Heads Up: Global Climate Change Denial Bashing

What a wonderful post!

This individual manages to do a wonderful job at doing three things.

First he does a reasonable, measured smackdown on a global warming denier ‘Jack’. In calm measured tones (and with graphs), he points out that while measurements from the Vostok ice cores do show a variation in temperature over time, they are only part of the picture.

Yes, the chart does show that CO2 and earth’s temperature have risen and fallen over the past 400,000 years. No one is claiming that these variations were caused by humans, in fact how the Earth manages to stay within this narrow range of temperatures and CO2 concentrations is the subject of a great deal of debate and research. The point here, is that even with natural variation, these values have stayed within the range shown above for 400,000 years.
[…Image deleted]
This is where global warming comes in. Early in the 20th century the atmospheric CO2 passed 300 parts per million and just kept on rising. In 400,000 years the natural variation never topped 300 ppm, yet in the last few decades CO2 has gone 25% above that. And amazingly enough, this rise coincides neatly with humans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates. This is human caused global warming, and this is what increasingly cannot be explained away as “natural variation.”

Second, he manages to do a wonderful job of showing the inane stupidity in the following comment,

What do you think? Is it possible that those people who think the Iraq war was a good proposition could actually be right on the global warming issue? Or are they a related subset of each other?

And, perhaps as a piece d’resistance, he has both cats and a really cool mustache.


2 comments so far

  1. bereans on

    Hi EA!

    I followed your link over from Doug’s Darkworld. Just a quick tip. You may want to read the whole post or related ones before jumping to conclusion. The “inane” comment was a question about a correlation Doug had actually made. My resultant question was given in the spirit it was asked. (Something you may have picked up on if you had read all of the posts referenced):). It is not very nice to insult Doug in that way, (he is a very nice person), even if you didn’t realize you were doing it. Recommend reading the whole post, the related post in the future.

    Take care, and kindest regards,


    P.S. Have followed up with my answer to Doug. Let me know what your thoughts are. Would enjoy continued discussion with others on the topic!

  2. blc303 on


    To paraphrase Dick Cheney, I don’t want to be a dog in that fight.

    When I look at your posts and how your knowledge seems structured, the fact that you will hop from one newspaper article to the next, I simply despair.

    My gravest fear is that, even though both of us would use the same language, we wouldn’t be transferring the same thoughts. I would use a word in a manner with a definition obvious to me. You would read the same sentence and understand something completely different. That is not meant to disparage either your education nor your intelligence (it might disparage mine). No I simply state it as what I consider to be a ‘fact’

    Further, I doubt I could add much more than moral support to Doug.

    But to be honest, I would offer a bit of advice. Perhaps an attempt to structure the conversation would be a good idea.

    Jack, since you seem willing to read quite a bit of information about Global Climate Change, why stop at some journalist saying that a scientist said something? Why not read what the scientist wrote and discuss that?

    Unfortunately, the full first volume of the Fourth IPCC climate assessment won’t be available until May. But since the conclusions haven’t changed, merely tweaking on the actual values, might I recommend the Third Assessment Report? (Alternatively, you could discuss US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change or Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change from those America hating Brits.)

    Why don’t you make the investment to read one chapter a week, then post in your blog a discussion of any concepts you either don’t understand or flatly dispute. That keeps the conversation from running around in circles. It also allows both sides to prepare for what will be coming in the next week.

    If Doug isn’t interested, I might try to find time for you. But be warned. I have been called a pitbull evangelist. When I start, I never let go. But I don’t like to start.

    Oh. And I stand by my comment about the inane stupidity in the quote. He does do a good job of pointing out that any overlap is perhaps due to an overwhelming reliance on reality and not scripture. But you knew that.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: