Sometimes, Woody Allen’s fantasy from Annie Hall actually happens:
I provide a lot of latitude here on my blog for people to disagree with me, call me names, and cast aspersion on my motives. That’s why I don’t generally read or respond to private emails that criticize what I do here. I don’t have time or inclination to do privately what I already engage publicly. I usually just hit delete.
But last night, while driving to a private dinner of speakers who are participating at a conference, one such email came in on the issue of global warming. I criticize global warming hysteria and not the question of whether and why we are warming itself. Nonetheless, here is what my correspondent wrote, who I will keep anonymous:
Wesley, Get a clue. Do you know absolutely nothing about science and the scientific method. The evidence that more carbon in the atmosphere causes climatic warming is irrefutable. Every year man puts 100 times the carbon into the atmosphere than the average year of volcanic activity. These figures are backed by U. S. and United Kingdom scientists. Google it and find the sources yourself. And you, sir, are backed up by your bare ass because your head is stuck in the sand or rather up your ass which is a constant 98.6 degrees F. Perhaps you should stick your head rather into the ice core research that has happened over the last 15-20 years and then say something as ignorant as your latest rant. Global Warming is backed up by way more than computer modeling. The modeling only is used to predict where we are heading, and guess what, idiot so far all the feedbacks are positive. For example, the Leptev Sea off the coast of Siberia contains 240 billion tons of methane frozen beneath its frozen surface, and guess what, as the Arctic ocean warms its melting is funneling that methane into the atmosphere at greater rates every year since first studied in 2007 by Natalia Shakova. Google up “Melting Methane” from Der Spiegal. Two hundred forty billion tons in methane is eleven times the methane presently in the atmosphere. Professor Shakova says only 4% of that methane is enough to accelerate the earth’s warming into a catastrophic event. May your great grandchildren curse your name as they fry in the atmosphere.
Nice. I like you too, sir.
Just before my finger hit “delete” the proverbial light bulb went off and I realized that in the car seat directly in front of me sat Lord Monckton himself, aka to GWH’s as Beelzebub. So, I asked him to respond. He read the mail and dictated to me as I thumbed on my Blackberry. Here is my reply email:
As fate would have it, I am in a SUV with Lord Monckton . I asked him to respond. (I kid you not.)
“Yes, of course, adding heteroatomic molecules will cause some warming. The question however is how much warming a given increase in CO2 concentration would cause. Throughout the last 161 yrs, the fastest rate of global warming sustained for more than a decade was 0.16 C per decade. This rate occurred 3 times in the global record. From 1860 to 80, 1910 to 40, and 1976 to 2001. The average rate of warming which the IPCC predicts for next 9 decades is 2.4 times the previous maximum at 0.38 C per decade. That is, the increases would by now have to be happening if the projection were actually true. We’re just not seeing it, illustrating the misdirection that lies at the heart of alarmism. Go figure.”
Or to put it another way, as McLuhan said to the blowhard in Annie Hall, ” You know nothing of my work.” Ha!
June 12th, 2011 | 2:31 pm
Priceless! Though I admit I did have to look up who Lord Monckton is, as I’m not very well read on the whole anthropogenic global warming debate (I see it as rather beside the point since a proper husbandry of my assets means I should be conserving energy anyway).
June 12th, 2011 | 9:27 pm
is this IPCC prediction based on a fixed rate or a continually changing value?
If it is based on the latter, you should be able to see the mathematical flaw in Monckton’s “reasoning” as it relates to phenomenon seen today…
There is a reason why amateurs do not perform surgery, build our bridges, or evaluate our drugs.
June 12th, 2011 | 9:35 pm
I’m always glad when you (full disclosure: anyone!) one-ups a GWH.
However, you did not address the substantive (?) issue. All that frozen methane under the Arctic Ocean, just waiting to be melted, then gassified, like a trillion bisons breaking wind. The normal melting point of methane is about minus-295 degrees F, so I wonder how cold it has to be to be “frozen” under the Arctic ocean?
Eric C. Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
@Joe DeVet,
The thought of a trillion bison breaking wind is intriguing, if disheartening. If that is a home where the buffalo roam, there will be many a discouraging word. Let’s see: an average healthy human passes about 750 ml of gas per day (women the same as men, by the way), and the amount of methane in that varies widely, from essentially zero to 120 ml. Let’s estimate that 10% is methane by volume. We have no data on daily flatus production by bison. (It was difficult to get informed consent from the bison.) If we assume the gas production is proportionate by weight, and that a bison weighs, say, 10 times as much as a human, that would amount to 7.5 liters gas/bison/day, or 750 ml methane/bison/day. A trillion bison–far more than are present on earth, I hasten to add–would yield 750 trillion ml/day, or 750 billion liters per day. Now liquid methane is about 150 times denser than gaseous methane, so that much methane gas would compress to 5 billion liters of liquid methane. There are 1000 liters in a cubic meter. So 5 billion liters of liquid methane are 5 million cubic meters of liquid methane. Liquid methane has density of close to 500 kg/ cubic meter. So the weight of the daily methane production of a trillion bison is about 1.25 trillion kilograms. Again rounding for easy calculation, there are about 1000 kg in a ton. So the weight of the daily methane is about 1.25 billion tons. Siberia was estimated to have 240 billion tons. Siberia wins, bison lose, and any one who has read this far needs a new hobby.
Joe DeVet Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 7:08 am
@Eric C., I did, and I do!
June 13th, 2011 | 6:04 am
It is misleading to assess GW by just looking at temperature increases, which lately have not been major. What *HAS* happened is a lot of polar ice cap melting which doesn’t show as temperature increase. This effect is also visible in glaciers and (not so heavily snow covered anymore) mountain peaks at lower latitudes. GW deniers are ignoring this.
As you know, your drink will stay cold as long as there is ice in it. Once that ice has melted, rapid temperature increase occurs. As polar melting completes, earth temps will skyrocket. Stay tuned…
June 13th, 2011 | 8:58 am
There are long term (300+) temperature records showing ups & downs of fluctuations of similar magnitude to what has occurred recently.
Meantime the are only direct & somewhat reliable measurements of CO2 since 1958. Since both have gone up (except temperature has plateaued of dipped in the past 10 years), the AGW people say the sky is falling.
I think if one looks at the stock market, one could say that’s a better cause for global warming. At least that’s a better fit to global temperature then CO2.
June 13th, 2011 | 12:07 pm
Thousands of recognized scientists are also AGW deniers. Take away the funding and they’d all be deniers.
My gosh…will you alarmists ever spare us your one-note, “the science is in”, samba?
Harryhammer Reply:
June 16th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
@nuffalready,
Mr. Nuffalready,
There aren’t as many “notable climate scientists” as many as you think there are.
Let’s say we set the bar for “notable climate scientist” as low as we can go.
By that I mean, let’s say that to qualify as being a “notable climate scientist” or expert witness in this case you must have written at least one peer reviewed paper in the broad field of “Natural Sciences”.
In other words, if you haven’t written a single peer reviewed paper you don’t qualify as an expert.
Fair enough?
If I’ve missed some let me know, but, the last time I checked there were 36 notable scientists living on earth who meet the “one paper” criteria and have made statements that conflict with the mainstream assessment of global warming as summarized by the IPCC.
Of those, 23 individuals conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.
Here they are:
Khabibullo Abdusamatov
Sallie Baliunas
George V. Chilingar
Ian Clark
Chris de Freitas
David Douglass
Don Easterbrook
William M. Gray
William Happer
William Kininmonth
David Legates
Tad Murty
Tim Patterson
Ian Plimer
Tom Segalstad
Nicola Scafetta
Nir Shaviv
Fred Singer
Willie Soon
Roy Spencer
Philip Stott
Given that these “notable scientists” all have different theories as to why the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities, who’s theory do you believe and why?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 17th, 2011 at 10:05 am
Harry: Please accept a friendly tip. Some of your comments are longer than my posts, and many of my posts are too long for the blog format. People are not here for a lecture. You are free to continue to pour it out, but I think you will be more effective by editing yourself for greater brevity. In blogland, pithy is better, which is a lesson I also need to keep in mind. Carry on.
June 14th, 2011 | 10:42 am
Big Don is wrong that the polar caps are melting. Actually total sea ice in the northern hemisphere has been increasing over the last few years
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
And this pic shows the Antarctic hasn’t lost ice at all but perhaps gained some
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
Harryhammer Reply:
June 16th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
@Damien Spillane,
Here’s a better source:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=46282
Satellite data has allowed the tracking of sea ice since 1978.
During the warmest years, like the winter of 2005-2006, sea ice is observed to reach a winter maximum extent that is smaller than in the years before or after.
The summer minimum Arctic ice extent for 2010 was the third lowest over the period of satellite observations of the polar ice.
The minimum record summer Arctic sea ice extent was in 2007.
These are better graphs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plot_arct_sea_ice_extent.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plot_arctic_sea_ice_volume.svg
June 16th, 2011 | 11:46 am
Mr. Smith, you should have asked Lord Monkton how many miles per gallon his SUV gets.
Many SUV’s get as little as 9 miles per gallon.
Take a look at the list of countries by oil consumption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption
Facts:
Many sources estimate that about 40% of the 18,690,000 barrels of oil being consumed by the United States each and every day are being guzzled by cars and trucks on the road.
The United States ranks at the bottom of industrialized countries in vehicle fuel-economy standards.
In 2004, new passenger vehicles produced in the United States got 24.6 MPG, on average.
Throughout most of Europe gas prices are at least double, and in some places more than triple that of the United States.
Here’s a list of typical gasoline prices for more than 170 countries:
http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/gtz2009-en-ifp-full-version.pdf
Now, take a look at the list of the most prosperous countries in the world.
The rankings are based upon the very foundations of prosperity and the factors that help drive economic growth and produce happy citizens over the long term:
http://www.prosperity.com/rankings.aspx
Now compare the two lists to see what gas prices are in the most prosperous nations that exist:
(Prices in $US/US gallon)
Prosperity Ranking Gas Price
1 Norway – $9.84
2 Denmark – $8.93
3 Finland – $8.71
4 Australia – $5.68
5 New Zealand – $6.66
6 Sweden – $8.71
7 Canada – $4.92
8 Switzerland – $7.68
9 Netherlands – $9.54
10 United States – $3.79
Mr. Smith, your theory that higher gas prices will ruin our economy is without merit.
The opposite appears to be true.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 16th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
But there were 8 people in the car. You should applaud.
Harryhammer Reply:
June 16th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Mr. Smith, a couple of years ago we watched, as the heads of the brain-dead U.S. auto industry flew into Washington to beg the government/taxpayers for a massive loan.
They were on the edge of going broke.
What immediately became clear was that the CEO’s of the “Big Three” (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) were out of touch with reality when they arrived from Detroit like prima donnas in three separate private luxury jets.
They probably should have carpooled from Detroit in a Chevy Volt.
Mr. Smith, I’d applaud you for carpooling with your pals in a gas guzzling SUV if the words of Rick Wagoner weren’t still ringing in my ears.
Just a couple of years ago we listened, as Rick Wagoner, the CEO of General Motors, apologized for his mistakes.
Wagoner stated that the worst decision of his tenure at GM was “axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids.”
Incidentally, the Chevy Volt won North American Car of the Year and the Nissan Leaf won Car of the Year in Europe.
Do you recall the “Don’t Crush Campaign” protest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EV1_dont_crush_protest_692.jpg
It was talked about in the award winning documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?”
Your pal Ralph Nader was in it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/
You can read a summary of the film here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F#Oil_companies
As CEO of General Motors, Wagoner focused on pushing gas guzzlers while fighting against any and all emission standards as well as any and all other environmental regulations.
Detroit is a ghost town right now on account of the decisions made by a handful of idiot corporate managers like Wagoner.
GM’s idiot corporate managers chose to move their factories to Mexico and Brazil, while building SUV’s instead of fuel efficient cars.
They lost $85 billion under Wagoner’s watch, not to mention, about 17% of their U.S. workforce, so forgive me Mr. Smith for not applauding your carpooling in a SUV with Lord Monckton.
Truthfully, for all the damage GM’s managers have caused their workers, the economy and the planet, they don’t deserve a nickel of our business.
Nevertheless, I’m on the list for the Chevy Volt.
Unfortunately, the Volt isn’t available in my area yet.
The Nissan Leaf isn’t available in my area yet either.
It’s been a long wait.
“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait ’til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
– Thomas Edison 1910
Harryhammer Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Mr. Smith,
Can you please check your spam folder again?
July 4th, 2011 | 7:03 am
I just wanted to make a brief note: it is *very* disengenous to compair prosperity in European countries and high gas prices to America. America is HUGE in comparision. The state of Oregon is bigger than all of Germany! (And the same can be said for all countries in Europe by one state of another). You’re not talking about moving items a few hundred miles from one factory to another or from factory to store as you are within Norway or Denmark (or even Austrialia as much of their landmass is rural and most cities are relatively localized), you are talking thousands of miles. To go from one end of Denmark to another paying $10 a gallon for gas is far cheaper than going from one end of the US to another on $4 a gallon gas. In relation to miles needs be traveled just to live in our vast land verses the same in ‘tiny’ European (heck, *most* worldwide countries) the gas price attatched to movement is many times higher!
Harryhammer Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
@Jespren,
Jespren,
“*very* disengenous”?
That’s nonsense.
For starters, Canada is larger than the United States.
Furthermore, the Prosperity Index is reviewed and critiqued by an advisory panel of academics and scholars representing a range of disciplines.
Just to name a few:
Dr. Terry Babcock-Lumish (University of Oxford); Dr. Daniel Drezner (Tufts University); Dr. Peter Feaver (Duke University); Dr. Carol Graham (Brookings Institution); Dr. Robert Jensen (University of California, Los Angeles); Dr. Stephen Krasner (Stanford University); Dr. Michael Kremer (Harvard University); Dr. Philip Levy (American Enterprise Institute); Dr. Edmund Malesky (University of California, San Diego); Dr. Ann Owen (Hamilton College); Dr. Robert Putnam (Harvard University); Dr. Allan Stam (University of Michigan).
One of the main authors of the 2007 report, Will Inboden, was a senior white-house official in the administration of George W. Bush.
The prosperity of the United States is trending downward and most likely overstated.
Your theory that higher gas prices will ruin the economy is without merit.
However, conservative economic policies very well could ruin the economy.
As a matter of fact, they already have.
Jespren Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
@Harryhammer, according to your own list gas prices, high or low, have little to do with economic prosperity. All it says is a couple of prosperous countries have very high gas prices. Actually it more or less shows my point, as the 3 large countries on the list all have relatively low gas prices. I know it’s really hard for liberals, but think rationally for a moment: if it costs $20 to get an item from point A to point B the item *must* cost more to the end consumer than if it costs $10 to get from point A to point B. Point A to B is a lot closer in densely populated areas than in less populated areas so it can afford higher gas prices gallon for gallon wereas if you are going a long way you need lower prices, gallon for gallon, to remain similar. It’s not rocket science and doesn’t need a rocket sciencist to figure out. More to the point, it is born out in real life, both today and in history all the time. Perhaps if you would glance at history you could understand that cheap trasnportation has been a huge economic boon to every society to ever expand past the single villiage stage. The ability to transport good cheaply and safely is a big part of what created the middle class in Europe and allowed for the Renaissance to occure (that and increase in temperture leading to better farming out puts). And conservative economics made the U.S. into the first world-wide superpower (or arguably the 2nd if you count the British Empire at it’s max) and caused us to flurish mightily for most of the lifetime of the country. Socialistic liberal economics, on the other hand, have done a very good job of utterly ruining this once prosperous land.
Harryhammer Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
@Jespren,
Jespren,
Socialistic liberal economics, whatever that means, didn’t ruin your once prosperous nation.
The billionaires in your country never had it so good.
The most profitable company in the history of the world is ecstatic right now.
Here’s a reality check from the floor of the House:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwbiDaiLrkk
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
There it was. Try not including links for awhile.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact