Will the Temperature Rise?

How the world was bullied into silence

extract: Consider the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson described as follows.

“the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Then consider her statement. Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.

None of this matters. In 10 years we will be driving electric cars and generating massive amounts of non-fossil fuel energy.

The thinkers and does and planners will have solved the problem and yeah markets will be part of the solution but since markets can't plan they won't lead the way. There just one tool in the box of many needed to fix this issue.

Hopefully massive climate change and a potential tipping point will be averted.

Meanwhile the naysayers and ideologues and data deniers will not change their tune. They'll continue to hand wave, shout and defy logic. They'll slowly be more and more marginalized and somewhere along the way the gene pool codons and polymorphisms that make them the way they are will fizzle and turn into just so much more useless redundant code. And we will have evolved to the next stage homo sapiens progressivens.

You seem to have divided the world into two groups: those who agree with you (or you agree with), and those you want to get rid of.

Markets aggregate countless plans into a "plan" than none of the individual planners imagine. You seem to understand this emergence of a "plan" when Nature "plans" an eye this way, but you just can't imagine it when your own planning is supposed to be saving the world from endless catastrophe.

You're right. We'll be driving electric cars and generating massive amounts of non-fossil fuel energy in coming decades for reasons that have nothing to do with AGW, because remaining reserves of light crude oil cannot sustain the economic growth that oil fueled in the 20th century, but emerging market economies can and will grow in the 21st century by other means. Your climate hysteria is simply irrelevant.

Oil might be getting low but there's still centuries worth of coal left in the ground.

Mining coal is environmentally destructive for reasons unrelated to CO2, but there are centuries of energy in many forms, including increased efficiency, even as the rest of the world approaches western living standards. I take peak oil seriously, but I don't see any looming catastrophes.

martinbrock,

Let us remember there is thing called the paradox of efficiency. About the only way that is proposed to combat that is take away the gains from efficiency and siphon them off for some other use; of course it is proposed that those other uses be amenable to stuff that leads to overall societal improvement, but public choice teaches that is a load of B.S.

"None of this matters. In 10 years we will be driving electric cars and generating massive amounts of non-fossil fuel energy."

LMAO

Yeah, he makes the case for not passing the climate bill. I don't think he even realizes it though.

re: "They'll slowly be more and more marginalized and somewhere along the way the gene pool codons and polymorphisms that make them the way they are will fizzle and turn into just so much more useless redundant code. And we will have evolved to the next stage homo sapiens progressivens."

What kind of doctor are you again? You know eugenics went out with the Nazis right?

SUBSTANTIAL PROOF:


So you have retreating glaciers exposing non woody herbaceous vegetation that has been covered for 6,500 years.

http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzr....


"For the third time in as many years, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson has returned from an Andean ice field in Peru with samples from beds of ancient plants exposed for the first time in perhaps as much as 6,500 years."

This is NOT an isolated finding. World wide the evidence suggest glaciers have retreated pst points they've not been in as long as 3,000 to 7,000 years. And they are still retreating.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071030-t...

The findings have obvious implications and are clear evidence that the warming is anomalous and severe. It would be remarkable serendipity that such occurrences have just happened 20 years after Dr. Hansen spoke of the dangers before congress. WOW what a lucky guess. OR IT COULD BE SOMETHING CALLED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/antarcticsun/scien...

This "scientific method" emphasizes glacier movements when global temperature changes don't support the hysteria and will shift back to temperature measurements if and when they start rising again.

None of your sources say anything about these glacier retreats being "severe". We see ancient vegetation under retreating glaciers, so retreating glaciers uncover land that might become habitable as glaciers retreat, assuming the retreat continues. The "severity" is your hysterical construct. It's not in the data you cite. It's in your commentary.

No. Retreating glaciers were not a lucky guess 20 years ago, because glaciers have been retreating for 150 years, as your own source clearly states, yet no one claims that an anthropogenic CO2 increase has been significant for much more than half a century.

Re: "So you have retreating glaciers exposing non woody herbaceous vegetation that has been covered for 6,500 years."

Well damn...I wonder what the climate was like back then? Must have been all that global warming from cavemen right?

Do you not realize that your evidence actually helps the AGW skeptic case?

re: "20 years after Dr. Hansen spoke of the dangers before congress. WOW what a lucky guess. OR IT COULD BE SOMETHING CALLED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD."
You mean the Dr. Hansen that got caught fudging the data to support his own political ends?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/c...
That is NOT the scientific method! HA!

Using an anology George (muirgeo) will like... We have an epidemic here. It's an epidemic of aesthetics masquerading as science. Strangely, the aesthetes eschew any semblance of fashion and change, instead declaring the status quo optimal, even holy. It's no surprise that the "science" becomes infused with politics. It's aesthetically convenient to call the "science" "settled", when, in fact, the very definition of science is that nothing is settled. Real science, real competition of ideas, real uncertainty is not pretty. So it is just wallpapered over with politically correct conclusions.

There are a couple reasons I moved from the San Francisco Bay Area to to SoCal to go to college and stayed for 20 years. One was, of course, my school. One was my knees. As a teenager, they just ached from November to March up there with the wet, cold weather. Another was my skin. I was literally allergic to the cold as a young adult. Had to give up snow and water skiing. 5 degrees of warming up there would have been a good thing in my book. 5 degrees of warming globally would have opened up a whole bunch of places I could live comfortably. I would bet that if we put things to a vote, and told people it was OK to vote their selfish interest, that a strong majority would welcome some warming. No doubt that 20,000 years ago, they would have! Are things so perfect and optimal now?

Do you understand theat the difference of 5 degrees is pretty close to the difference between Pasadena and Death Valley?

I understand that 5 degs/century over the 21st century is a theoretical rate of warming that is increasingly inconsistent with experiments.

By similar math, if all of this nation's prison inmates were executed, the average American would have .95 testicles and 1.05 breasts. Put another way, if the Rose Parade were held in Death Valley every New Years, thousands of people would freeze to death! You are comparing a fairly moderate climate at near sea level close to the coast with a wildly swinging climate at 3500 feet further inland. You can't just compare average temperature of those two and draw any conclusions. Come on George, even batting practice isn't soft pitch :-).

Add to that the predictions that the warming will be disproportionately in colder climes, and you have grounds global warming advocacy coalition.

But you make a serious point about policies against externalities. How can it be considered just when some people allegedly will be hurt more than others by global warming (and as you said some would even be helped), that the government impose the costs equal on all of us (or at least without regard to damages or culpability)?

Seems to me there is an opportunity here to fracture the Democrat party. The appropriate way to deal with AGW is in the courts. Let's put that to the trial lawyers and see what happens.

Because lawyers will bring out the fact and show global warming is a fraud?

What I said, and also because if AGW is not false, this is probably the closest way to approach a just distribution of punishments and restitution. If I like global warming, I have no damages, and no need for restitution. If I think I'm being hurt by global warming, then I can explain to the court my losses and who I think is at least partly responsible and why. Eventually companies will enact policies reflecting the legal climate.

Aw come on - how can a lawyer prove global warming? It'd be near impossible! If unseasonal heat wave 'proves' global warming does a unseasonal cold spell 'prove' global cooling? And if global warming is hard enough to prove how impossible is it to prove A.G.W.? "Nah, the global warming is a natural upturn which will soon be followed by a natural downturn in time, case closed!" Even if (a very huge 'if') A.G.W. could be shown who cops the blame as everyone belches and farts out greenhouse gases in various quantities?

Or we could just pay Mr Burns to block the sun...

That's not a problem of the tort system, that's a problem of the strength of AGW evidence. Maybe the evidence is so weak that the government doesn't want it debated in a court of law.

Hence I find your coment - "If I think I'm being hurt by global warming, then I can explain to the court my losses and who I think is at least partly responsible and why." - a throwaway line.

So you if you think you're hurt by global warming and go to court you'll be laughed out of there and be facing expensive legal costs. However, who exactly will you be suing? God? Who can be held individually responsible for A.G.W. as everyone chips in through everyday living?

At the end of the day, the atmosphere is and will forever 'the commons' and isn't anyone's in particular hence the capacity to sue against air pollution (not the Don Boudreaux kind) is spotty at best and A.G.W. lawsuits are impossible even if it can be shown to be definitively true.

You don't need 100% culpability. A Florida hotel can sue a local coal plant for partial damages. Our climate scientists know to an inch how much AGW is going to raise sea levels. They also know how much the local plant is putting out. And the hotel knows how much the loss of that beach will be to them. Shouldn't be too hard using the usual AlGorithms.

Of course, we are talking about multiple plaintiffs individually going after a small number of major wrongdoers over time. The lawsuits will soon add up and evil corporate polluters will get the picture that they need to change their emissions to avoid lawsuits.

As compared to the carbon tax, this would more focus restitution on those actually experiencing damages. It would therefore be more just. And it would give the global warmies their day in court--many times over.

No, because they will lobby against any government intervention that would hamper their tort cases. It would put them at odds with the government control freaks.

"The plateau in temperatures has been seized upon by skeptics as evidence that the threat of global warming is overblown."

No narrative there is there Enquiring Canuck? God I love it!

Clicking through to the NY Times story was like sliding down the rabbit hole into Wonderland with Alice. Reading the NY Times story was just like the narrative of Alice and her adventures.

I especially liked the line about "arctic ice showing substantially less ice loss", golly gee is that another way of saying that there is restoration of the ice pack in the Arctic Ocean......ya think?

People are confused by the contradictions, some people may be, like the ones that were confused by the ballots in the contested counties in Florida in 2000....LOL!

We have protected the stupid far too long, time to let nature take its course.

Using a medical analogy.

So you have a fever of 106. Now it's 105.5. Do you still have a fever?

Man the desire NOT to accept the facts is strong.

No, the correct analogous question is:

If you have a temp of 106, but your baseline temp is 105, and we predict your temp will be 478 shortly (if you do nothing, based on our computer models which are nonpredictive), do you have a fever?

George, how in hell did you pass the MCAT? You’re incredibly dense….

I don't think he understand the question.

What a stupid anaolgy. Yeah their predicting the temperature to go up hundreds of degrees. Jesus H Christ... how old are you?

Yeah I passed my MCAT's by not thinking like a 10 YEAR OLD. How'd you pass yours???

And this:

What a stupid anaolgy. [Spelling error]

Yeah their [another spelling error] predicting the temperature to go up [usage error] hundreds of degrees. Jesus H Christ... how old are you?
[poor swearing/colloquial insult]

Dude, what’d you get on the MCAT writing sample - an 8?

[they're letter-scored]

To be fair, "anaolgy" is a typographical error, while "their" is a grammatical error, I see a lot of that in the younger folk.

Life ain't fair, chief. Look at fucking Dr, George. Do you seriously believe that pharlatan is capable of rational thought, much less a "do no harm" standard?

Fuck that.

I think he's intellectually disabled or constrained in economics and politics; unable to grasp economic fundamentals or political reality.
Fairly typical of the left in general. Something about magical thinking.
We have a pretty good idea how that comes about, but I see no point in verbally assaulting him. Yeah, I know his "participation" tends to be frustrating, but he refuses to go away, so I hope that liberty advocates will exhibit a little grace in the face of such intransigence.

I have typelexia myself and and on occasion, I swap letters around as in "anaolgy", though if I bother to look, I know what to do about it.
Doesn't everyone get a red line under misspelled words?

The grammatical error is a better indicator of the state of his schooling. He claimed that he has a type of dyslexia, but I bet they tell that to all the kids. Likely his teachers also suffered a "type of dyslexia".

So edit my comment to: "to be accurate"

Exactly. He's too stupid to know how to react to external inputs.

And don't give me the "I don't have time" excuse. I run a multi-billion dollar trade desk, and never have time.

And don't give me the "I don't have time" excuse. I run a multi-billion dollar trade desk, and never have time.

Huh?

Sorry Sam, not intended at you. Georgie Girl recently mentioned something about not having time to eat lunch and working 27 hour days, walking uphill to & from work in his bare feet, and having to go out and kill his own food. Or something.

As justification for his grammatical and intellectual laziness.

Anaology. I thought Yasafi went to medical school to become an Anaologist.

Muirgeo, in your juvenile spirit of “mine’s bigger than yours,” I took it twice, and I scored higher than you both times.

But thanks for asking.

So was it a good predictor of some one being a good doctor?

George, let’s put it this way:

No doctor I currently go to thinks as you do.

No doctor I have ever encountered thinks as you do.

They all have a quaint notion that the doctor-patient relationship is intimately sacred, unlike you. They actually take time to “diagnose” and utilize information in a highly effective way, unlike you.

If most (all) people on this blog were deathly ill, they would come to me rather than you in a heartbeat. I at least would refer them to competent care, i.e. not you.

You are a failure not only as a doctor, but as a person. You are a danger to yourself, your profession, and the community at large.

How’s that? Clear enough for you?

mesaeconguy will be known, from now on, as Iceman. :-)

That's awesome, thx bos.

And it's regular.

What do you think, "doctor"?

"I passed my MCAT's by not thinking like a 10 YEAR OLD"

So THAT'S how its done. Is it the same standard for practicing medicine?

No, they're predicting .4-.6 degs C/decade, and we're measuring 0 at the moment, after measuring .15 for thirty years, while they declared a practically certain acceleration to .4 and far beyond in the 21st century, because even .15 isn't close to the catastrophic rate they predict.

You don't acknowledge any of these truths, because they're inconvenient.

Your analogy is nonsense. The Earth has a temperature of 98.7, maybe 98.8, and it's not rising. but the people saying it will rise four or five times faster in this century than it did in the last century are starting to sweat anyway.

If that were so it would be in homeostasis and the glaciers would have achieved mass balance equilibrium. They are no where near such a state.

You sir are ignorant, uninformed and wrong!

http://rs.resalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/20...

"homeostasis ... equilibrium"

Are those words that have ever described earth? Oh wait, this just in:

Climate scientists are now saying that anthropogenic CO2 will cause catastrophic climate stability!

Damn, martin. You are on a roll tonight.

No he's not. Unless you live in Opposite World.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Opposite_world

In reality, the climate change catastrophes you imagine are Opposite World, and you don't give a hint of understanding the factual basis for skepticism of your hysterical claims of a falling sky.

So if you treat it with antibiotics and the fever persists...then what?
Oh but if you would have looked you'd have noticed it was a viral infection not bacterial.
Using your medical analogy, your just so sure it's bacterial caused that your refusing to see if it might actually be viral, in which case all your Rx are worthless.

What if the fever is going away before you've even started antibiotics?

What if you measure my temperature as being 105 +/-15 degrees?

What if you sample moisture measurements in the air surrounding my body and use complex models to deduce that I have a fever? Do you cut my legs off?

What if my neighbor has a fever? Do you give me antibiotics?

What if I think muir has a point? Do you give me Haldol?

What if algore falls in the woods? Does it make a sound?

"What if I think muir has a point, do you give me Haldol?"

No just ask you to put down the bong.

But dude...heh-heh...it's they only way I can make it through his posts...heh-heh.

But if you agree with Muir, then you took too much man....you took too much!

Can YOU provide the signature data?

Still waiting.

Man the desire NOT to accept the facts is strong.

You sure are one fine projector.

Next time, bring that data.
I've been asking for it for months and still no sign.

And here is George Will, Oct. 19, 2006 , using the Casandra word again to make fun of the economic gloom and doomers of the day.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will101906.php3

Yeah let's listen to George Will regarding climate science insted of the actual scientist.

Yeah, let’s listen to the “actual” “scientists” about concealing data and deleting challenges to their mistaken theories. Apparently, RealClimate [widely considered the "authority" on AGW] has a rather draconian habit of censoring those who don’t agree, and those comments are captured here:

RC Rejects

Why does this blog even exist? Why is it necessary to have a blog devoted to what appears to be an enormous cover-up and outright scientific censorship and excommunication? The Catholic Church would be proud….

This is not science. It's persecution and fraud.

[h/t Coyote]

Yeah Mesa just like that eeevolution crap...atheistic mombo jumbo crapola...that's not science.

Where did I make any reference to evolution?

Get back in the corner, retard.

As a McClimateer do you get to wear headgear that has two big green ears?

Oh wait I just confused McDonald's, Mickey Mouse, and McClimateers to create a senseless image.

On second thought senseless seems to fi the McClimateers.

I have no idea why, but when I read your post what popped into my head was McClimate.

The idiots like muirduck deal in McClimate, it is cheap, easy, and God knows what's in there.

The actual science is much less alarming than the hysterical political scientists you follow.

Yeah because every other time there was major climate change nothing happened to the then present species. And beside we're different because we're us and we have the Invisible Hand God to protect us from all things evil. And nothing bad has ever happened to us so far. CSo yeah from that sort of a perspective the science seems much less alarming... especially if you don't even know the science....that really helps.

No. Because the measured rate of global temperature increase hasn't remotely approached 4-6 degs C/century, didn't rise above 1.5 degs/century in the 20th century and looks more like 0 degs/century in the first decade of the 21st century. Because the IPCC itself declares 1.5 degs/century "environmentally sustainable". Because no one claims that any measured warming has reached or shows any sign of approaching an unsustainable level. Because theoretical models of rising temperature are the only basis for claims of catastrophic warming, and these models have consistently failed to predict observations.

You're the only one spouting this nonsense about God's Invisible Hand, and you aren't saying a word about any science. You show no sign of any knowledge of the science. You show every sign of blind fanaticism.

It's NOT God's Invisible Hand.... It's THE Invisible Hand God... blasphemer!

"every other time there was major climate change nothing happened to the then present species"

An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. We could be due for another one. Better lobby Congress to raise taxes.

Don't joke about that. Some people are already lobbying Congress for strategic asteroid defenses, and if the AGW apocalypse fizzles, they could reach the front of the credibility queue next.

I'm all for early asteroid detection. You think just because this happened in a fictional movie there is NO real threat? I'd suspect an asteroidal event is at the top of the list of things which could actually kill us off. There may be no reasonable way to avert an impending hit but if there is some way it might be worth a small bit of investment to insure against this risk.

I wonder, if Don or Russ writes that 2+2=4, will muirgeo immediately oppose this controversial statement?

"2+2=4"

What are you, some kind of creationist libertopian corporatist birther?

You think just because this happened in a fictional movie there is a real threat?

See. I can write silly questions devoid of any factual rationale for spending trillions of dollars too.

A few percent of global GDP to insure against the risk of climate catastrophe. A few more for an asteroid defense shield. A few for a war on global pandemics. A few percent to entitle every man, woman and child to the greatest possible, artificial life extension (more than a few for that one really), the war on death. Not to mention the few percent we already spend on wars of every other description.

How many percents of global GDP do we have anyway?

Around 172%, I think. Small price to pay for fairness, though.

Great. I'm still thinking of how to spend my few percent. Let's put our heads together and see what we come up with.

There are plenty of scientist who believe in AGW, but who also DISAGREE on its consequences.

Here we go again, attempting to discredit the messenger instead of the message.
Which fallacy is that again?

Do you mean those scientists that were making all those predictions that have failed to come? http://tinyurl.com/3w2xdd and that's only for Australia.
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

My fav is Mojib Latif. Who says that the earth will cool, but is sure that it will eventually warm sometime.
This is a good one too:
""Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts," said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.

Because damn it, I hate it when the data doesn't fit with what our models are telling us...the solution....the models must be right...so we just need to find more data.

Which fallacy is that again?


It's the fallacy of YOU WERE SO INCREDIBLE MASSIVELY STUPENDOUSLY WRONG ALL THE WHILE BEING A CONDESCENDING ASSHOLE OF ENOURMOUS PROPORTIONS THE LAST TIME WTF WOULD ANY FOOL BELIEVE YOUR STUPID JABBERWOCKY THIS TIME? That one.

Ha ha. Awww did I hurt your feelings?

He has feelings?

I didn't know that someone born without a brain stem could have feelings, either.

Seems like feelings is an unrealistic burden for someone who must do all of his thinking with his cervical ganglia.

Of course he has feelings, he comes here mostly seeking retribution for his hurt feelings.

I can make you feel, but I can't make you think
Jethro Tull, Thick as a Brick

Excellent Tull reference, Sam. Inventor of the plow, as well. Nice.

I think you struck a nerve...

"theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are impervious to evidence. The theories are unfalsifiable"

Another good piece by Will. I predict he will be the next Fox acquisition, now that Fox has Stossel.

O.K. I'll segway into another "debate" about rent seeking baby boomers.

On a per capita basis, it would mean emissions approximately equal to those in 1875.

So just about the time the corporative state must impose suffocating rents on a generation suckled on the richest teat the world has ever known, to keep promises to their predecessors in the rent seeking game, we discover a need for global sacrifice of historic proportions to save the world from excessive breathing ... and similar pollution. Forget the idle boomers entitled to these rents. Think of the heroric sacrifice to save the Earth from catastrophy.

martinbrock has just restored my faith in martinbrock.

Holy shit! Martin, we have found a slender thread of brotherhood! I like that, and I certainly understand it.

I try to be disagreeable, but occasionally I slip.

And the word is "segue". "Segway" is the thing you ride. I knew that ...

I don't want to hear anything from AGW proponents until they present the signature data that is predicted by CO2 warming theory.

Here's your attribution studies Sam. Anything else you need?

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ft...

Summary
We conclude that climate forcing by changes in solar irradiance and volcanism have likely caused fluctuations in global and hemispheric mean temperatures. Qualitative comparisons suggest that natural forcings produce too little warming to fully explain the 20th century warming (see Figure 12.7). The indication that the trend in net solar plus volcanic forcing has been negative in recent decades (see Chapter 6) makes it unlikely that natural forcing can explain the increased rate of global warming since the middle of the 20th century.

Hegerl, G.C., von Storch, K. Hasselmann, B.D. Santer, U. Cubasch and P.D. Jones 1996: Detecting Greenhouse Gas induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method. J. Climate, 9, 2281-2306.

Hasselmann, K. ,1997: Multi-pattern fingerprint method for detection and attribution of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 13: 601-612.

Hegerl, G.C., K Hasselmann, U. Cubasch, J.F.B. Mitchell, E. Roeckner, R. Voss and J. Waszkewitz 1997: Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution of greenhouse gas- and aerosol forced climate change. Clim. Dyn. 13, 613-634

Do you know what "suggests" means?

I'm talking about the upper tropospheric warming which is predicted by CO2 forcing, but which is yet to appear in the measurement data.

Upper troposphere is warming after all, research shows

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34398

We conclude that the peak warming in the upper troposphere
is highly significant for both time periods, and that our data
do not seem to be consistent with a lack of upper-tropospheric
warming in the tropics. The degree of warming remains fairly
uncertain, but is within the range simulated by climate models,...

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tlt...

What else do you need me to look up for you Sam?

http://lubos.motl.googlepages.com/sherwood-alle...

link

I may have been mistaken, apparently the AGWers no longer claim this as an AGW signature.

2008? They are using proxies because the direct measurements don't show warming?

BTW what became of the original data set used to build the models and is now missing?

OK Sam here we go.

What signature data? Be specific. Where did you here there should be signature data? I assume you are talking about the signs or fingerprint signature that shows the warming could only be explained with consideration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. If it's something else let me know.

Otherwise I'll have one order of Crow served up shortly but I have to go see a baby with a fever right now.

Ok so I am back. I told the nurses that since the baby's temperature went down from 102 to 101.5 he didn't have a fever and according to George Will I should not worry about treating him for possible fulminant sepsis. The parents asked who George Will was and I told them he's a famous Journalist and editorialist for the Washington Post and he's an expert on economics and climate change and temperatures and fevers and babies and things.

I can't believe they asked for a second opinion...hmmm..urrummmmphh!

That's a ridiculous analogy. You know what is the normal temperature for a baby. What is the "normal" temperature for the Earth??? Should I remind you that we happened to live at the end of last Ice Age?

A good rule of thumb is to be wary of any scientist who "campaigns constantly to promote policies" endorsing and advancing his own research.

Are Don and Russ scientist? Do they do research?

"Are Don and Russ scientist?"

I wouldn't call them that, unless you wanted to qualify it by saying "social scientists" (no offense R&B).

"Do they do research?"

I honestly haven't read any of their books, only their articles. I suppose they do literature searches for their books. I don't know if they do original research otherwise.

BUT, for the sake of argument, let's assume they are scientists and that they do experimental research. I would then advise you to be wary of their campaigning constantly to promote policies endorsing and advancing their own research.

And shame on them if they do. But I haven't seen any such hypocrisy yet.

Here we go. Another "debate" about Global Warming...

Well .. you are the ones who insist. Like evolution there really is no debate. Just some ideologies and faith based beliefs to protect.

You're an idiot. As I've previously stated I believe in AGW, but the idea that there is no debate is laughable. Even if everyone agreed that AGW did exist, there is PLENTY of debate about what should be done about it.