nuttall said he wasn’t aware of yesterday’s hearing, but he disputed its premise.

“Actually, there is a worldwide, extremely strong consensus in favor of the fact that global warming is happening,” said Nuttall, who oversees research at the Kentucky Geological Survey into the potential of trapping carbon dioxide underground.

“Science is not where you vote on something and 100 percent of the people agree. It is based on compiling evidence and on a majority of scientists coming to a conclusion that is supported by the evidence,” Nuttall said. “When you see people who deny that global warming exists, they are frequently either not scientists or they are scientists funded at least in part by corporations with a financial interest in debunking global warming.”

What? A scientist in Kentucky? Madness, I tell you!

Incidentally, before your snark gets too partisan, please note that Jim Gooch is a Democrat.  Stupid and corrupt knows no party line.

62 thoughts on “Well, It IS The Home of the Creation Museum, After All

  1. Your headline had it right. Just when some of us Kentuckians were trying to get over the Creation Museum, it gets worse.

  2. I like it. The moron (Gooch) declares that scientists are hard to find; however, he’s surrounded by colleges and universities which, I am pretty certain, will let you “borrow” a PhD or two for your “hearings.”

    Fortunately, Kentucky isn’t as dumb as some of its representatives.

  3. ” “Actually, there is a worldwide, extremely strong consensus in favor of the fact that global warming is happening,” said Nuttall. ”

    Thank you, Captain Obvious. Thank you.

    Where do you get scientists? I mean, those guys are just getting really scarce lately. Especially in Kentucky. I wonder why they don’t want to have anything to do with Kentucky?

  4. I once got caught smuggling books into Kentucky.

    I got off on a technicality though.

    No one in Kentucky could actually -prove- they were books.

  5. Amazing… a “hearing” of refutations based on selected quotes from the Bible and opinions pre-selected to conform with beliefs already held, from a journalist and a sock-puppet from ExxonMobil. All of this energy was apparently expended to debunk the idea of global warming – an idea in which 69% of Kentuckians surveyed believe.

    The KY Ag&NatRes Committee should receive a special award¹ for their services in: (1) representing the interests of constituents, and (2) helping make global warming a reality… one waste of hot air at a time.


     1. The Millions of Years wrecking ball from the Creation Moo-seum, delivered from a lofty position, seems particularly appropriate.

  6. “Well, I mean, where are we going to get scientists?”

    Good job denigrating your state university system.

  7. We like donuts. They could probably lure a few over with offers of donuts. And coffee, lots of coffee.

    Good to hear that 69% of Kentuckians “believe in” global warming though. ;)

  8. Why go through all the trouble to getting an advanced degree in science?

    After all, It’s governmental hearings that define science. Ask any politician.

  9. I don’t know how we’d necessarily get scientists to come here.”

    Offer them free trips to the Creation museum?

    Incidentally, before your snark gets too partisan, please note that Jim Gooch is a Democrat.

    I suspect a Kentucky Democrat might be something like a New York Republican.

  10. “Well, I mean, where are we going to get scientists?”

    Good job denigrating your state university system.

    ———
    You mean that thing they tacked on to the basketball teams?

  11. I suspect a Kentucky Democrat might be something like a New York Republican.

    Low blow, I say. Even our Republicans aren’t that stupid.

    **well mostly**

  12. MWT, you don’t trap university scientists with donuts, you have to use brie. Science professors live on brie. I’ve seen it for myself at several functions when my wife worked for certain colleges. It seemed to be the grazing of choice. Once you know them, donuts work, but the lure is brie.

  13. Hmm… I guess we’re just a cheap, second-rate institute then. ;) I sure wouldn’t mind if they offered platters of exotic cheeses instead of donuts around here…

  14. Wait, I’m confused. You don’t get science by voting, but there’s a strong consensus for AGW. Talk about a non sequiter. Helloo, science is science whether 0,1, or everybody believe it. Number of believers is no more a qualification for the proof of global warming than creationism. Which serves as an obvious counterpoint to the idea that amount of belief has anything to do with truth.

    That scientist is as big an asshat as his senator. If you ever want to know why I’m suspicious of the potential downside(s) of global warming, (as opposed to a change in climate which is trending warmer and may be affected by mankind) listen to that guy sing along with the choir. Then compare to say, physics. Ad hominem has no place in scientific arguments.

  15. Also, Gooch isn’t stupid, so much as he’s a corrupt liar who was bought and paid for by Big Coal. I don’t even think he believes what he’s saying half the time. If I remember correctly he shoots down pretty much any environmental or labor legislation (like, say, increased mine safety) and just invents reasons.

  16. As a recent Transplant to Kentucky from FL, I can say unequivocally this does not help the preconceived image.

    Then neither does the Creationist Museum, or about 75% of my new neighbors.

  17. Kentuckians, I feel your pain.

    Here in Utah, we have this animated clothes-dummy called Chris Buttars, a shame to anyone with an IQ larger than his waist size. He has been on the warpath against evolution, sex education, gay clubs, and everything else more liberal than Genghis Kahn. He is aided and abetted by other absolute fools, but fortunately not the whole legislature. Not even a majority (at least not always a majority). Local newspaper caroonists draw him and his croneys in the legislature with monkey faces and tails. They don’t seem to notice.

    Does anyone remember who it was that said “No man’s life or property are safe when the legislature is in season”?

  18. As a person who was born and raised in Kentucky, I am embarrassed by this idiot.
    Just because he is a democrat does not mean anything.

    Am I the only one who feels disenfranchised by the whole political system? Everything that happens makes me madder and sadder. I feel as though there is nothing that I can do about it. I have no voice.

    And to the responses of, well if you vote that is your voice, what kind of a voice is it, if I can only use it once every four years? That’s not a voice. That’s a stifling of voices.

    And I do not want to not pay attention to the news and whats going on, but I feel that it is my responsibility to pay attention and try and figure out a way to hold these idiots in check. Because, great maker knows, they do not hold themselves in check.

    I really wish there was something that could be done to change everything.

  19. Rep. Gooch was being quite sensible: he was merely thinking that most scientists live in Hollywood, and that it’s unlikely that Tom Cruise, John Travolta or Isaac Hayes would come to Kentucky to talk about global warming…

    …now, if somebody in Kentucky would just explain the difference to him, I’m sure everything will be alright….

  20. I’ve long felt our next Civil War was brewing, either between Red and Blue staters, or some sort of class split.

    This type of thing just adds more fuel to the fires of National Discontent.

  21. MrCopilot (And I say this as someone who grew up in Florida),

    You’ve moved to the same place. Different shape, different accent, but essentially the same place. (Fark doesn’t have a Kentucky tag.)

    sorry.

  22. “Stupid and corrupt knows no party line.”

    You’re wrong about this. American politics is a contest between the right-wing party and the insane right-wing party. Although some members of the non-insane right-wing party are stupid and corrupt, in fact the stupidity and corruption of the barking-mad right-wing party is so gobblingly obvious that the petty foolishness and corruption of the normal right-wing party is trivial by comparison.

  23. I detect an ulterior motive. If Kentucky persuades the rest of the world that there’s no such thing as global warming, then all the coastal peoples will stay on the coast and drown instead of moving inland to Ky and overtaxing their already strained resources. It’s all just a tax-saving measure!

  24. JJS;

    “Does anyone remember who it was that said “No man’s life or property are safe when the legislature is in season”?”

    I believe the original statement was, “No man’s life or property are safe when the legislature is in session”.

    Although the use of the term “in season” has interesting implications for the nation’s hunting aficionados.

  25. Patrick Nielsen Hayden;

    “American politics is a contest between the right-wing party and the insane right-wing party.”

    It would be interesting to hear your definition of “left wing”.

  26. Oh, it would have been soooo much better if University of Kentucky, geologist Brandon Nuttall had said “Global Warming? Please… It’s Winter time. It’s getting colder. Global warming happens in the Spring.”

  27. Ask a Canadian or European what their definition of left wing is. ,

    Any UK rightwing political party is at the very most centreleft by US standards. This includes UKIP and the BNP. We move leftwards from there (even nu-labour and the tories are pretty leftwing, by US standards).

  28. European here – although I’ve lived in the US long enough for political disillusionment to set in ;)

    A “left winger” would be someone who understands the term, “for the greater good”, and isn’t ashamed to use it in everyday conversation. In the US, these sorts are, at best, seen as politically naive. At worst, they’re “commies”. Death to them, and all that.

    PNH’s comment at 26 is interesting. For years, I’ve viewed US politics as a *one* sided football game. The right-wingers keep scoring simply because there is no opposition. The left wingers – by their very nature – are not the opposing, “team”, as it were. They’re the bloody referees – trying to make sure everyone plays fair.

    When did a referee ever win a game?

  29. Brett @ 16: Wait, I’m confused. You don’t get science by voting, but there’s a strong consensus for AGW.

    While I agree with Brandon Nuttall’s statement ““Actually, there is a worldwide, extremely strong consensus in favor of the fact that global warming is happening” It’s pretty much like saying “There is air”.

    And it’s not what the discussion is about.

    Now if what you mean by AGW is Anthropogenic Global Warming, there is no scientific consensus at all.

    Talk about a non sequiter. Helloo, science is science whether 0,1, or everybody believe it. Number of believers is no more a qualification for the proof of global warming than creationism.

    No, but science does a require a theory, which would lead to a model that can predict behavior which can then be tested against reality.

    There is no model of “AGW”, as you put it, that has been accurate at predicting anything.

    Politically, the situation is even worse. What does it mean to “Stop Global Warming?” Are the proponents thinking that if all they are suggesting is implemented that the warming cycle that has been occurring for the last 10,000 years or so will just end?

    And then what?

    Will the global temperature remain constant forever? Will it continue to rise but more slowly? And if so, what do we do about that?

    Will it be reversed and we will slide towards an Ice Age? And how much energy will we need to keep people warm during such a period? Will it matter?

    It’s all so muddy. The only benefit I see is all those people who have bought “alternative energy” capacity will make big bucks if and when government mandates their use and subsidizes the industry because the vast majority of them are not economically viable otherwise.

    Having said all of that, there is no reason not to reduce our “greenhouse” gas emissions. But I would prefer that market forces be used rather than government subsidies.

    There are extremely good reasons to reduce our importing of foreign oil; not the least of which is that most oil profits benefit enemies of liberal democracy and Western culture, if not the US specifically. I would like to see this solved in the short term with more domestic output and increased reliance on nuclear energy. As far as I am concerned, I would be ecstatic to see each and every coal or oil fired power plant be replaced by clean nuclear power supplemented by wind and geothermal plants as well where feasible.

    I am open to other, “renewable” sources, so long as they are economically competitive.

  30. Tribar @ 29:

    At minimum, Left Wing = All citizens being able to get essential medical treatment without bankrupting themselves. In fact, in most countries, this isn’t even disputed by the right wing parties. Loony crackpot liberals (by US standards) like Nancy Pelosi would fit fairly firmly in the centre, or slightly to the right, of most countries’ political discourse (coming from NZ, I’m most familiar with that, but having lived in Canada and the UK, it would seem to apply to those countries, too).

    Frank @ 34:

    “Clean nuclear power”?!! Clean nuclear power! Clean NOW, yes, I won’t dispute that, but it has the same “good idea now, and screw our kids” dynamic as thermal power generation. Except instead of screwing with the atmosphere, you’re producing insanely toxic compounds with very long half-lives, and dumping them somewhere for future generations to worry about. As someone who’s likely to be alive in the 2nd half of this century, I’m not so happy about that.

  31. Eddie Clark @ 35 dumping them somewhere for future generations to worry about.

    “Set the controls for the Heart of the Sun”

    Pink Floyd said it first. Hard to say what the context was…

  32. LCD Soundsystem said it more poignantly “And so it starts / You switch the engine on / We set controls for the heart of the sun, / one of the ways we show our age.” (Best song of the year – “All my friends”). But more seriously, yes, if an efficient way can be found to chuck it at the sun (big if!), not a bad option.

  33. Eddie Clark says if an efficient way can be found to chuck it at the sun (big if!), not a bad option.

    Well, the cool thing about that is once you achieve escape velocity, you only need to let it “fall”.

    NASAs Ares system of lift vehicles that will replace the Shuttle should be able to do the job. The Ares V variant will have the capacity to lift 144,000 pounds (65 metric tons) into space ( 286,000 pounds (128.8 metric tons) into low Earth orbit).

    Should be operation by 2020. In plenty of time for this purpose…

  34. Frank @ 34;

    Best post yet on this thread!

    Your paragraph, “There are extremely good reasons to reduce our importing of foreign oil; not the least of which is that most oil profits benefit enemies of liberal democracy and Western culture, if not the US specifically. I would like to see this solved in the short term with more domestic output and increased reliance on nuclear energy. As far as I am concerned, I would be ecstatic to see each and every coal or oil fired power plant be replaced by clean nuclear power supplemented by wind and geothermal plants as well where feasible.”

    Is exactly on the mark. The US supplies most of its base electrical needs through coal fired power plants. That’s because coal provides the cheapest conventional power source. These plants consume 600 million tons of coal per year. They spew out well over a billion tons of carbon dioxide in the process. All of that should be replaced with clean safe nuclear power. Especially if one feels that AGW is a serious threat (which I personally don’t believe actually exists).

    That said, being a realist, I don’t believe it will happen for many, many reasons. Firstly, nuclear power has been so demonized, as a result, so over-regulated, that although the technology has the potential to produce the power at 1/100 of the cost of conventional generation sources, when you combine the tremendous cost of construction, start up, and ongoing regulatory/uncertainty costs, it ends up being only slightly cheaper. Secondly, the existing coal plants represent trillions of dollars in invested capital on the part of utility companies across the country and they’re not going to scrap them, and invest trillions of dollars more building nuclear replacements, because coal is dirty. Thirdly, nuclear power is a threat to so many interest groups in this country that the fundamental disadvantage it has, politically speaking, isn’t going to change no matter how logical it is.

    So the existing energy industry, no matter how dirty, expensive, and illogical, will probably be with us, largely unaltered, for quite some time.

    There is some suprising good news this year though. Firstly, the US Air Force, because its mission requires to be entirely dependent on oil, contracted a company to work on a replacement. They were successful. They produced a superior replacement for diesel fuel using natural gas which they named Syntholeum (not sure on spelling), and announced that they believed they could ultimately make the process work with coal at an eventual cost of $10/barrel (which is another reason not to use all that coal to produce electricity). Secondly, a California company has perfected and is gearing up for production of a new production methodology for solar cells that can reduce the cost of the cells by a factor of 10. The company is Nanosolar and they can supposedly produce their “Powersheet” product for a cost factor of essentially $.30/watt. If those figures hold up the future for solar as a viable alternative energy source has finally become realistic.

    The following Popular Science piece has more

    http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html

  35. “Set the controls for the Heart of the Sun”

    Pink Floyd said it first. Hard to say what the context was…

    In case anyone actually wanted to know:

    Roger Waters borrowed most of the lyrics from a book of Chinese poems. The context was Eastern mysticism refracted through the 60s’ counterculture; you know, bête noires of the modern right. “Love is the shadow that ripens the wine… Will he remember the lesson of giving?…” Set to an awesome musical jam that’s best appreciated on Ummagumma or various bootlegs.

    (Say what you want about us over here on the left, but we really do have all the cool bands.)

    As for nuclear power: there’s no reason the U.S. shouldn’t be building pebble bed reactors, except that you have an accidental and unholy alliance between well-meaning but thoughtless environmentalists on the left and frightened oilmen on the right. While it’s true that waste from a PBR is more toxic than the waste from other kinds of reactors, I think that’s a surmountable problem to be solved, not an objection.

  36. Frank said “There are extremely good reasons to reduce our importing of foreign oil; not the least of which is that most oil profits benefit enemies of liberal democracy and Western culture, if not the US specifically.”

    Damn those Canadians and their nefarious plans for world domination.

    As for throwing nuclear waste into the Sun, what a silly idea. First of all, it’s really damn heavy stuff. And there’s a lot of deuterium around. As for the actual fuel, that’s a fine way to poison the Sun (stars fuse up to iron, after that, it all comes out in the bang). Sure, the mass we could actually send sunwards probably won’t shorten Sol’s life by much, but the Sun can’t fuse or burn it. It’s the space age equivalent of “just throw it in the ocean” short term thinking.

  37. Re: throwing nuclear waste into the sun–I’d be more worried about the cost/risk/benefit equation of sending tons of nuclear material into the air. The relatively small amounts sent up with space probes is (in my opinion) low risk/high benefit: I don’t see much danger in scattering a few pounds of plutonium if a rocket has an accident during launch. Up the mass of radioactive material and frequency of launch, and I think you end up with the risk exceeding the benefits.

    Now, if we had a safe and secure space elevator to take the materials into LEO, maybe that equation would change. (I imagine the worst accident–as opposed to terrorism or sabotage–that could happen would involve the payload falling back onto the launchpad.) But as long as ground-to-orbit means sticking things on top of an inverted cannon filled with rocket fuel….

  38. Eric said Say what you want about us over here on the left, but we really do have all the cool bands.

    Just to put things in perspective, I saw Pink Floyd perform most of their Ummagumma and pre-Ummagumma songs live in what was called (at the time) Qudraphonic sound.

    I remember a good majority of that performance as well.

    Up the mass of radioactive material and frequency of launch, and I think you end up with the risk exceeding the benefits.

    I agree that there is a degree of risk for an aborted take-off.

    I also agree that a space elevator would be ideal.

    Let’s work on that. A few nano breakthoughs would help that along.

    But even without extra-terrestrial disposal, nukes are a better choice than what we are currently doing. The French get something like 80% of their energy from nuclear power. What’s good enough for the French has to be good enough for the American Left.

    Or not.

  39. You’re a lucky man, Frank: I only got to see the Floyd in ’94. A great show, but not the classic lineup at the peak of their powers. All I have are the ROIOs. (Not to make you feel old, but I suffer the disadvantage of having been born in ’72, three years after Ummagumma came out….)

    As for the left and nuclear power, don’t assume there’s a monolithic viewpoint among the left or even among the environmentalist left. James Lovelock, the author of the Gaia hypothesis, has gone on record recently as supporting nuclear power, for instance. Some of us over here on this side of the aisle quite agree that what’s good enough for the French (or for the U.S. Navy) ought to be good enough for the public at large. And, again, if you look closely you’ll find that anti-nuke angst makes strange bedfellows of some lefty environmentalists and some pro-oil conservatives, people and groups that normally wouldn’t take a leak on the other to put out a fire, as the old saying goes.

  40. As for the left and nuclear power, don’t assume there’s a monolithic viewpoint among the left or even among the environmentalist left.

    Oh, believe me, I don’t. I know that there are communists who hijacked the environmental movement and started the eco-scare movement with the intended goal of attempting to bring down capitalism. Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore famously split with the group saying they “abandoned science and logic and moved to the left.” and that they adopted policies based on “fear not fact.” Ultimately, this is where the Anthropogenic Climate Change got started. But it has now gone beyond that to the Opportunists, such as Al Gore.

    So another group is the opportunists, as I mentioned. These are people who see that the whole Climate scare thing can work in the favor of people who have the foresight to buy up “alternative” energy infrastructure. Yeah, its kind of a dog at the moment, but if they can fanagle the government to cooperate, with regulation and subsidies, then these properties become gold mines.

    And then there’s everyone else.

    The thing is, I don’t think it’s a “leftist” or “liberal” position to want clean air and water. I think its just common sense and the vast majority of people want that.

  41. Frank says:

    Are the proponents thinking that if all they are suggesting is implemented that the warming cycle that has been occurring for the last 10,000 years or so will just end?

    Say what?

    The current rates of warming have not been happening for the last 10,000 years. In fact, they have gone up much more rapidly since the industrial revolution. And there is very good scientific consensus that the current rate of warming is mostly influenced by humans.

    Are you trying to say it’s some sort of “natural cycle” that occurs over a certain period of time? So how do you explain what has happened in the last 100 years with the massive upsurge in CO2 emissions?

  42. Regarding right wing/left wing etc:

    I have started to view the dems as sort of the “washington generals” that aren’t a real opposing team, but are hired by the right wing “harlem globetrotters” as an entertainment prop to look like they really are playing the game when its really just smoke and mirrors, or funky dribbling as it were.

    Its the only explanation I can think of when I see how idiotic and /i/republican/i/ the dems have been acting lately. I might be in tinhat territory but me thinks they’re in cahoots : )

  43. Harvard Irving says Are you trying to say it’s some sort of “natural cycle” that occurs over a certain period of time?

    Precisely. There is no doubt among scientists that the Earth has gone through a number of warming and cooling cycles in it’s history. Evidence for at least 4 (not including the Little Ice Age that persisted between the 16th and 19th Centuries) have been found.

    Clearly, since there have been multiple Glacial Periods there have also been multiple periods of “Global Warming”, the majority of which have occurred without human intervention.

    That is indisputable.

    So how do you explain what has happened in the last 100 years with the massive upsurge in CO2 emissions?

    Since science does not know what causes Global Warming and Cooling cycles, the relevance of CO2 on this process is in dispute.

    By correlating the two things; a rise in CO2 levels and Anthropogenic Climate Change; you are making the classic mistake of relating two variables (A rise in CO2 levels and the rise in global temperature) that may not be related simply because they seem related and jumping to a conclusion about them (Anthropogenic Climate Change).

    Here’s a bit for you to consider:

    Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”

    Now this is being stated by a scientist whose field is paleoclimatology, not geology, or archeology, or physics or some other field where the expert can be accurately claimed to be a scientist, but is speaking outside his or her field of expertise, which, by the way, is the type of “expert” Al Gore collected for his film

    People who are science minded and are seeking the truth of the matter can not simply ignore such information (i.e. that CO2 levels 10 times what they are now occurred in the past during the middle of an Ice Age), they must explain it in their theory.

    And if you can’t then you must discard the theory and create a new one that accounts for all the facts.

  44. Steve Buchheit Says: Just some more information on Professor Tim Patterson and the “Friends of Science.”

    Of course, you understand, that is an ad hominem attack on Professor Patterson. It does not attack the research or the data, but instead attacks the man.

    Oh, and that CO2? This might explain it.

    Now this attacks the data. But I would point out two things from the article you provided: first is that it shows that the theory that CO2 causes climate change is not settled science:

    One such debate is whether atmospheric carbon dioxide truly drives Earth’s climate. The planet has shifted between greenhouse conditions and icehouse conditions throughout its history, and research from Saltzman’s team strongly suggests that carbon dioxide levels are a key cause.

    If the theory that CO2 causes climate change were settled, there would not be a debate and there would be no need for gathering the type of evidence and proposing this particular theory.

    Clearly Professor Saltzman and his team are fighting the good fight: gathering evidence to support his theory and giving an alternate explanation for the data Professor Patterson cited.

    You see, despite the ad hominem attack, the data Professor Patterson cited is not made up. It is real and must be explained by those who propose the theory that CO2 and climate change are related. Professor Saltzman and his team are doing that, not as true believers but as scientists.

    So, can we now put to bed the faulty notion that CO2 causes climate change is an established fact?

    I would also point out this bit from your article:

    …we are currently living in an ice age — or, more precisely, in a slightly warmer interglacial period within an ice age…

    So how does this fact square with the apocalyptic rhetoric that Al Gore and the Doomsayers purvey?

    According to this, we haven’t even left the Ice Age.

    I’m not going to do research into who provides Professor Saltzman with his funding because I do not think it is germane to the discussion. Either the research is good or its not. I’m thinking it’s fine.

    I’m not arguing that CO2 does not cause climate change. I am refuting the idea that this is settled science. I am also refuting the idea that dramatic and ghastly climate changes are afoot if we don’t change our fossil-fuel burning ways.

  45. Actually, Frank, in that article on SourceWatch, Professor Patterson is a minor character, it just talks about the funding issues and that even the University of Calgary is somewhat suspicious of the FoS funds.

    The other article on CO2 discusses how in 5 millions years we could go from the highest CO2 concentrations to a deep ice age and where that CO2 went, which doesn’t contradict Professor Patterson’s contention, but meerly exposes his timeline problems. You’ll also note, as I’m sure you did, that 5-8 million years is a blink in geological time, this might shed light on how the climate changing in the past one-hundred years can be called “fast change.” That we are between Ice Age cycles, we are continuing to climb in world wide temperatures, we are overdo for a cooling period by 50+ years, all go to show that “something is different this time.”

  46. How are claims that “there is no consensus” about global warming any different than claims that “there is no consensus” about evolution? ‘Cos I’d really like to see some figures on how many actual climate scientists not funded by the oil industry have any real things to say about this. Can we get a percentage breakdown or something? How many actual qualified climate scientists are there? For that matter, what qualifies any scientist to comment on the matter? There are geologists who study past climate change, and meteorologists who study current climate change. For the best results, clearly, we should have teams of these people working together on long term projects studying past and present climate change, and comparing data with teams with other hypothesis.

    Thinking about it, there *are* universities out there who have meteorology departments and geology departments. And there are groups of people who travel to the arctic regions, and study past climate, and the effect of current climate change on the ice.

    So, a quick googling for “department of meteorology” “global warming” and department of geology” “global warming” should give some insight into what these scientists think.

    This way we’re not reciting talking points to each other, and if there really is a diversity of views in the scientific community that is qualified to talk about climate change, we can check for ourselves.

    The internet is amazing that way. And from what I can see, the majority of people who’re qualified to talk about climate change and human impact on it are of the opinion that humans are impacting climate change in a dramatic way. I leave it to all of you to form an opinion yourselves though.

  47. Unless things have gone absolutely to hell in the dozen or so years since I was a faculty member at the University of Kentucky there are a substantial number of highly competent scientists at both UK and Univ. of Louisville. (the two biggest state schools). Actually quite decent universities.

    Two caveats.

    Firstly, while I was there the incumbent governor appointed his former high school teacher as head of the flagship university (UK) (OK, the appointee had a doctorate and was head of all the community colleges). That was warming, if not globally. BTW, this is the same governor (Gatewood Galbraith) who when a biologist published a paper on frogs said who ever heard of a funny little journal called Nature. In response the Lexington Herald Examiner published an editorial entitled “And Phi Beta Kappa runs great keggers”. (All true)

    Secondly, I was on the law faculty

    I’ll leave it to others to debate global warming and gnash teeth at the “perfidity” of the system.

  48. No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.

    Saying quoted by Gideon J. Tucker, Surrogate, in 1866 report of the final accounting in the estate of A. B.—New York Surrogate Reports, 1 Tucker (N. Y. Surr.) 249 (1866).

    From:
    Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989.
    bartleby.com

  49. I’m really disappointed!

    Several days ago I posted the folllowing:

    Patrick Nielsen Hayden;

    “American politics is a contest between the right-wing party and the insane right-wing party.”

    It would be interesting to hear your definition of “left wing”.

    I’ve kept coming back to this thread to read PNH’s response but nothing appeared.

    I really wanted to hear his definition.

    Frank;

    Excellent posts. I wrote a response to one of your earlier posts on nuclear power which, in agreement, expanded on several of your points and referred to some hopeful good news which has come out this year regarding the energy industry. However, after working on it for almost an hour, I tried the ‘Preview’ button and thus ended up losing the whole thing.

    So much for modern technology.

  50. Frank said:
    “No, but science does a require a theory, which would lead to a model that can predict behavior which can then be tested against reality.

    There is no model of “AGW”, as you put it, that has been accurate at predicting anything.”

    This is just so wrong it’s verging on the comical.

    1. CO2 (and other gases) has well established EM absorbtion characteristics.

    2. Following on from (1), it was observed that the average temperature of the Earth is higher than it would otherwise be, given our distance from the Sun, albedo etc. This increase in expected temperature, somewhat misleadingly termed ‘the greenhouse effect’, was attributed to the EM absorbtion characteristics of ‘greenhouse gases’ such as CO2, CH4 etc.

    3. Following on from (2) it was conjectured that changes in the atmospheric levels of these greenhouse gases would lead to alterations in the Earth’s temperature.

    4. Elaborating on (3), measurements have been made that establish that the atmospheric levels of CO2 et al have indeed changed (up ~40% from pre-industrial levels in CO2’s case for example). Examination of the isotopic ratios in the carbon now circulating in the atmosphere, reveals that this increased load of CO2 comes from the fossil fuels that our societies have been burning since the start of the industrial revolution.

    5. Taking (3) and (4) together, the AGW hypothesis thus generates the prediction that the earth has been placed into thermal disequilibrium by the changes wrought by the industrial revolution and should be expected to warm up as a consequence. Furthermore this warming would be expected to have certain tell-tale features (more warming at higher latitudes, stratospheric cooling etc etc) that serve to differentiate it some alternative explanations (eg. increased solar activity).

    6. The earth’s average temperature has indeed risen and the pattern of the warming matches the tell-tale characteristics of the prediction made by AGW theory.

    7. Although several alternatives to AGW theory have been proposed as the source for this warming, so far none of these alternatives have been able to generate predictions that match the data, none of them can explain why the pattern of warming is such a good match for what would be expected from a greenhouse effect and none have been able to give a credible explanation for how the known physical properties of the greenhouse gases are supposed to have suddenly ceased to operate.

    There’s a bunch of other stuff in Frank’s comments about AGW of equally dubious kidney, but I don’t have the time or inclination to Fisk the lot. Perhaps someone else will pick up the baton.

    Regards
    Luke

Comments are closed.