Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Like Water for Climate

MALMÖ – “Everyone knows” that you should drink eight glasses of water a day. After all, this is the advice of a multitude of health writers, not to mention authorities like Britain’s National Health Service. Healthy living now means carrying water bottles with us, sipping at all times, trying to drink our daily quota to ensure that we stay hydrated and healthy.

Indeed, often we drink without being thirsty, but that is how it should be: as the beverage maker Gatorade reminds us, “your brain may know a lot, but it doesn’t know when your body is thirsty.” Sure, drinking this much does not feel comfortable, but Powerade offers this sage counsel: “you may be able to train your gut to tolerate more fluid if you build your fluid intake gradually.”

Now the British Medical Journal reports that these claims are “not only nonsense, but thoroughly debunked nonsense.” This has been common knowledge in the medical profession at least since 2002, when Heinz Valtin, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at Dartmouth Medical School, published the first critical review of the evidence for drinking lots of water. He concluded that “not only is there no scientific evidence that we need to drink that much, but the recommendation could be harmful, both in precipitating potentially dangerous hyponatremia and exposure to pollutants and also in making many people feel guilty for not drinking enough.”

So why do we keep hearing (and believing) that more water is better? Well, obviously Gatorade and Powerade would like us to drink more of their products, and getting us to gulp more than we would naturally like seems like a brilliant marketing move. Likewise, the latest Hydration for Health science gathering, which promotes drinking more water, has been sponsored by Danone, which sells bottled water under brand names like Volvic and Evian.

The drink-more-water story is curiously similar to how “everyone knows” that global warming only makes climate more extreme. A hot, dry summer (in some places) has triggered another barrage of such claims. And, while many interests are at work, one of the players that benefits the most from this story are the media: the notion of “extreme” climate simply makes for more compelling news.

Consider Paul Krugman, writing breathlessly in The New York Times about the “rising incidence of extreme events” and how “large-scale damage from climate change is … happening now.” He claims that global warming caused the current drought in America’s Midwest, and that supposedly record-high corn prices could cause a global food crisis.

But the United Nations climate panel’s latest assessment tells us precisely the opposite: for “North America, there is medium confidence that there has been an overall slight tendency toward less dryness (wetting trend with more soil moisture and runoff).” Moreover, there is no way that Krugman could have identified this drought as being caused by global warming without a time machine: climate models estimate that such detection will be possible by 2048, at the earliest.

And, fortunately, this year’s drought appears unlikely to cause a food crisis. According to The Economist, “price increases in corn and soybeans are not thought likely to trigger a food crisis, as they did in 2007-08, as global rice and wheat supplies remain plentiful.” Moreover, Krugman overlooks inflation: prices have increased six-fold since 1969, so, while corn futures did set a record of about $8 per bushel in late July, the inflation-adjusted price of corn was higher throughout most of the 1970’s, reaching a whopping $16 in 1974.

Finally, Krugman conveniently forgets that concerns about global warming are the main reason that corn prices have skyrocketed since 2005. Nowadays 40% of corn grown in the United States is used to produce ethanol, which does absolutely nothing for the climate, but certainly distorts the price of corn – at the expense of many of the world’s poorest people.

Bill McKibben similarly frets in The Guardian and The Daily Beast about the Midwest drought and corn prices. Moreover, he confidently tells us that raging wildfires from New Mexico and Colorado to Siberia are “exactly” what the early stages of global warming look like.

In fact, the latest overview of global wildfire incidence suggests that, because humans have suppressed fire and decreased vegetation density, fire intensity has declined over the past 70 years, and is now close to its preindustrial level.

When well-meaning campaigners want us to pay attention to global warming, they often end up pitching beyond the facts. And, while this may seem justified by a noble goal, such “policy by panic” tactics rarely work, and often backfire.

Remember how, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Al Gore (and many others) claimed that we were in store for ever more devastating hurricanes? Since then, hurricane incidence has dropped off the charts; indeed, by one measure, global accumulated cyclone energy has decreased to its lowest levels since the late 1970’s. Exaggerated claims merely fuel public distrust and disengagement.

That is unfortunate, because global warming is a real problem, and we do need to address it. Warming will increase some extremes (it is likely that both droughts and fires will become worse toward the end of the century). But warming will also decrease other extremes, for example, leading to fewer deaths from cold and less water scarcity.

Similarly, there are real health problems – and many of them. But focusing on the wrong ones – like drinking a lot of water – diverts our attention from more important issues. Telling tall tales may benefit those with a stake in the telling, but it leaves us all worse off.

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (61)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. Commentedjimmy rousseau

      Mr. Lomborg proves once again that he is a master of strawman arguments. Drinking 8 glasses a day had absolutely no basis in science and has nothing to do with science. Climatologists have medium (not high) confidence that there has been a slight tendency toward less dryness. Not a very strong statement. What Lomborg fails to note is that climatologists suspect that agw is going to cause more extremes in the climate and that parts of the world that are wet will be wetter and parts that are dry will be dryer. Lomborgs well documented past as an agw denier destroys almost any credibility he has to speak on this topic, and his recent articles prove that he has not given up the fight to stop action that would mitigate agw, but has simply adopted a new strategy.
      Disingenuous and dishonest

    2. CommentedJeffrey Smith

      Thank you Dr. Lomborg for such consistency in your message, never denying climate change, but putting it in perspective.

      When I read the heated responses that miss your point, I am reminded by Orwell's quote: "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

      Viva la Revolucion!

    3. CommentedGary Marshall

      By the way, Jeff, how can there be ocean acidification when the ocean is strongly alkaline? You just mock my legitimate query like any AGW moron without supplying an answer. So typical. When you grow up and learn to answer a simple question, maybe someone might view your points seriously. As for now, dealing with nauseating children is not my thing.


        CommentedGary Marshall

        Very clever that the multiple science degree holder can only give us the NOAA’s version of events, and certainly not his own. All you do is quote from these people time and again. Then you claim that it is I who go to WUWT for my sole source of information. More evidence that you are beyond help, and science. The child's world.

        I asked you to define acidification as food scientists use it. Where is that definition? I know why you choose not to supply it. It would certainly not provide any help in your stupid argument, would it? So supply the definition of acidification as used by food scientists. Then we shall all see how stupid you truly are. And that goes for all the other sciences inclined to use ‘acidification’. Show us how they define it. But you won’t because it would mean the end of your deranged argument.

        Look at most dictionaries, and the meaning of acidify or acidification becomes clear. ‘To make acid. To convert into an acid.’ Will the oceans convert into an acid with the addition of a solution so infinitesimally small compared to its great alkaline body? Never, no matter what the moron at the NOAA may wish to claim, nor those who follow him.

        Now, if you wish to use the term acidification, then I have clearly demonstrated that rainwater and runoff have been part of this process of 'acidification' for longer than Man has inhabited this earth. Our influence is nothing compared to nature’s. If Man is responsible for about 4% of carbon production, then we are responsible for only 4% of CO2 production. Which means in carbon dioxide, Man has far less influence on the oceans than nature. The danger here then is not Man, but nature. But try to explain to one who makes fantastic claims of holding multiple science degrees. Talk about a pathetic little child locked in his own world of wishful thinking.

        If 4% of carbon production will overwhelm the oceans, then why has nature's 96% repeatedly failed to do so?

        Because you have no idea what you are talking about.

        All you do is produce a study from the federally funded NOAA. Wow! And it confirms OA.

        So chemistry does not apply to the oceans, does it? The stupid get stupider.

        Some fellow in 1751 supposedly measured ph to 1/100th of a point. That is amazing given that so many others did not have the means at that time to do so similarly. Litmus paper is all they had, which is not accurate to within 0.2 pH. So your little figure is with certainty not credible. There is also much variability in results from night to day in ph ocean measurements, some moving almost .5 or more depending on place and time measured. Add some runoff and rainfall into the mix, and the variations just get larger. So your figure of a solid and invariable 8.25 from 1751 is a result that is hard to believe. Add in that the natural alkalinity of the ocean water can only be determined accurately when all life has been extinguished or disabled, and you have an even greater problem with measurement. But of course this means nothing to our OA nutjobs. They just make it up as they go along and count upon the most vacuous minds to embrace and broadcast it. Dunces following f’n retards.

        Increasing the ion concentration in an environment overly alkaline means absolutely nothing.

        And the computer models put forward by the dunces at the NOAA mean about as much. Dumping acid solutions into seawater is not the same as CO2 entering into the ocean naturally. Nor is bubbling CO2 through seawater as so many experimenters do the same either.

        How much calcium can one find in the oceans? And what happens when all that CO2 meets water, forms carbonic acid, and then bicarbonate? What helps all those living organisms in the ocean to form harder shells?

        Well, go back to the NOAA for help and let us know what they claim, moron.


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        And in response to your question about how we know that humans are causing this increase in CO2, and that that increase is accelerating the rate of Ocean Acidification:

        What evidence suggests that ocean acidification is happening and that it results from human activity?

        Scientists have collected semi-continuous records of seawater pCO2 and pH over the last 20-30 years in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. These time-series records from near Hawaii, Bermuda, and the Canary Islands show that seawater pCO2 is mirroring the increase in atmospheric CO2 and that ocean pH is decreasing.  Other measurements of the CO2 content in the North Pacific Ocean, conducted in 1991 and again in 2006, show that the CO2 content in the North Pacific Ocean has increased in accordance with rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. — Carol Turley, Senior Scientist, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK; Joan Kleypas, Scientist III, National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA

        Seems like you ran out of arguments, so you had to try and recycle another worthless shard of cherry picking trash from the WUWT website. We knew you weren't smart enought to originate these arguments with the kind of education that you lack. Enjoy reading all those papers (which we know you can't) Gary The Lo-ooo-ser.

        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        Gary, titration is a laboratory technique and because you are too ignorant to realize this, let me inform you, the ocean is not Chemistry 151 laboratory titration .  And if you'd actually taken the time to look you'd have figured of how the term has been used in science for decades. 

        "When acid is added to a solution, the concentration of hydrogen ions (acidity) increases, and the pH decreases. Frequently people confuse pH with acidity—pH is the scale on which acidity is expressed, but it is not synonymous with acidity. An appropriate way to compare the acidity at two different pH values is to express the relative percentage change of the H+ concentration at the two pH levels. For example, a pH decrease of 0.11 corresponds to approximately a 30% increase in acidity, which is an exact change in acidity (H+ concentration) of 28.8% when calculated in this way.

        pH values above 7 are commonly referred to as “basic” (or “alkaline”). These common terms engender confusion, because a pH value does not directly reflect a quantitative measure of the concentration of bases in the solution, nor do high pH values constitute a measure of alkalinity. What is expressed by pH values >7 is still the acidity of a solution, it’s just that the acidity (H+ concentration) is very, very low (less than 10-7 (or 0.0000001) moles per liter, to be specific). To determine the alkalinity of a solution (which is related to the concentration of bases), a separate, detailed laboratory analysis must be run on the solution, so it is incorrect to characterize the change in hydrogen ion concentration as a decrease in alkalinity.

        Just as we describe an increase in temperature from -40°F to -20°F as warming, even though neither the starting nor the ending temperature is “warm,” the term “acidification” describes a direction of change (i.e. increase) in the level of acidity in the global oceans, not an absolute end point. When CO2 is added to seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid (H2CO3); hence acid is being added to seawater, thereby acidifying it. Similarly, in the example about human blood, a drop in pH is referred to as “acidosis,” even though the point where “acidemia" begins (7.35) is still above 7.”


        So since you're too stupid to look it up, why don't you do a search with these three words: acidification, of, blood.  Nobody actually ends up with a 6.99 blood pH, they'd be long dead.  But the term has been appropriately used for decades, decades before its use in Biogeochemistry, Oceanography, and Biology, etc.

        Now, just because some moron comes along (named Gary) that can't distinguish the difference between a laboratory technique and the language of science, or between acidity and pH, doesn't mean the rest of science is going to accept your paranoid rant. The more you talk the more we all realize you don't know a f'n thing about anything.

        How would you expect to digest the rest of the papers in this field, or any related field, if you can't understand the difference between  pHand acidity?

        If we are to understand you correctly Gary, a precedent for the term acidification was established years before the it's use to describe ocean acidification, so that why? How long has this conspiracy been going on.  I guess those MDs were in on it from the beginning, helping to set us up for the big climate change conspiracy.  You're like all the 9/11 truthers, a paranoid knucklehead that is so delusional that you don't realize such a complex conspiracy theory that falls apart after you look at how ridiculous all the assumptions are.

        Gary, I don't need a site moderator to save me from this useless conversation. The only one that could help with that would be your psychiatrist.  Please take take your laptop to him/her and explain these conspiracy theories, because I'm done giving you attention.  Maybe he/she can take a look at all your aggressive trolling emails and give you some feedback?  Maybe they can explain the multiple meanings of acidification when they prescribe your meds.

        Sorry you're such a sore looser, Gary. Sorry that you're an overall looser. Stop trying to get an education from the loosers at WUWT, and take a few science classes at the local community college, if they'll let you in.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeff,

        So I see you calling for the site moderator to come to your defence. Perhaps he thinks along the lines of credit given where credit is due.


        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeff,

        I sure did, or I didn't.

        Ocean acidification as you and yours described it is this:

        The word “acidification” refers to lowering pH from any starting point to any end point on the pH scale. This term is used in many other scientific areas (including medicine and food science) to refer to the addition of an acid to a solution, regardless of the solution's pH value.


        Now, when it rains, rainwater having a lower ph than the ocean, the oceans' ph drops. This according to you and yours 'acidifies' the ocean. When water from rivers and runoff drains into the oceans, such water being more acidic, the oceans' ph drops. This again 'acidifies' the oceans as you say.

        So I grant you that ocean 'acidification' has being going on a long time, long before Man arrived on this earth, according to your cited definition.

        But I do not define acidification as you do nor your deranged authority. I look to the basic chemistry textbooks for a proper reading of what acidification actually means as it occurs in alkimetry and acidimetry, in titration. This is their field. The chemists have defined the process in a certain way. We are discussing chemistry. Not medicine. Not food science. Most of the food we eat is acidic. The environment we live in is generally acidic. So to hear that food scientists and medical practitioners use the term 'acidification' does not surprise me. What does interest me is how they define it. So why don't you produce a their definition of acidification so that we can all see it and understand their intent.

        But I am more interested in how it is properly defined by those working in its respective field, that is Chemistry. Adding a weak acidic solution to a strongly alkaline solution, in an amount that would barely register in the millionths, will acidify nothing. It will only neutralize a very small portion of that alkaline solution. Any medical doctor or food scientist would never dare make such a ridiculous statement.

        Just because some moron in another field wishes to change the terminology to suit his political beliefs and propaganda does not change anything. And if some dunce should wish to follow the moron for similar reasons, fine by me.

        The rainwater could never acidify the ocean, nor could all that runoff. It can only work to neutralize it. And it is the same with that miniscule amount of carbon dioxide that humans put into the air, miniscule because the amount produced by natural means of decaying vegetation is just so much greater than our comparatively negligible contribution. And that amount of CO2 placed in the atmosphere by natural means could never acidify the ocean. The effort is negligible compared to the negligible result obtained by the much greater quantities of rain water and runoff.

        I don't have to prove anything. That's not my job. That's your job. I don't know how a multiple degree holder in the sciences can make such a claim. You seem to think that you present a fool's theory and that everyone must work to disprove it. That's not how it works.

        All I need do is poke holes in everything you say. So if CO2 'acidifies' the ocean by lowering its ph, then so does rainwater and runoff. Man's CO2 contribution compared to nature's is tiny. You think differently. Then produce the figures. Show me that man's contribution is so much greater than nature's.

        But you can't. All you can do is just ignore everything that is said, or dispute it with nothing but a bunch of worthless statements that come without link or proof like runoff does not harm the oceans like CO2 does. Really! CO2 according to your environMentalists and the EPA is a toxin. Yet, it contributes greatly to every living organism on this planet. It gives us the oxygen producing trees and plants. It gives us the oxygen we breath. The ocean is full of it.

        So there is the refutation. I don't think you will understand it because people such as yourself can never imagine themselves to be in error. Their doctrine is secure in their minds. The scarce information that agrees with it is championed. The mountain of information against it is ignored or disregarded. The minds of children work in a very similar way.

        The only pathetic loser and liar here is you. You have no degrees. You again have produced no science other than absurd and unfathomable statements without link or proof.


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        Again, you've done nothing to disprove that ocean acidification is occurring, you've only disproven that you can think. Look it up Gary. Prove to me that the precedent for this use of the term 'acidification' was not set in medical and food science, and to indicate a shift in decreasing pH. You have no response to this, other than to call someone a moron. All you have are insults when proven wrong time and time again. Come on Gary, all you have to do is a little research. I'm waiting Gary. You arguments are at best learned paranoid semantics.

        And remember, CaCO3 dissolution occurs above pH of 7. Something of concern to people who actually understand the science.

        And your argument about rainwater is moot. The effects of rainwater on global ocean acidity are not on order with the effects caused form increasing atmospheric CO2, and rainwater/runoff is not the mechanism leading to the continuous long term shift in ocean pH. And relevant buffers such as runoff from rock weathering occur too slow to be offsetting. Prove me wrong Gary. There should be dozens of studies on this from enlightened scientists eager to prove that this theory is a hoax.

        Can't do it Gary can you? That's because you are an incompetent degenerate. I could see the retardation in your face when I watched the Hardfire video. You are part of a club of paranoid conspiracy theorists that are desperate to repeat any piece of contrarian nonsense to embarrass yourself, while angrily trolling. You are simply incapable of understanding the mechanics of this process, and you're too stupid to realize it. Without a strong background, it's easy to fall prey to oversimplifications and bad analogies, as you have done, and you repeatedly prove my original point about climate deniers having selective memory.

        So you've done nothing to prove that Ocean Acidification is a hoax. Your entire argument consists of a) admitting that no one ever explained to you how the term acidification was used in medical and food science, long before it's application to OA. b) revealing that you have no understanding of the diverse conditions that limit the growth of different species of calcified marine organisms, as well as juvenile fish. c) indicating that you are so stupid as to assume that acidity from rain is causing the decrease in pH, not an increase in atmospheric CO2.

        I'm sorry you had to loose the argument Gary, and sorry you're such a sore looser.

        I'm frankly also surprised that this site moderator allows you to jump on and start insulting guests. You personally attack strangers one-by-one, calling some morons, when they only commented on the article, not you. What would possess someone to do that? In all my time on the net, I have never witnessed someone like yourself who combines stupidity, ignorance, anger, and stubbornness and blind ideological emotion.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeff,

        The science has been established for many years. Its called Titration. Alkimetry and acidimetry. All of a sudden some dunce comes along and wishes to rename everything, and lead those who read his garbage into error. Adding an acid solution to an alkaline solution is not called acidification. Its called neutralization because the solution may or may not become an acid. If the twit and all those who embrace this novel terminology insist on calling it something else or completely erroneous, then perhaps they should retire or find something better to do.

        Now as you are a multiple degree holder, you should have known this. But you don't. You just keep repeating this moron's explanations for his wishing to completely alter the scientific terminology to suit his own interests. And anything else out of his mouth becomes entirely suspect.

        Science doesn't work that way.

        So the science is titration. Adding acid to an alkaline solution is not called acidification. Its called neutralization. If you wish to call it something else, something that erroneously describes the process, then you only reveal a profound ignorance.

        Now, rainwater has a neutral ph. But adding rainwater to lower the oceans' ph you claim is not acidification. Nor is runoff or rivers containing all that acidic water flowing into the oceans. No. In your silly little mind, acidification only occurs when CO2 is involved.

        Well, now we see that you have little or no understanding of any of the subject matter, nor do you even care to learn. And you claim to be a multiple degree holder from a university or college. You are just delusional, a fool, or a liar.

        Stop reading the efforts of devious and poor scientists bound to pursue political interests rather than science. Or just continue in ignorance.


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        errata to a paragraph in my previous post

        -There are other reactions that affect the pH of the ocean, chemical reactions from rainwater, as well as the slow process of rock weathering. During slow periods of pH change, this might help offset the *decreasing* pH. The rapid increase of industrialized CO2 production has outpaced the slow process of weathering that would normally keep the pH at a more stable level. And even though the ocean pH has been *lower* in the past, the rate of atmospheric doubling of CO2 is happening during a timeframe of several hundred years, much faster the process of weathering that would be needed to offset the decreasing pH.-

        It's very important to clarify that no scientist that I have read has stated that, "adding more co2 to the atmosphere will lead to dead oceans".

        There will not be dead oceans, but changes in pH, DIC, and aragonite/calcite saturation states can lead to a decrease in the population of some very important marine organisms. Still others may thrive in the new environment, but it's these imbalances in the ecosystem occurring over a relatively short period of time (when compared with the time previous systems had the potential to evolve) that is of most interest to scientists. We are concerned with the rate and patterns of change,and how this impacts us in modern society, not simply how things evolved 800,000 years ago, long before billions of humans were dependent on the ocean to support life.

        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        First off, as I indicated above, the term acidification refers to adding an acid to a substance, thereby increasing it's [H+].  The president was set in medicine and food science. So even if the definition as used in titration differs, we can see that the term as applied to ocean acidification did not precede  it's use in medicine and food science.  (No conspiracy here.)

        The definition I posted earlier did not transfer completely.  Here is the rest:

        ”For example, even though seawater's pH is greater than 7.0 (and therefore considered “basic” in terms of the pH scale), increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are still raising the ocean's acidity and lowering its pH. In comparison, this language is similar to the words we use when we talk about temperature. If the air temperature moves from -40°C to -29°C (-40°F to -20°F), it is still cold, but we call it 'warming’. ”

        There are other reactions that affect the pH of the ocean.  Chemical reactions from rainwater, as well as the slow process of rock weathering.  During slow periods of pH change, this might help offset the increasing  pH.  The rapid increase of industrialized CO2 production has outpaced the slow process of weathering that would normally keep the pH at a more stable level.  And even though the ocean pH has been higher in the past, the rate of atmospheric doubling of CO2 is happening during a timeframe of several hundred years, much faster the process of weathering that would be needed to offset the decreasing pH.

        We could talk about the effects of acid rain on local seawater pH, but like rainwater and rock weathering these factors don't impact global ocean pH when compared to the increased in atmospheric CO2.

        As I have already indicated, there is a slight increase in bicarbonate, but the limiting factor is carbonate, and in particular where saturation states of aragonite and or calcite change.  So we end up with less carbonate, more H+ ions, and slightly more bicarbonate.  Again, it's the H+ and decreasing saturation states of aragonite/calcite that presents a problem to some species of marine organisms.  

        With regards to your question on diluting the ocean with freshwater, I will refer you to this explanation of the chemistry involved.

        "Fresh water from melting ice caps dilutes the concentrations of all the various components of the carbonate system in seawater, as well as the total alkalinity and salinity (both of which affect pH). For example, a liter of “typical” Arctic seawater (temperature, 5°C; salinity, 35; total alkalinity, 2244 micromoles/kilogram) that is exposed to today’s atmospheric CO2 level of 390 ppm has a total carbon content of 2100 micromoles/kilogram and a pH of 8.04 (total scale, here and below).  Adding a kilogram of freshwater to the kilogram of seawater would dilute the salinity, alkalinity, and carbon content to half of what they were, and the initial pH would increase to 8.21.  However, that seawater is out of equilibrium with the atmosphere (it now has a pCO2 of 151 ppm, while the pCO2 level of the overlying atmosphere is 390 ppm) and so it will absorb CO2 until the seawater pCO2 also equals 390 ppm, at which point the pH will have dropped to 7.83."

        —  Richard A. Feely, Senior Scientist, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, USA; Joan Kleypas, Scientist III, National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeff,

        So anything that lowers the oceans' ph causes acidification? Is that correct? So rain water acidifies the ocean? Water flowing into the oceans acidifies the oceans?


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        Carbonic acid (H2Co3) is a weak acid that immediately dissociates to form a H+ ion, ( it is this Hydrogen ion that gives us the acidity) that H+ ion then immediately reacts to the carbonate ion in seawater, consuming the carbonate and producing bicarbonate.

        Over time the pH of seawater has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Carbonate ion concentration has already dropped 16%. By 2100, this is projected to increase to 50% of what it is today.

        CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3 ↔ H+ + HCO3- ↔ 2H+ + CO32- 

        Since this is a chemical equilibrium, Le Chatlier’s principal states that a perturbation, by say the addition of CO2, will cause the equilibrium to shift in such a way as to minimize the perturbation. In this case, it moves to the right. The concentration of CO2 goes up, while the concentration of CO32- goes down. The concentration of HCO3- goes up a bit, but there is so much HCO3- that the relative change in HCO3- is smaller than the changes are for CO2 and CO32-. It works out in the end that CO2 and CO32- are very nearly inversely related to each other, as if CO2 times CO32- equaled a constant.

        Coral reefs are built from limestone by the reaction Ca2+ + CO32-  ↔ CaCO3, where Ca is calcium. Acidifying the ocean decreases the concentration of CO32- ions, which by le Chatlier’s principal shifts the equilibrium toward the left, tending to dissolve CaCO3. Note that this is a sort of counter-intuitive result, that adding CO2 should make reefs dissolve rather than pushing carbon into making more reefs. It’s all because of those H+ ions.

         - Caldeira, K., and Wickett, M.E., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Kleypas, J., R.W. Buddemeier, D. Archer, J.-P. Gattuso, C. Langdon, and B. Opdyke

        Species such a echinoderms, tropical corals, mollusks, planktonic formaninifera, and juvenile fish larvae have been shown susceptible to these chances in pH, DIC, and aragonite/calcite saturation states.

        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        Ocean acidification refers to the process of lowering the oceans’ pH (that is, increasing the concentration of hydrogen ions) by dissolving additional carbon dioxide in seawater from the atmosphere. The word “acidification” refers to lowering pH from any starting point to any end point on the pH scale. This term is used in many other scientific areas (including medicine and food science) to refer to the addition of an acid to a solution, regardless of the solution's pH value. For example, even though seawater's pH is greater than 7.0 (and therefore considered “basic” in terms of the pH scale) — James Orr, Senior Scientist, Laboratory for the Sciences of Climate and Environment, France; Christopher L. Sabine, Supervisory Oceanographer, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, USA; Robert Key, Research Oceanographer, Princeton University, USA

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeff,

        So if co2 enters the water and combines with it, we get carbonic acid. And the equation moves from left to right, meaning carbonic acid becomes the acidic H+ ions and bicarb, which becomes more H+ ions and carbonate. And that bicarb is very good for many sea organisms in that it is the reaction between calcium ions and bicarbonate ions that hardens up the shells of so many sea organisms in the process known as calcification.

        The ocean ends up slightly less basic or less alkaline, not more acidic. The ocean will not become acidic until PH drops below 7. Do you understand this? Scripps is telling you a falsehood.

        Now the chemical systems of the seas are very complex ones. There are actions and reactions. To simply say that adding more co2 to the atmosphere will lead to dead oceans is ridiculous. There are shellfish in our very acidic lakes and rivers as well as a great variety of fish and other creatures. And don't forget all the waterways that carry into those oceans all that acidic water.

        Yet we are led to believe that a comparatively negligible amount of CO2 will destroy the oceans.

        Fascinating that so many people and organizations fall for this garbage.


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        With regards to your second question, marine organisms respond differently to changes in pH, DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon), and aragonite/calcite saturation states.  There are many other localized  types of  pollution which also affect growth, like runoff from agriculture and fossil fuels, but we will focus on these three. Another common point of misunderstanding is that all calcified organisms respond similarly to these changes. 

        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        This is a common point of confusion, because step-by-step equilibrium equations describing the carbonate system in seawater do not capture the dynamic chemical environment of seawater.  There are several reactions that can occur between carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate ion (HCO3-), and carbonate ion (CO32-). One of the possible reactions does create carbonate ions and lowers pH:

        CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3 ↔ H+ + HCO3- ↔ 2H+ + CO32- 

        However, at the current ocean pH level, another reaction also occurs that consumes carbonate ions and does not change pH:

        CO2 + H2O + CO32- ↔ 2HCO3-

        The second equation describes the reaction that occurs most often in the modern oceans, but the first reaction also occurs, so the resulting overall change is a decrease in carbonate and a decrease in pH. — Christopher L. Sabine, Supervisory Oceanographer, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, USA

        CommentedGary Marshall

        By the way Jeff, what is the material that shelled creatures thrive on?

        In that chemical process initiated by the introduction of CO2 into the oceans, that material becomes more abundant. Its like the CO2 in the air that gives us such growth in plants and trees.


        CommentedGary Marshall


        Before I spend time on showing the theory for what it is, I first want to ensure that you actually understand it.

        So start with the oceans' ph levels, and briefly explain the chemical process with more atmospheric CO2 to ocean acidification. Nothing lengthy and do provide the chemical formula.

        For a great scientist such as yourself, a multiple degree holder with a far greater understanding than most, this should be quite easy.


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        What have you you refuted, Gary? The theory is well known and available for anyone to look up.  What is your irrefutable proof that this is not occurring?  Of course, how could you ever prove anything incorrect, because those opposing you could use your argumentative strategy, which is to deny the acceptance of any evidence that you don't like.  Isn't that how it works,  Gary?  No textbook you use would be acceptable as proof, because I can just call them a fraud and that is all the defense I would need, right?  No paper you could site in your defense would be acceptable, because they are written by fraudsters as well.  So, based on your belief based approach to science, any previous science can be discarded by you at will, with no evidence.  How could you ever begin to build a case either way?

        So Gary, present your evidence that CO2 uptake is not resulting in an increase in the H+ ions in seawater?  And of even more of interest, how do you argue that this will have no impact on calcified marine organisms, or the fishing industry? No BS semantics Gary, we want evidence.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeff,

        I have been to the Scripp's site a few times in the past. I know the apocalyptic scripp by heart. What I want you to do is repeat it, so I can tear it and you to shreds. But you don't dare repeat it. No. You just find it convenient to point the AGW moron's finger elsewhere when the retorts come. Same with your evasiveness on the CO2 Back-Radiation issue, a novel concept in physics and in atmospheric studies.

        So please, oh heavily degreed sage, give us a brief summary of this imaginary ocean acidification scenario, garbed in those impressive scientific terms if you wish, so that I can expose you for the fraud that you and all your AGW brethren are!

        But you really wouldn't wish to end up looking like a donkey, would you?

        Finally got the show's name correct! Remedial progress for another victim of our public school system.


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        Gary, you simply don't do science. Thanks again for playing the part of the climate denying libertarian crackpot.  If you could do me a favor, and head on over to the Scripps Institute of Oceanography website and post your findings on Ocean Acidification. They have a whole series on stupid shit that climate deniers say.

        And I'm terribly sorry for not providing the proper plug for your appearance on Hardfire. I sincerely want everyone that's reading to  watch that video (available on Vimeo).  It's important that they understand what the profile of a climate denier looks like. ”Live free or die, Gary" and that includes the freedom to be ignorant.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        By the way, Jeff, its Hardfire, not Hardline. Just another correction in a long line of them.

        You did the degrees? Ha! You have done squat as you make so perfectly clear. There is a big difference between attending an actual university or college and and ordering a diploma through the mail.

        You can't even answer a simple question about the cornerstone of this AGW fraud. Discussions of ocean acidification when there is no such thing. Then you claim I know nothing. What a little child you are! What a pathetic little ignorant freak!


        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeffrey,

        I don't do fraud science. But go back to your pathetic websites and live in abject ignorance. The oceans are strongly alkaline, and even if you burned all the fossil fuels in existence they would remain so.

        Thanks for proving my point about the supreme twits behind the AGW science, again and again and again.


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        Still can't can't find your textbook, Gary. Still unable to find your way to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute website for an explanation of Ocean Acidification? When you do, let me know. I'll help you pronounce the words when you get stuck.

    4. CommentedMark Hendershot

      The earth and its continents have experienced various periods of drought, floods, heat, and cold. Climate, by its very nature, is constantly changing. Simply because we have experienced a slightly warmer-than-average period for the past 10-15 years is no reason to suddenly worry that the earth is heating uncontrollably. There are many, many factors that contribute to climate and weather. Most are still a mystery. Just last week, NOAA admitted in a paper that they do not understand why some thunderstorms spawn tornadoes while others do not. There is much to learn about the earth and its climate and we are far too uninformed to pronounce that the "science is settled" with regard to climate change.

    5. CommentedSean Fitzgerald

      The argument that we should not oversell the likely impacts of climate change, lest the populace simply dismiss the very real problem as fantasy, is flawed.

      Firstly, it relies on the unsafe assumption that there is, in fact, a fair degree of overselling.

      Secondly, and more importantly, one must ask what is required to shift public thinking on this issue?

      There appears to be a real need to raise public concern and, perhaps, some fear in order to overcome the self interest of the multitude of economic agents in play.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Sean,

        If someone claimed that aliens were to approach and destroy earth in 20 years, should we then spend enormous amounts of money on challenging the threat to our existence?

        Of course we should, because that's what's done with other peoples' money.


        CommentedSean Fitzgerald

        Hi Gary,

        I think the AGW deniers are doing a fair job at overselling their position.

        Your final comment nicely illustrates my point about self interest.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Sean,

        The only people overselling these idiocies are the AGW morons and their government benefactors. But with the financial collapse coming in Europe and the change of voter sentiment coming in November in the US as well as the faltering China and India, all these alternative energy advocates and their AGW partners will hear the sweet sounds of toilets flushing very soon.

        Now I have to start up the Humvie and get to work in the city.


    6. CommentedGary Marshall

      Hello John,

      So this CO2 traps the earth's IR, reflects it back, and doesn't raise the earth's temperature. Fantastic. I thought for a second that we were all doomed. Now you say that a warmer earth will not be the product of all that CO2. So there is no global warming after all. Thanks. Do I ever feel like a moron.


    7. CommentedJohn Swain

      Bjorn Lomborg is a statistician who has somehow declared himself an expert on climate change. There is plenty of science to support climate change, but if you are determined to ignore it, you will never accept it.

      Gary, you misunderstand what global warming is. CO2 does not heat the earth more than the sun (that would be like arguing glass heats a greenhouse more than the sun). It traps thermal radiation and re-directs some of it back to the earth. That's an over-simplification, but it may be written in a way that someone who describes their opponents as "morons" might understand!

    8. CommentedJeffrey Scofield

      Hello Gary,
      It looks like you're stiil out trying to earn your money from the fossil fuel industries. Still pushing the old Keystone Pipeline? How's that old chestnut working for you?

      My objections to Bjørn is the same as my objection to you. An uneducated climate scientist that selectively chooses papers to support his cause and systematically ignores papers that are damning to your line of income.

      Did you get a chance to see the story on Global Warming that the Financial Times ran today regarding drought in the US? I think they need you over there to troll and post tens of comments trying to bully people that are smarter than yourself.

        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        Still looking for someone to explain climate change to you Gary?  Still struggling to find the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute web site to begin comprehending Ocean Acidification? Maybe next time you'll show some courtesy to your desired audience.  Demonstrate some serious arguments if you expect serious answers.  Maybe treat people with some respect, instead of calling them morons.  You lack any human decency that would deserves to be reciprocated.

        What everyone gets a chance to see is the real Gary Marshall, the insulting internet troll, that tries to attack anyone he thinks he can out-type. The Gary Marshall of Hardline (available on Vimeo), the yawning Libertarian public access show, where the Gary's laughable theories left the commentators wondering how to politely explain that he's not operating in reality.  It's truly a can't miss folks.  See the Neanderthal Gary Marshall stammer through his impossible and impossibly simple theory ( in style no less).

        And then to see you come and try to be a champion of AGW denial?  With absolutely no background in the science.  No intelligent substance to add to the discussion.  Are you f'n kidding me?  I have to say this again Gary. Are you f'n kidding me? You'd have to pay me to handsomely to teach such a severely mentally  handicapped such as yourself.   I'm going to have to remember to copy your responses to others post on this thread, so that I can show other scientists what stupid things climate deniers say. And of course, I'll give you full credit.

        Insults from a pathetic troll like you toothless.  I've done the science, earned my degrees, and am capable of reading and understanding the science that pertains this field.  It's you that haven't done the work, as you repeatedly demonstrate with your own inability to pick up one single textbook, instead of repeating the same challenge to anybody who'll respond to your rude insults.  Climate deniers such as yourself are on the fringe.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeffrey,

        Still more evasiveness from the Scofield duncery.

        I ask a simple question and you keep disregarding it. And we all know why. Because you have no answer to the question. No one does. Not any of the authors mentioned have a coherent explanation as to how a negligible amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can warm up the vast masses of water and land beneath it with their own radiated IR.

        Would someone please help out this unfortunate soul? Would someone just present the AGW argument for limitless energy a la CO2? The moron can really use the help.


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        So far you've failed to counter any point I've made.   What was your response to Dai's paper again?  If you actually read the paper, you would certainly have some minutiae that you could pick apart.

        What is your reaction to Financial Times article regarding this year's drought?  Again nothing but a misdirected rant.  Who claimed that this years drought was worse than the drought in the 30’s?  That's right, nobody.  You made that up. Fantasy is your specialty, and you depend upon it try to create arguments.

        You haven't provided any rational explanation for why all the climate scientists and their papers supporting AGW are discounted by yourself. The Doran & Zimmerman, Farnsworth & Lichter, Anderegg et al., Bray &Von Storch, Stats/ Harrison Interactive studies are not credible, why? No explanation, except some weak rant on the scientific method.  If AGW is the hoax you claim it is, then those numbers would be reversed.  Keep dodging Gary, that's all you know.

        Didn't catch the US Senate Committe on glacial warming? Why bother, you wouldn't like the outcome. You'd be more comfortable if you don't discuss that.

        And how did you try to back out of that embarrassing  comparison of yourself to Newton, Copernicus, Smith, and Keynes?  By reminding me that there was  more than one genius Smith,  only one of whom do you feel is your superior.  Still laughing at you Gary.

        And your response to ocean acidification.  Pretty much a full declaration that you are a moron.  If you just play stupid when topics are mentioned, you hope they simply go away.  Of course, when someone reminds you that you haven't answered anything, you continue to ignore it, desperately hoping to steer the conversation to wherever you feel you can safely paraphrase something from a contrarian vastly more intelligent than yourself.

        Gary, so far you've only succeeded in proving that you can't counter anything.  What was that name of that textbook you study again?  You know, that textbook that's sitting beside you which  you can't name.  It would be nice to pick up a copy of that for myself, so that we could go over it chapter by chapter.

        Your understanding of science is a joke.  Reason evades you while you can't provide any evidence that you have the background knowledge to discuss these topics seriously.  You don't even understand that you and Bjørn have conflicting views of climate denial. But nothing shuts up a dimwitted bully, such as yourself.  You'll proudly display  your stupidity time and time again, thread by thread.

        Can't provide sensible answers to my questions Gary? Thought not.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello jeffrey,

        Well, it seems that one evasion after another is all we find at the source of this renowned AGW theory. Again you claim my ignorance as reason to refuse to engage. Its like a schoolyard retort. "I am just too good for you. Run along and maybe one day you'll get your chance."

        Well, that's in keeping with what all those famed AGW scientists do like Gore, Hansen, and Mann. Why should you be any different?

        I didn't know Mr. Smith of Geology fame, was Adam Smith, the economics thinker! How rude my learning is next to my great superior.

        Now why do I need to analyze the links? I have read more than enough of such garbage, and you wish me to read some more. Sorry. A good many science papers do investigate many matters of interest. But when the authors attempt in the most outlandish manner to link their local results to a global phenomenon on the barest of evidence, then there is much merriment.

        This is the time for you to put up, or shut up. This is the time for you, the prodigy, to present this absurd little theory, how a negligible amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the vast masses of land and water beneath it to warm to thermal runaway, in a few modest sentences. Let the genius before us take the most bewildering scientific concepts and compress them into a few summary words, enlightening us all.

        I do wonder about the intellect of a fellow, who arrogantly claims supremacy in a multitude of fields of science, that cannot simply set forth the basic facts of an argument as certain as it is common. Don't you!

        I have all the textbooks I need. Perhaps you should add a few to your collection, one being "How to succeed in science (without doing any)"


        I told you not to claim membership in a group whereof you know little or nothing. I know what you are, and many other people now know as well. So stop acting like a sniveling coward and get to work. Present this crackpot theory. Dazzle us with your intellectual brilliance.


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        I didn't catch the name of that textbook you are using as a reference. And of course the reason is because you don't have one. If you did you'd be aware that giving a rudimentary background of all the factors involved would take many pages and include chemical equations, figures, definitions, and references to other papers that you'd have no ability to refute. Your only weak attempt at debating is to try and oversimplify the subject, so that you can give an asinine response, as you have done repeatedly in posts, which contributes nothing to a serious debate.

        And as predicted, you deliver another pathetic attempt to rationalize your lack of knowledge by trying to compare yourself to geniuses such as Newton, Copernicus, or Adam Smith? Again with the delusions of grandeur of a misunderstood genius, right? Nobody here would mistake you for being in their camp, Gary.

        Not capable of analyzing the links I provided? Thought so, but I don't blame you, you're just not that smart. It's like asking an infant to talk about my car engine. And it's quite understandable why ocean acidification is over your head as well. I ask you to look at the totality of data, and all you'll ever be able to do is site the contrarians which is all you'll bother to listen to. What about the rest? You have a conspiracy theory to cover that. Again, you repeatedly illustrate my point.

        And at what point did I make the claim that this years drought is worse that that during the depression? You can't find it because I didn't. I'm not sure anybody on this thread has made that claim. Why is it that you always seem eager to argue something that has never been posited.

        Again Gary, go down to the local university or community college, and start by buying a textbook on the subject, or better yet, taking a class (preferably for non-science majors). If that's too much, it wouldn't hurt to start you education at a local high school. Expand your understanding beyond whatever piece of fringe climate literature that you so desperately want to paraphrase in order to facilitate the illusion that you actually understand something.

        So Gary, all you have to do is post pages and pages of copied texts, answering your own questions. Unfortunately, that would require some objective effort on your part, or simply some effort on your part. If the science conflicts with your libertarian demagoguery, you can't be bothered.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeffrey,

        You should never claim to be something you are clearly not. That way, you will never end up looking so foolish.

        I can’t understand because I don’t have a relevant science degree! Is that how it all works. Did Copernicus have a relevant science degree when he posited a heliocentric order to our known universe? Did Newton when he posited his primary theories in physics and calculus? Did Mr. Smith have a Geology degree when he created his map? Was Keynes an economist?

        My. My. How little you understand how things work.

        But that’s okay. Now we are getting somewhere. You may cite all the papers you wish. That doesn’t mean that droughts are any more prevalent today than they were 5000 years ago. The drought in the US corn belt in the 30’s was far more severe than that experienced today. Lindzen would certainly have something to add on the subject or fraud of global warming and ocean currents, and he comes from MIT. Is he in on the big conspiracy? Perhaps he’s posing as a double agent?

        So the oceans are acidic? I thought they were strongly alkaline. Why would I comment on such an erroneous statement? You reveal your ignorance with such absurdities.

        Now you mention some subject areas in science. What interests me is how they relate to CO2 and global warming. So with your extensive knowledge of science, why not make use of the divers known mechanisms and explain how this piddling amount of CO2 in the atmosphere warms up the land and ocean masses many times its molecular weight. Use your black body radiators, absorption bands of CO2 and water, and the infrared red wavelengths, and the molecular weight of CO2 to give us a brief exposition of this astounding scientific discovery.

        This is going to be fun for the ignorant I.


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        Gary, you can't understand it because you don't have a relevant science degree.  You only want to argue about the things your limited mental capacity can understand. That's my point, you pick and choose what is of importance, and everything else is some plot by academia to deceive the public. You're final defense is always that everyone else is conspiring.

        You were incapable of articulately responding to the contrasting views of   Dai's ”Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models” published in Nature Climate Change, or the story "Drought and climate scepticism in corn belt" in the Financial Times.

        And of course, the Doran & Zimmerman, Farnsworth & Lichter, Anderegg et al., Bray &Von Storch, Stats/ Harrison Interactive studies are all done from ignorant people, apparently on ignorant climate scientists.  Their entire body of work is instantly discredited by you with rational basis.  And if you have doubts as to the advancements of scientific theories, then you need to realize there's not much disagreement as to the certainty of AGW.  Did you get a chance to see the recent climate hearings by the US Senate Committee, where each scientist told Jim Inhofe, to his face, that global warming is not a hoax?

        What's the point of talking in terms of  Beer's Law, blackbody emission curves, Kirchhoff's law, atmospheric windows, relevant molecular absorption bands, and infrared spectroscopy,  if you aren't going to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence and theory that has been painstakingly researched?  I'm curious, what university textbook are you reading that you'd suggest everyone else read regarding global warming?  Might I suggest that you go to a university bookstore and purchase textbooks specific to this topic.

        You also need to understand ocean acidification, another topic I initially commented on that was unanswered by your irrelevant follow up. Head on over to the MIT and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and start educating yourself on this topics. They also do some pioneering work on glacial melting and oceanic currents.  Wait...wait...don't tell me.  They're also in on the big conspiracy.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeffrey,

        Well, that would be marvelous. I would be the Imelda Marcos of sweaters.

        Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand how science works. You see, when one advances a proposition or theory, no matter how insane, the onus is on the author to prove his premises and conclusion. You seem to think that one can make any conclusion and compel its opponents to disprove it. Wrongo! That's just the science as practiced by ignorant people. You can find an abundance of it on the pages of your primary source, Wikidpedia.

        You're absolutely correct that I do not understand the science of AGW. No one does. And that's kind of the problem

        And your completely irrelevant answers verify that you and the world remain unenlightened as to the mechanics of this bizarro theory. I think it consists in the argument that 'GCMs predict doom, and the GCMs cannot be wrong, therefore expect doom.'

        And the AGW crowd can find doom anywhere. And if they can't, they just adjust empirical results to suit the theory.

        Gee, I ask questions, and you surmise as to the conditions of my upbringing. I move from the sublime to the ridiculous in assessing a component of the theory and you delve into posts I have made in the past.

        I often find those in the AGW crowd, like so many leftists and malcontents, invariably project their own shortcomings and vices upon their rivals. And you do not disappoint, Jeffrey.

        I might have done the same with you, but I don't consider you worth the effort as your answers plainly confirm.

        But you keep laughing. And when Europe collapses along with its socialist foundations and their malicious influence, I shall be chuckling and smiling all the way to my grave. It will be just a little more evidence of the pernicious and degenerate world proffered and celebrated by incorrigible parasites.

        Now since John has yet to counter my comments on CO2, why not make yourself useful and take up his defense? Or has the cat got your tongue?


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        Likewise Gary, all you have to do is prove that AGW is a hoax and collect your Nobel Prize and accompanying $1.1 million.  You'll be able to afford a sweater collection to rival Heathcliff Huxtable.

        Since you've demonstrated that you don't actually understand the science, you should find someone that is capable of reading these scientific papers and explain each and every one to you (not just those few papers on the right side). That's a tall order for someone of your limited potential, but hey, it looks like you've got plenty of time on your hands and a lot of empty head to fill up. 

        In the meantime, keep entertaining us with your conspiracy theories.  You are the archetype of the angry troll, obviously bullied as a child, whose only delusional defense is claiming that you are a misunderstood genius.  The more you type, the more we laugh.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeffrey,

        So you didn't like my sweater! I think so highly of it that I still have occasion to wear it. But you are in good company with your feelings.

        My God, someone actually watched that video. Thank-you. Much appreciated. I am hoping to bring the count up to 500 before I die. Another one down.

        The trailblazers in this world have suffered much ridicule and persecution. Laughter and disparagement are an indication of success. Sadly, my opponents only make me improve upon the proofs. Currently I offer $50,000. None have yet collected. And I don't think they ever will

        Now you may snicker and scowl all you like, but it isn't going to mean a thing where AGW is concerned. There is no science to it. Just a lot of buffoons endowed with taxpayer money. And that source will soon dry up next November.

        So, look for the proof amidst these pages and solve the puzzle with a laugh while taking 50 grand of my money. I am soon to raise it to $100,000 so you may want to wait a bit.

        All the best.


        CommentedJeffrey Scofield

        This is Gary "the sweater" Marshall, special guest on Hardfire, the libertarian talk show where the commentators fought off laughter and shook their heads because of  how extreme your "conceptualized" policies were?  Gary, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, we're all still laughing at you.  You might want to earn some respect for your quack economic theories, even among libertarians, before you pretend you understand science.  Good luck with that global warming is a hoax thing, an extreme stance that Bjørn doesn't even seem to be arguing.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeffrey,

        When Obama and company are driven out into the streets by the multitudes armed with votes, Keystone, already progressing nicely in the south, will then make its trek north.

        How are you getting about these days? How does the food you put into your mouth and that of your children get to the store? How do you get to the store? How do you heat your home?

        So many sensible questions for the most insensible of people.

        You can't really avoid all the government funded AGW garbage flying about. Its the papers countering this government created phenom that are in such short supply. But the facts aren't.

        No I didn't get a chance to read the FT article. Is is the same article they wrote about the far more devastating drought in the US midwest back in the 30's? Gee, what caused that?

        Did you read about the deluge of rain and cool weather hitting England? Did you notice pummeling that Washington and Oregon took with rain a short time ago?

        But don't worry. Its all happened before.

        Thanks for overwhelming us with all your incontrovertible science. My head is spinning.


    9. CommentedJohn Swain

      This article could only be described as containing "wonderful reasoning" by someone who has already determined that climate change is a myth and is looking for any academics (including those widely discredited) to support his or her beliefs. To anyone else, it's a house of cards.

      Readers might be interested to learn that Lomborg's book was cited by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for, amongst other things, fabrication of data and distorted representation of conclusions. I support intelligent arguments against climate change, but this falls well short of that standard.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello John,

        The ridiculous and fantastical theory of AGW, global climate change being its recent incarnation, is your theory, not mine. If you have a science to accompany this profound foolishness, then produce it. But you guys never do. All you offer is what lies at the end of your finger.

        Now if CO2 is the great source of the earth's warming, if 380 ppm can heat the masses of land and ocean to a greater extent than the sun, then why are there no CO2 heat generators keeping those in the coldest of regions toasty warm? Tell me why no one has bothered to encase a furnace in CO2 of 500k parts per million in order to heat homes and plants and entire continents?

        I'll tell you why. Because the entire science of AGW is a incontestable fraud, you morons.


    10. CommentedGary Marshall

      Hello Bjorn,

      Wonderful reasoning. It clearly shows the depth and breadth of the purported science of AGW for what it is: one gigantic joke. Look at the reasoning of those below as proof.It consists in statements such as "Global warming is a fact. Why won't you admit it! Look around you."

      And Krugman is the exemplary of these morons.

      The thread that runs through all their insipid arguments is the absence of science.


    11. CommentedJohn Kelley

      Lomborg continues his hackneyed explanations and excuses for our denial of civilization threatening global climate change. Using the price of corn instead of the actual historical drought record is a con from the beginning. New data suggests that the west has been much drier historically than since its occupation by westerners. That doesn't negate global climate change it just means we're probably worse off than we realize. He also needs to read James Hansen's new study which shows that the chances of our current extreme weather is almost statistically impossible to be from anything other than climate change.

    12. CommentedTom Rand

      My full response to Bjorn's tired, cherry-picking nonsense :
      Tom Rand

    13. CommentedKaare Fog

      This article has a mean type of argumentation. It insinuates that those whose opinions diverge from Lomborg´s have bad intentions. They are just in it for the money.
      Why use this type of argument?
      Most of those on Lomborg´ side - those downplaying the severity of climate change - are certainly in it for the money. There are huge economic interests at stake. How does one downplay that aspect? Well, by postulating that THE OTHER SIDE is in it for the money. But if you think about it, everyone can see that the economic interests of the alarmists are much much smaller than those of the energy companies.

    14. CommentedJeffrey Scofield

      The more I read Bjørn work, the more I become a skeptical economist. If you weren't actually trained to read and critique the scientific papers regarding climate change, then his assertions may seem palatable. Unfortunately, having read an enormous amount of the published work, it becomes obvious that Bjørn has selective amnesia regarding the material he chooses to support his opinions. I also read the Economist on a daily basis, and notice they use the same selective reporting, apparently to minimize the public's concern over the impacts of global warming and ocean acidification.

      The recent paper by Augio Dai in Nature Climate Change provides more accurate (scientific) information on the topic. After reading Dai's work, and then coming back to analyze Bjørn's 'he said, she said' approach to climate discussions, I'm more apt to think that fossil fuel apologists do more harm to raising the public's awareness of the severity of the issue, than precautionary economists such as Krugman.

        CommentedGary Marshall

        Hello Jeffrey,

        So its Bjorn's work that makes you skeptical? Wow, and I thought it might have been the approaching financial collapse of Europe that would have sent you over the edge. But all is well in European public finance. Rather its Bjorn's comments opposing scientific trash that has got you climbing mental trees.

        Another fine example of AGW thinking at work.


    15. CommentedFrank O'Callaghan

      Cutting to the chase: Climate change is happening and it is driven by human activity. The great driver so far has been carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from fossil fuels.

      But there is a hidden issue, we may be past a tipping point where other factors run away with the greenhouse effect. Methane from the tundra and the albedo change are the soon to be seen threats. The world of those may be much harder to have human civilisation survive on it.

    16. CommentedMark Pitts

      Exaggerated non-scientific claims (such as Krugman's) lead many to believe global warming is a liberal conspiracy.

    17. CommentedThomas Haynie

      Overall a good article. My only remark is that as I recall most of the claims about our Midwestern heat wave come from using statistics to suggest departure from variable ranges verses the known and defective climate models.