Can Grist make that available on its web site?

I want to take Waffleberger's slot.   It's like getting a chance to sign the Declaration of Independence!

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

I can say with true sincerity that you would be an appropriate addition to the list.

I encourage you to e-mail Marc Moreno and ask to be added.  If you do, I guarantee that I'll do a "skeptic of the day" on your qualifications.  Now that's incentive!

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-fro ...

So I don't know.  It might be best not to jump to conclusions until verified statements are made by the individual involved.  

If anybody asked me - are you still on the list?  I would say DEFINITELY!  

So why am I on the list?  Because I think our concerns about the environment do not always recognize that the poor and disadvantaged may be unintentionally hurt by well-meaning but misguided actions (read:  carbon tax et al)  

I agree with you that any policy we adopt must be fair and allow the impoverished to improve the lot.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that everyone recognizes that.  That's why, for example, the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated to exclude developing countries from any emissions reductions.  

So that view is quite mainstream.  I agree with it yet would not include myself on a list of skeptics.  

The first blank carries a lot of suggestions that carry negative repercussions for the unfortunate - that there really seems no way out of except don't talk about it.  Some of the arguments used to fill in the second blank seem kinda weak sometimes, and some of the items used to fill in the third blank at times seem far-fetched.  

But I'm an old dog and maybe too jaded, I've seen a lot come and go, and sometimes I see a little too much worry about things that aren't likely.  And afterward we look back and see how we could have done thing a little differently.  We can always reverse the ill-considered of course, but unfortunately any unintentional harm we caused the innocent sometimes cannot be undone.  

So that's me, in my view as the "skeptycal scientist" that Robert Boyle identified himself with; Boyle didn't take a whole lot for granted, but he did make a lot of progress.  

Times were different in Boyle's era, and maybe it's true or it isn't, but the discourse back then seemed more congenial, and that seems to me far more preferable

To expand on that: Our infrastructure, and what prosperity each of us does enjoy, are built upon the assumptions of cheap, plentiful energy and infinitely resilient natural systems.  When these assumptions are challenged by reality, everyone will suffer but the poor will suffer much more.  It's not just, or fair, or good, but it's true.

The less prepared we are, the worse the suffering will be.  The longer we put off attempting to mitigate our error, the less prepared we will be.

It would be a very good idea to try to design the mitigation in an equitable fashion, so that the least prosperous members of society do not carry an undue portion of the burden.  However, there are two important caveats to this:

1. Even having the option to try to make the adjustment process equitable requires that we respond to the danger before we are forced to by circumstances.
   
2. Even if we cannot, or choose not to, implement policies designed to cushion the blow for the poor, it is still in their best interests that we start mitigation as soon as possible.  However much they may suffer under a voluntary (at a societal level) adjustment program, they will suffer much more if the adjustments are forced upon us by circumstances.

Anyway, you'll be pleased to learn I'm ploughing through the IPCC IV science report.  I have to thank you for pointing me towards this tome.  I'm printing it out PDF by PDF and studying it.   One phrase caught my eye, on Page 95, Chapter I:

...unsuccessful prediction demonstrates that the underlying theory is imperfect and requires improvement or adandonment.

Well, gee, since just about every IPCC prediction has gone poof, I'd say that the CO2-AGW synthesis is about fit for the wastebin.   What do you say?

(Maybe I could be an alternative on the Inhofe 400.  Like a Silver member or something...)

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

The price of oil will rise by speculation until it starts diminishing the return by hitting productivity - it actually has done that long ago.  People have tried it since time began - but eventually learn, you can't kill the goose that gives you golden eggs.  

The only thing oil has done in countries that supply it with controlled economies is, pay for an expensive military to control the populace so that a few bandits can live in palaces.  The trick here is to make the populace think the elite deserve it somehow.  Ugly, but another subject.  

Here's what I see as some realities, and you can debate them all you want but it would take nothing short of chloroforming me to say there are real alternatives:  

-    From the way the country is structured, the idea of universal mass transit is not within 75% feasible
-    It is impossible to contemplate much more than 20% renewable fuel for the US.  I will personally buy either of you a jelly donut if you can show me that's not beyond a dream.  Right now we have about 5% transportation fuel coming from renewable (3% all liquid energy renewable) and we still have to buy alcohol from Brazil to make up the balance put in there by legislation.  Guys, we can't cover Neb, KS, MO, and MT with canola and even if we could we don't have the natural gas to make the methanol and make the biodiesel even if we did.  (Please don't say, we'll cover Michigan with enough trees to make the methanol!)  
-    Work on cellulose alcohol all we can, but let's not write checks without funds in the bank to cover them   (Meaning:  set no target and rely on nothing)  
-    Unless somebody figures out a way to break the second law of thermodynamics, hydrogen fuel from any source except nuclear is nothing but a niche market possibility - and even at that cannot be done without using more energy than you get from the hydrogen.  Solar?  Nope - costs you more energy to make the cells than you get out - and we can't really cover AZ with cells either.  
-    Cannot have an electric grid with much more than 20% renewable source (except hydro) because of the instability - and utility solar power is not readily available except in the Southwest.  

So that's the really real from the old DOE skeptical skeptic and the science skeptyc.  

Coal is a feasibility - but right off the reservation for some folks.  (John Edwards on your pages:  "Coal is the enemy of the human race."  I want to shout, "Come on John, for Heaven's sake England had no other source of energy for 400 years - is London still there?  Is Paris still there for that matter?  Do you think Moscow will still be there next month?)  That kind of talk from John might make some people nod their heads - but they aren't thinking.  

So - nobody likes the real, and everybody hollers about it, but that's what is, so let's work from there

We always need to prepare for the future - but we can't pretend we don't live in the present real world.  

You only see the world as it is now, projected years into the future.

Can't you imagine for a second that the numerous breakthroughs in materials science, stem cells, energy transmission, computing...will soon add up to the Green Answers we've all been wanting.


Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

If you're serious, I am sure the office will be friendly toward you.  

Keep in mind - you have to be up front about everything, and you don't mind a little "teasing" (like maybe musing whether jail or public beheading on TV is the right thing for you)

And be careful now, saying that 4AR is a fairy tale is a sensitive as mocking religion to some people

So - nobody likes the real, and everybody hollers about it, but that's what is, so let's work from there

Well, to speak facts toward that perception of the "real" world.

It's world where Coal and Nuclear cost too much:
http://greyfalcon.net/costlycoal
http://greyfalcon.net/costlycoal2
http://neimagazine.com/story.asp?sc=2047917
http://greyfalcon.net/h2nuke
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UC1tFsGCqSU

Where Greenhouse Reducing Electricity is getting cheaper and more massive by the day.
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/01/solarre ...
http://celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-tec ...
http://greyfalcon.net/csp
http://greyfalcon.net/raser2
http://greyfalcon.net/greenenergy.png

_

Now if we want to talk about regressive taxes.
How about the taxes we're paying to pay down the national debt and this war?

http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png

Why are we ignoring the elephant in the room, and bitching about the mouse?

_

That said, I think we can both agree though, hydrogen and biofuels are bunk.
http://spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448648,00. ...
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/zieger
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png

And I do agree that ALL of our Presidential candidates won't admit to this.
(Largely because they can't. Even if the physics doesn't work, it certainly "Sounds" green. And thats what the general public votes based on in Presidential elections.)
http://greyfalcon.net/iowa2
http://greyfalcon.net/iowa

• There is a maximum of 900 W/sq m in the brightest sun in the US
  
• That is available at most 12 hr/day (average like 600 over the day in the sunniest of sunny)
  
• Everyting else looks like 200-400 when it doesn't rain
  
• Carnot efficiency is at 30% for solar heat, and if you have a big system you can't get the heat out except water (That is Carnot efficiency, remember, and if you are not satisfied with it, maybe hang a skeptic)  
  
• PV is at 15% now in the brightest sun, like 5% average.  30% is all you ever do with silicon, and nobody can do better than 5% with thin film now
  
• You cannot store PV electricity in anything but heavy duty batteries
  
• You cannot put more than 20% renewable on a grid.  Here is why:  A grid is built to maintain frequency.  If you start trying to force wind or solar, you wind up having the grid use more energy than some of the turbines are trying to put into it
  
• You cannot eliminate the electric grid.  Period.  You cannot eliminate that any more than you can eliminate public water.  

I was actually a program manager for the Solar 1 and Solar 100 central receiver projects; you might look these up, the pictures are beautiful.  

The former was 1 MW and the second a 10 MW design.  They are great and a tremendous use of the desert sun; and we couldn't do better.  

But when we realize that a typical coal or nuke plant is 1000-1100 MW, we certainly know we need some more options.  The overall US electrical capacity is about a thousand of thosand MW and we operate at about 75% capacity. We need more because we are growing.  And we need to overhaul transmission too because some of it is aging and we need the extra line availablilty.  

Say, Dr. Dessler, I know we differ sometimes, in our approach and our views - but I am absolutely certain we both have the best interests of humanity in mind in all we do.  I was thinking that others might benefit from hearing the perspectives of both - to learn what the real message and perspectives are.  

Do you think an open discussion would be of interest to others who would like to learn the points of view of both sides?  

If so - maybe something could be arranged for an open discussion if you ever come to Washington DC.  

It is in the spirit of learning and the true interests of sharing and understanding that I cordially, and respectfully, invite you to consider such an open discussion. The format and topical areas can be anything you like.  

This offer is extended seriously, I am sure you know, and in the spirit of peace and friendship of all of those devoted to using their very best wisdom on behalf of all.  

If this might be of interst to you, you are most welcome to respond to me here, or please e mail me at bgvalentine@verizon.net.  

Anyone else please email me too!  I think a lot of us have a lot of mutual interests

But when we realize that a typical coal or nuke plant is 1000-1100 MW, we certainly know we need some more options.

Why do we need more options?

California, for instance, has 2GW of solar thermal already planned.  And another 2GW of Geothermal.

And molten salt storage can near perfect reliability for Solar-Thermal.  Day or Night.

And there's no real shortage of "fuel".
http://greyfalcon.net/greenenergy.png

The biggest geo plant in California right now is the Geysers, (maybe the world?)  that is 550-650 degree steam, best there is, and the plant is 100 MW.  That is the best source you will find, every source pretty much degrades from there

The molten nitrate salt can store, can you figure out much salt you need to store 1 MW thermal (which will be 0.2MW electic)if you can't bring the salt within 50 degrees of freezing?  
(cannot have the salt accidentally freeze in the lines- real catastrophe possible like that)  

Don't forget now, I'm kinda old, and I have been at DOE a long time, and what is real, is pretty clear to somebody like that

like real clear

Maybe I misunderstood your comment earlier, but I just observe that:

a) In the 1970s, less-well-off folks got clobbered by the oil crunch.  For a while, we made good improvements in efficiency, and then we slacked off.

b) It is totally impossible to go cold turkey off oil, in particular, because big chunks of American farming would totally collapse.

c) But, I'd claim that a whole lot of people would be a lot better off if we hadn't slacked off; I think California [even with it's car love-affairs] is better off for having pushed hard on efficiency issues, and likewise Europe.  [Gas is expensive, and that's forced a lot of infrastructure choices.]

d) I simply think that doing everything we can, including sensible/rising carbon taxes, to try to send clear signals to people, and increase efficiency, is less likely to smash up poorer people, than to pretend there is no issue.

e) With regard to global warming, it seems like a lot of economists are out to lunch regarding being able to pay for adaptation because 100 years from now, everyone will be a whole lot richer.  They may be able to buy Terabyte iPods, but paying for dikes and seawalls will be really expensive, especially with little petroleum left.  I guess there's always men with shovels.

-John Mashey

Geothermal is a close second to Nuclear in California's electricity grid. (More than Iceland)

And accounts for more renewable electricity than all of California's existing wind and solar combined.

Raser, an electric drilling/car motor company, for instance is also gearing up to make quite a few sites available on the west coast backbone.
http://greyfalcon.net/raser
http://greyfalcon.net/raser2

Abundant Power from Universal Geothermal Energy
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=1723 ...

And if you really want some deep reading:
The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geother ...

And of course a more targeted Raser PR video:
http://www.rasertech.com/uptospeed/uptospeed_05.html

The only real answer I have is coal for liquid fuel and nuclear for electricity (and breed U233 from a thorium cycle).  

You might not like the taste of that one, but I can show you that the logic of it is constructed out of something more solid than pipe smoke  

That isea will DEMOLISH the poor in short order because they are the ones who don't have the means to push the costs on to any more.  

And you will make an elite, mark my words, so help me, who are going to decide who will live, and who won't, in the name of "Saving the Planet."  

If I don't hear that kind of tone in some of the current rhetoric about what they want to do - then I am not a "Denier" or "Denialist" or whatever name you want to give it.  

By the way, I don't think the word "Denier" carries enough force behind it.  I think they ought to come up with something a little more objectionable - like "planet killer" or something like that

Suppose, when you use injected water to get your geothermal hot water, that you create something like mercury sulfide or selenium sulfide or something with low solubility - that EPA says you cannot deep well inject.

Now what

The only real answer I have is coal for liquid fuel and nuclear for electricity (and breed U233 from a thorium cycle).

Except that we both know that Coal-to-Liquids doubles the emissions of transport fuel.  And is also "three to four times more expensive".

And
Nuclear costs too much
Gets far too much subsidies
and scales up too slowly.
And ironically, aren't well suited for increasing temperatures

Simply what you're advocating is atleast 3x more expensive.

Is that "realistic"?

_

You cannot talk me into it

If you answer is "nobody", then are you really being rational?

Science is science. We have the advantage of living in a democratic sociey. We can use our voice to give our opinion. The tactics by the deniers are cynical and very low.

But what is a "denier" (or planet killer as I have recently applied a new term).  It means I don't believe some "true facts," agreed?  

I'll believe those "true facts" if you can convince me that any of the following are true:  

-    Any GHG other than water influenced the global climate since the beginning of the Earth
-    I cannot correct IPCC results for water and the heat
-    The primary product of your own metabolism influences diurnal or matutinal average kinetic energy of the gaseous exosphere of the fourth stone from the Sun outside of the vibrational, rotational,  and translational contributions to the temperature weighted mean molar enthalpy

I will agree that it will take some time for me to convince others of the veracity of the second.  

As far as costs go, do you want to continue paying dictators for the stuff under the dirt they stand on, or do you want a strong, independent, America?  The choice is yours, young man.  

Actually, Sunpower panels are a bit over 20% in the field.  Unisolar (1st gen amorphous thinfilm) runs about 8% IIRC.  Multijunction silicon cells have already cracked 30% in the lab, though those products are undoubtedly some time away from commercialization.

# You cannot store PV electricity in anything but heavy duty batteries

By which you mean you cannot store electricity (PV or otherwise) except in batteries.  That's mostly true (though Beacon has a utility-scale flywheel storage unit).  But storing electricity is not the goal -- it's a means to and end.  The goal is to match production to load and you can do that by controlling your load (thermal storage, demand response) or by storing electricity as potential energy (pumped hydro, CAES).  You only need to store enough energy as actual electricity to cover the time required to bring new assets on or off line.

# You cannot put more than 20% renewable on a grid.  Here is why:  A grid is built to maintain frequency.  If you start trying to force wind or solar, you wind up having the grid use more energy than some of the turbines are trying to put into it

The problem isn't with matching frequency.  That's easily done by any number of commodity PV inverters.  The problem is matching load.  That's a legitimate problem, but one that has answers.

# You cannot eliminate the electric grid.  Period.  You cannot eliminate that any more than you can eliminate public water.

You certainly don't want to eliminate the grid -- it has many advantages.  But you can change the design from a 99% focus on centralized generation, to a mix of centralized and distributed generation.  Essentially, break the grid up into a series of islands that can function semi-autonomously (at reduced performance) but that are tied together in normal operation.  That gives you more flexibility and more reliability.

All the issues you raise (except for the frequency issue) are legit issues, but solutions or potential solutions abound.  Things have changed a bit since the 1970's.

How much (as percent) of base load of a electric grid do you think the power can fluctuate before causing a runaway instability in a 400KVA trunk?  

At what point does concentration on PV reduce the lifetime to the degree that cost cannot be paid back?  

The 30% thermodynamic limit for silicon does not apply, necessarily, to a photoelectric material with anharmonic charge carriers for which there may be a phonon coupling with crystal resident carriers.  In fact there may be no limit.  But until somebody can convince me it possible above 10K, I'll stick to 30%.  

As far as distributed goes, tell me who is going to provide the SOFC or cogen for, say, 25% of downtown Detroit.  

Or Cincinnatti

Guys, the individual posting here is not spouting off a bunch of facts and figures that he has not considered or knows nothing about

- at the expense of the focus on personalities, rather than the more noble attepmts for mutual understanding of both sides (or the many sides) of an issuel; and realising how much we all have to learn from each other.  

All sides of the perspective of climate, I am quite certain, have nothing more than the very best interests of humanity in mind - which is something we may have forgotten, in our attempts to be heard, rather than to listen.  

As Dr Pierrehumbert has been kind enough to show me, we make so much more progress when we do  

I appreciate and understand the Grist perspective on the benefits of the green and sustainable present and future.  Astonishing as it may seem - my wife and her sister are firmly committed to the green Earth viewpoints that are shared here at Grist.  All of it resonates very much with them, emotionally.  

My wife is not the technical type her husband is (not to that extreme, anyway - and according to her sister, it is everyone's good fortune that few are) - but my wife loves all of nature and wants to protect it.  

As all here do.  And the skeptical viewpoint that I have taken relates to my belief that evidence may not justify unfortunate consequences to those who cannot say otherwise.  That is the basis of my position.  

I know very well the rationality, methodology, evidence, conclusions, and support of the IPCC work.  I appreciate very much all the work that has gone into it, and however well meaning the goals have been I unfortunately see negative consequences that are not justified by the evidence.  I wouldn't say so if I weren't convinced otherwise.  

Meanwhile I will do all I can to understand and learn more of the perspective of the green side, and will share in good faith what I see to be their concerns with others I know to be skeptical.  And if Dr Dessler decides to come to Washington, perhaps we might begin a new era of understanding of things all sides need to know about the other

Arlington, Virginia
January 19, 2008

bgvalentine@verizon.net

I made a lot of friends, many of them Iraqi who lived in Baghdad.  They were very brave to work with the Americans because the period 2005-2006 was the height of their tension.

A young man who helped us became very interested in construction methods, and I asked him one day what he wanted to do.  

He told me he wanted to help to rebuild the place - but he "first had to figure out a way to end the fear."

The next day he didn't come back.  I think I'll take his mission in his place  

BTW, in Brian's 12:11 PM on 16 Jan, he said in part:

"Who said what and when?

There seems to be some confusion about the actual communication to or from Mr Waldenberger, as you can see here
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-fro ... ... ..."
You provided a commendable response to the latter part of his post, not quoted here, but nothing for the above. (particularly post # 185).  I do hope you can find time to read from the link, and draw some conclusions from it.

Hi Andrew,

You wrote: "As a result, Inhofe was forced to include on this list people with zero qualifications as well as people who are not actually skeptics. In the end, I estimate that his list is 80-90 percent bogus -- which leaves a few dozen credible climate skeptics on the list."

Now, Andrew, don't exaggerate ("80-90 percent bogus") just to make your point.

There are about 100 "qualified" scientists on the list put together by Eli Rabett plus another 50 meteorologists, who also have a qualified opinion on what is happening to world climate, even after taking Waldenberger off the list.

150 is around "12 dozen".  OK, let's call it a "few" dozen.

But, no matter.  The list was a political ploy to show there is not complete scientific consensus, which it demonstrated very effectively.

Sure, there are more "qualified" climate scientists who support the AGW theory promoted by IPCC than there are those who oppose this theory; that's how they earn their living.

How many "qualified" climate scientists would you say there are, Andrew?  

Do you believe there are really 2,500 "qualified" climate scientists that agree with everything in the IPCC 2007 SPM report?

Do you believe there are 2,500 "qualified" climate scientists that agree with everything in Al Gore's award-winning sci-fi horror flick?

I seriously doubt it, and I am sure you do not agree with Gore's movie, either.

Al Gore's movie was a political message; Inhofe's report to the US Senate was a political message.  No wonder, both Al Gore and Senator Inhofe are politicians.

Rajendra K. Pachauri's November press release was a political document, as was Ban Ki Moon's November "tipping point" article in the International Herald Tribune and the IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers report.  No wonder, because the UN is a political body.

The problem is that we have politicians driving a so-called "scientific" process.

And Andrew, your ploy of "cherry picking" individuals on Inhofe's list to discredit them personally (and thereby to try to invalidate Inhofe's political message) is also a political game.

You'd do better by sticking to what you know best (the "science") and show, based on your knowledge why the expressed scientific reservations of qualified individuals like Lindzen, Christy, et al. are invalid.

Regards,

Max

I think Brian Valentine's 17 January proposal to have an open discussion with you is a very good idea.

An open dialogue between a scientist who supports the "mainstream" view on AGW and a rational skeptic who also can discuss the "science" (rather than just the "politics") would be useful for many people who are still undecided in this debate.

Regards,

Max

In discussing the polemic nametag given to anyone who questions the AGW orthodoxy, Brian Valentine wrote: "By the way, I don't think the word "Denier" carries enough force behind it.  I think they ought to come up with something a little more objectionable - like "planet killer" or something like that."

"Planet killer" sounds good, Brian, but I am still missing that instant visceral feeling of hate and outrage.

"Flat earther" implies stupidity but lacks zip.  "Contrarian" reminds too many people of their teenage children, so lacks the sinister connotation.  And "skeptic" almost sounds like a normal human. So a better nametag is definitely needed.

"Mother Earth rapist", "humanity exterminator" or "climate holocauster" might appeal to some, while we could refer to the impending climate catastrophe as the "greenhouse gas chamber".

Someone should run a contest to come up with the best nametag.

Max

Now to get on my mission, step one:  no fear.  We're all in this together, and the real meaning is for all to get to know one another, and the perspectives - the nice ones, not the ones we could (or should) forget.  

I know that I have a lot to learn in that regard, too, so I'll end it here:  for me anyway, the term is Beatnik.  

Now that hasn't been around for a while, and in the 1950's, it meant somebody on their own path, usually - and not universally recognized as a positive factor in social progress.  

Moreover, the people were generally regarded as lazy - if only because they did not fit with the world and the ways most people wanted them to direct their focus or contributions.  

So, it works with me, and besides, I like bongos ...

Peace and progress, right now, in hearing all sides, and let me say here, in my memory of

Spc Miguel S Carasquillo, US Army

from Chicago, who, on August 5, 2005 at 1:32 PM in Baghdad, happened to be four inches closer to of a piece of a car bomb than I was and because of that I have the opportunity to write something (hopefully worhwhile) right on this page -

and possibly some more beneficial things, too  

In your Professor Chris Castro blog, you quoted me in PART and responded:
(BlckWallaby at 8:47 PM on 11 Jan 2008 )  "...I guess it is an absence of humility on your part that you fail to see that you [Andrew] have suffered what is known-in-the-trade (at least here in Australia) as "the brush off".
Reply: Andrew Dessler at 10:24 PM on 11 Jan 2008 "Actually, most people brushing someone off simply don't respond.  For example, I don't respond to your comments because I'm brushing you off.  In that light, your comment is both amusing and ironic --- and a little bit sad."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Study of my full post shows that you misrepresented the professor, and that he gave you "the brush off", after you Emailed him, with an unhelpful reply.  Notice also that Nucbuddy at 10:23 PM on 14 Jan 2008  has independently shown that you have misrepresented him.

Why Professor Castro chose to give you the brush-off, I don't totally know, but I firmly believe that the reason you are "brushing off" some of US others, is that you cannot give truthful answers to many questions because they either/and/or embarrass the IPCC/you concerning disastrous AGW.
What you may also not understand, as I discussed, is the concept of fundamentalist black or white thinking, versus grey thinking by rationalists. Both Manacker, me, many other skeptics, and apparently professor Castro, accept that there is probably some AGW out there, but small.  We are skeptical that it is important, and object strongly to cherry-picking and exaggeration and even fraud to make things seem worse than they really are for political reasons.

Many of us also agree that the current warming is less than experienced in fairly recent history.  Even the current "disastrous" melting in Greenland and the Arctic was probably exceeded during the recorded higher temperatures of the early 1900's, so why does the IPCC not discuss it?
BTW; why don't you add Drs Chris Schoneveld and Sammy Owl to your Inhofe list?

If the links above do not work, please go to the source blog @: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/6/224510/7920  

Further to my post above reminding you of unanswered comments, on YOUR self initiated blogs, inviting discussion, here is an example from another blog http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/112933/48 which is one of many, from multiple authors, which you have ignored:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reur response to Jabailo, who was seeking your expertise to recommend the three best papers linking CO2 to the current warming:
Because this is "your area", you should have such info right at your fingertips. Thus it is arrogant and/or at best unhelpful to retort; go read the 1,600 page IPCC report. (WG1). I would have thought you would be pleased to roll-off the evidence to him.
I have previously read most of WG1 and cannot find the answer to Jabailo's question either; "where is the evidence?" There are some correlations, intuitive statements, and assumptive models etc, but so what? Where is the actual evidence? Muana Loa CO2 data shows a crude correlation with T, but probably the consumption of hamburgers or some other consumable shows a correlation too. So what? Why be so arrogant and unhelpful about it?   Black Wallaby

That is what I felt when I read what Mr Wallaby had copied as a response from Dr Dessler to an earlier exchange,

Reply: Andrew Dessler at 10:24 PM on 11 Jan 2008 "Actually, most people brushing someone off simply don't respond.  For example, I don't respond to your comments because I'm brushing you off.  In that light, your comment is both amusing and ironic --- and a little bit sad."  

In all honesty I don't believe I have ever dismissed (or "brushed off") a sincere gesture for discussion; if I don't feel it would serve anyone's interest to do something someone has suggested, I would say: gee, I don't really think that would be of great value, and I appreciate your taking your time.  

The last response Dr Dessler has made to me, is:  he wouldn't include himself in a list of skeptics.

Although he has written at length about the list and its particulars, and I refuse to believe Dr Dessler does not believe that those whose names appear on the the list are not human enough to respond to  

Hi Andrew,

I posted this on the other site, but want to make sure you get it and respond, so am posting here as well.

In attempting to refute the validity of the Inhofe report, you have used the approach of cherry picking individual names on the list and discrediting them as being not "qualified" to have a relevant opinion in the current scientific debate on climate change.

This approach of "ad hominem" attack (rather than debating the issues) is a favorite of the supporters of the "mainstream" view when it is challenged.

It appears you are having fun with this approach, so we may have to see you continue with it until you have run through the list (or people get bored with this tack).

Andrew, what you should be doing, as a recognized expert in climate science, is addressing the scientific objections stated in Inhofe's report, in particular those that come from individuals that are clearly "qualified" to have a valid opinion even by your own rather restrictive and elitist standard.

You should also respond to valid questions with regard to his lead article, which have been expressed on this site as well as the others you kicked off.

But so far you have chosen not to go down that slippery path.

Are you afraid that you might lose in a rational debate of the issues?

Let us see if we can move the discussion into that direction and away from the "ad hominem" trashing approach.

Jabailo has asked you the specific question, to which you have not replied: "What, in your view, are the very best 3 scientific papers that establish a link between CO2 and warming (I don't care if its AGW or NGW, just CO2)."

He added: "If possible, I would prefer papers that are experimentally based rather than computer simulation based.  And I am looking for primary research, not summaries of synopsis (and please don't tell me to read the IPCC report)."

Chris Schoneveld and Black Wallaby have asked you similar questions regarding the evidence for this link.

As it turns out many of the experts on Inhofe's list have the same doubt as expressed by the above individuals.

Below is a list of climate scientists that are quoted in Inhofe's report as having reservations that man-made CO2 is a principle driver of global warming.  This does not include many others quoted in Inhofe's report who take issue with some other IPCC claim regarding climate change.  It only includes those that specifically do not believe there is any scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing or will cause significant warming.

Dr. David Wojick
Dr. George Kukla
Dr. Ben Herman
Dr. Gerhard Gerlich
Dr. Tom V. Segalstad
Douglas V. Hoyt
Dr. Boris Winterhalter
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes
Dr. Howard Greyber
Dr. Nir Shaviv
Dr. John W. Brosnahan
Dr. Marcel Leroux
Dr. Reid Bryson
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm
Dr. Tim Patterson
Dr. Zbigniev Jaworowski
Dr. Ian D. Clark
Dr. Jan Veizer
Luc Debontridder
Dr. Timothy Ball
Dr. Richard Lindzen
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov
Dr. Ian Plimer
Dr. Vincent Gray
Dr. John Christy
Dr. Anthony Lupo
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
Dr. Willie Soon
Dr. Martin Hertzberg
Dr. Michael R. Fox
William R. Kininmonth
Dr. Yury Izrael,
Dr. Joel M. Kauffman
Dr. Augie Auer
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels
Dr. Cal Evans
Dr. Petr Chylek
Dr. Ian Wilson
Dr. George Chilingar
Dr. David Douglass
Dr. S. Fred Singer
Dr. Richard Courtney
Thomas B. Gray
Dr. Philip Lloyd
Dr. Oleg Sorochtin
Dr. Nathan Paldor

Now, don't go telling me this list is "80% bogus" because it "only has a few dozen" individuals or this or that individual is not a "qualified" expert, but answer Jabailo's question.

Where are the experimentally based scientific reports that establish a link between CO2 and warming?

Don't give me the "read the IPCC report" brush-off.  I have read it and what Jabailo has asked you for is not in there.

Time to talk facts, Andrew.

Regards,

Max

What's the matter?

Afraid to talk facts?

Give Jabailo (and all the others that have asked for evidence, based on your expert knowledge of climate change) an answer: where is the experimentally derived scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing or will cause a significant increase in global temperatures?

If you do not answer, my friend, I will assume that you are admitting that this evidence does not exist.

Regards,

Max

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(Monty_Python)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1433376252473629 ...

Don't know too much about "Black Knights", except I seem to recall in medieval history something about the "Black Prince" (also called the "Black Knight") who was a hero for the English but a scourge for the French during the 100 Year War.

But thanks for the compliment.

The issue here is really not so much about me but about Andrew's refusal to talk about the scientific facts with those who question him.  It appears that he is afraid to move away from his gambit of discrediting individuals or making inappropriate analogies.  

I really cannot understand why a well-known climate expert is unable to defend his beliefs on a factual scientific basis.

Maybe he knows deep inside that there is no real scientific basis for the whole AGW hysteria.

Regards,

Max

Its against American jurisprudence and deeply held American values to try to force someone to speak. Manacker wants everyone to toss aside their fundamental human rights, just so he can continue his rants.

Unless I heard incorrectly, I learned that Dr Dessler said that CO2 caused climate change over the past 100 million years.  

I was speechless:  one of my principle arguments against AGW has been, there is no observable evidence in the geologic record of GHG influence on climate change in 4 billion years of Earth history.  

When I went to school, I learned that over epochs of Earth history, the observable causes of climate change have been related to the advance of perihelion of the Earth's orbit around the Sun and the elongation of the node.  The geological record was the astronomical record, and conversely - in addition to any random variation due to tectonic activity and the temporary influences of volcanoes.  (there are other known astronomical influences on the eccentricity of orbit and declination of apparent ecliptic, and these are observable, sometimes periodically, within epochs).  

If CO2 "caused" climatic changes, the following would have events would have also occurred:  1) the partial pressure of CO2 in the atm. would exceed the concentration for equilibrium with of CO2 in the ocean at some point, and 2) the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere would exceed the equilibrium partial pressure of fixed carbonate on the Earth at the average temperature and local barometric pressure (everywhere, which is what we mean by "global").  

These events would have occurred, as the Earth responds to CO2 influence to global warming.  

Unless I am too tired this moment to think straight, I think that if those events occurred, the geological record would look (more than) a little bit different.  

I don't have any additional comments and I don't think I'm going to revisit this particular location in cyberspace any more.  

bgvalentine@verizon.net

Remember, all character assaulters out there, that people who seek the truth are NOT your enemy - they are your friends,

- for the truth is, something that CANNOT escape you (or conversely)  

Yay. With friends like these...

You're jumping at some incorrect conclusions here in your rant on American jurisprudence and my attitude toward fundamental human rights.

But leaving your outburst aside, it is pretty plain that Andrew Dessler does not really want to exercise his fundamental right not to speak.  

He opens up blog sites like it is going out of style so that he can freely speak out his unsolicited thoughts to the world.  

Unfortunately he has drifted from his area of expertise, where he could have something truly worthwhile to say about global warming, to making silly analogies (fat earthers) or personal attacks against cherry picked individuals who were mentioned in Sen. Inhofe's report (skeptic of the day).

Many of us are just trying to get Andrew back into his area of expertise, so he can explain the physical science behind some of the strange and alarming claims made in the IPCC report.

But he has not yet responded to this challenge, so I suppose he may want to "exercise his freedom not to speak" in order to avoid the slippery slope of an open discussion on the scientific merits of the IPCC claims.

A pity.  But that is, of course, his free choice.

But thanks for your thoughts on American jurisprudence.  Are you a lawyer?  Don't worry; I think there are some nice ones out there.

Regards,

Max