The Global Warming Church vs. SuperFreakonomics

To Jack. All you did was bring some, no doubt, well-rehearsed rhetoric. But, alas, no science. You have not proven CO2 AGW. Scientifically, you can't, but I was going to enjoy watching you try. Linzen of MIT has as 20 year record that shows no temperature response to CO2. Of course, that's just real science and data, not computer games being played in Geneva. Do you have any other stock rhetorical phrases besides that one? I believe it's the second time it appears in this thread with equally lackluster results.

Great post as for me. I'd like to read something more concerning this theme.

Well, Michael Crichton is really not the best person to cite on this, because most of his "proof" was in the shape of a novel (though there was citation). However, the books title gives a good impression on the state of affairs (STATE OF FEAR) when it comes to political discussion and media coverage. The increase in shrillness and sudden catastrophe is huge in the last 3 or 4 decades. I think this is the most noteworthy point from his book, which was obviously proven in the citations above.

Romm trashes a brilliant man like Michael Chrichton? I guess he feels free to do so since there is zero chance of having to debate him. Like his buddy Shallow Al, Romm is not anxious to repeat the humiliating experience of debating an informed realist - he probably still has nightmares about Marc Morano so ably kicking his whiny butt. I'm awaiting my reserved copy of SuperFreakonomics, and the hysterical bleating of the alarmists only makes me more curious to see what they're so afraid of.

Your strong ideological bias has caused you to ignore the criticism coming from actual scientists and economists on this topic. The book is riddled with basic science and economic errors: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/superfreakonomics-needs-redo http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/10/levitt-and-dubner-disarm-themselves-in-their-battle-of-wits-with-joe-romm.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/

I don't understand how you got Michael Chrichton as a FAKER? I'm pretty sure he was a skeptic!!

I asked Romm a direct question on his website and he snipped it so badly that the whole point of the question was lost. So it appears that he not only tries to put quotations in the mouths of people but also helpfully edits their questions also. My original question: Did you or did you not try to push Caldeira for your required quote? and if you did, (and we have no reason to believe that caleira was lying) why did you do it. His edited version lost the latter bit.

How long before adherents of AGW can begin to claim tax exempt status? I mean if Scientology can, why can’t they? But seriously, the attacks on Levitt & Dubner (L&D) went beyond the pale. They should be exposed so that people can see how looney these AGW types are. L&D were very polite in their response and clearly explained their position which was pragmatic and based on positive economic thinking. L&D will, of course, get plenty of publicity from all the debate.

I didn't know Joe Romm was Clinton's low-flush toilette czar! Anyway JS, your commode plug which states, "which don't always get the job done" has me swirling because it has the odor of a heretic who drops a deuce on the one sheet of toilette paper "save the planet" dogma that is the basin of low-flush thinking (eat your heart out Norm Crosby). This leads to the scientific question of the century which is, will one sheet be enough to handle all the excrement coming from the low-flush czar?

Here's the problem the globalists, I mean the Green AGW movement has. Most sheeple, I mean people were on the fence about the climate being man's fault because of their CO2, and also don't want their energy bills going higher because of some govt scheme. Most people these days don't know the science behind the global warming, I mean climate change argument, but they do know it has been pretty cold outside as of late, especially for the past two years. They know something is not quite right.

I noticed that it was mentioned that the authors of freakanomics are economists, as if that is meant to discredit them, when the gist of the book was about the economic impact of this AGW religion. Why is it that they would deride the authors for being economists and don't deride the director of the IPCC who is an economist and not a scientist in any stretch of the word? Pot, meet kettle.

AGWs like Romm are unable to distinguish real science from the IPCC -Al Gore science fantasy . They refuse to look at the basic data. Google - Hadley Cru - scroll to SST GL. 2008 was warmer than 1997. 11 yrs without warming and CO2 up 6%. Lack of solar activity suggest 30 yrs of possible cooling.CO2 is the basic plant food not a pollutant. Please ,John, produce a data based docmentary on Fox,I'd be happy to give you the necessary scientific references.

Gotta say, it's amazing watching you anti-science wingnuts in your little echo chambers, reinforcing your denial of climate science. Fascinating stuff. You swallow hook, line and sinker from a couple of 'contrarian' economists on a subject they have no training or expertise in - even when it's clear they have completely misrepresented the climate scientist that they quote within their book. Keep on denying - maybe reality will conform!

The push to shut down civilization will continue, because there are no high-profile, politically powerful people or groups that can successfully oppose it, and the general public won't do anything until it has a significant effect on their wallet and lifestyle. I wish it were otherwise.

John, I tried to post a comment on Joe Romm's site and it was promptly omitted. I simply asked why he was spending so much time on a "he said, she said" issue when there are important scientific debates we need to be having. I explained that a thorough search of his site turned up nary a story on the latest hockey stick fiasco. I wanted to know why an obvious attempt at defrauding the public was not of interest to him. Crickets, then censorship.

It seems to me that John has just attacked Joseph's credibility by complaining that he attacks the credibility of others. Did I miss something?

Just as American Indians once danced around the fire to make it rain out west, global warming gurus will huddle in Copenhagen to make it cool. They will thus further confirm doubts about the evolution of “man,” especially since one such specimen a million years older than our previously honored eldest has been unearthed.

John, Welcome to Fox. I agree with others here. Another tough question you could ask a warmist is "with recent studies showing negative feedback to water vapor, using actual earth measurements, not models, how is it possible that CO2's non-feedback impact of 1.2°C could somehow be amplified above that level to 2°C or higher? Shouldn't the maximum per doubling be around 0.5°C, or by some estimates, even lower? (Negative feedback from Lindzen, Idso, Spencer, others) Then Watch them squirm.

Welcome to Fox News, Mr Stossel. Please ask the tough questions the mainstream media won't ask, such as: "Is there any reason WHY Dr S Fred Singer's & Dr Craig Idso's “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC - see http://www.nipccreport.org/ ),” a collection of peer-reviewed published scientific papers, should not be considered as a second opinion to the IPCC reports?

Joe Romm is criticizing the scientific credentials of FREEMAN DYSON!? Are you kidding me?! Romm has spend most of his "career" since MIT as a policy hack for the democratic party. Dyson on the other hand contributed real science and research and is world famous. Dyson was a key contributor to the nuclear program before Romm was born. Romm needs to go back to sharpening pencils for Bill Clinton and shut his suck hole!

I consider myself to be an original mold of Gods great work..: o )..if the world was "weather Doomed" as Gore and his green money followers speak about, don't ya think he'd take an opposing question or two? Crooks & liars, all of them. BTW,..Welcome Mr Stossel,..to the network that's not afraid to ask!...(let's just hope they keep asking.

If you want to see both sides of the story, check out Not Evil Just Wrong. I saw it at a special screening back in August and is the answer to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

Well put. The fact that no one picks up on the left's avoidance of debate on this issue is staggering.