http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.


Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program. Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column. The views and comments are those of the author only.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I beat you to it: LINK Feb 26 2008, 08:56 PM


After the back-to-back ice storms in Tulsa, it's hard to sell Global Warming.

Okies still hear about the Dust Bowl in the 1930's with over 500,000 Americans left homeless.
THAT was hot.

So long as no body can explain why the 3 to 4 miles thick layers of ice, where now
there is city of Chicago, melted 10,000 years ago, I ain't subscribing to human caused
global warming.

The ice layers were result of last ice age 10,000 years ago. The melting of those glaciers
formed the largest fresh water lakes in the world, known as the Great Lakes including Superior,
Michigan, Huron etc. There was not a single car or power station or even a fire place 10,000
years ago. The cave man used flint stones to burn a few twigs is all.

Yes Victoria, there is global warming and global cooling cycles on earth. It has been going on
for Billions of years, long before human species arrived.

This past winter has been cold, but the climate can fluctuate from year to year. There can be a year of cooling within a long term warming trend. One cold year does not invalidate the long term trend that clearly shows long term global warming. The five warmest years over last century have likely been: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.

To discount the overwhelming evidence of global warming because of a cold year, reminds me of the tobacco companies trying to discount the overwhelming evidence of hazardous health effects of smoking because some people did not contract cancer. Look at the weight of scientific evidence and long-term trends. This should not be a political issue. One should look objectively at the science.

This years cooling is likely due to the La Nina in the Pacific Ocean, but does not refute the IPCC's conclusions that there will likely be significant warming this century due to greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing temperatures track very well over the long-term with increasing Carbon dioxide levels in earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide levels measured in air trapped in polar ice thousands of years ago -- demonstrates that CO2 has never been at a higher concentration in our atmosphere over the last 10,000 years than now (mostly due to burning of fossil fuels since the start of Industrial revolution).

The world renowned Hadley Climate Centre in England predicted cooling in 2008 due to the LaNina:
see: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/World_to...xperts_999.html

"World to cool slightly in 2008, British Experts." The cooling comes against the background of an underlying warming trend, said Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years -- and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998 -- does not mean that global warming has gone away," he said.

"What matters is the underlying rate of warming -- the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 degree Celsius
above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 degree Celsius warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."

La Nina, effectively a drop in sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean can affect eather patterns in many parts of the globe, just like.
El Nino, a warming of Pacific sea surface temperatures, can affect weather causing drought or flooding.

Overall the global temperature is expected to be 0.37 degree Celsius above the long-term average of 14.0 degree,
making it the coolest year since 2000 when the value was 0.24 degree C above the average.

"Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature and the current
strong La Nina will act to limit temperatures in 2008," said Professor Chris Folland of the (Hadley Centre) Met
Office.

"However mean temperature is still expected to be significantly warmer than in 2000 ... Sharply renewed warming
is likely once La Nina declines," he added.

The forecasts take into account El Nino and La Nina, ballooning greenhouse gas levels as well as solar effects
and natural variations in the world's oceans. "

When you look at the bigger picture, unfortunately this recent cooling is not reflected in any manner the observed worldwide changes
that have been due to global warming, including:

the rapid loss the Arctic ice field
the rapid glacier retreat worldwide
the rate of permafrost melt
the loss of coral reefs worldwide due to warming and acidification
the rapid northward movement of many animal, even plant, species

U.S. military and homeland security recognize climate change for the significant threat that it is. http://www.securityandclimate.cna.org/

"Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions, according to a new study released by a blue-ribbon panel of retired admirals and generals from all branches of the armed services."

This valley was once filled with ice.
What happened to it?

Wasn't that a Tom Paxton song?

You don't need all that garbage science. All you need to know is that when the last moron recognizes and gets on the trend (Al Gore)

ITS OVER !!!!!!!

LINK
1860 July 9, the temperature reached 115 degrees in Lawrence, Kansas.

1891 July 25, peak of a horrible heat wave in Los Angeles, California, temperatures hit 109 degrees

1901 Warmest July month since 1867 at Lawrence, Kansas. Temperatures reached 100 degrees 21 of 31 days in July.
Peak reading was 108 degrees on July 24.
Temperature also reached 112 degrees in Phillipsburg, Kansas.

1911 New England severe heat wave - 105 degrees in Vermont.

1913 July 10 Greenland Ranch in Death Valley, California, reported 134 degrees.

1930 July 20, Washington D.C. reached 106 degrees.

1934 July Heat wave across the Great Plains.

1936 Temperature hit 121 degrees in North Dakota - July 6

1936 July, New York Central Park Observatory hit 106 degrees

1936 July 10, temperature hit 112 degrees in West Virginia; 111 degrees in Pennsylvania.

1936 July 14, hottest afternoon in Iowa; 113 stations had an average maximum of
108.7 degrees

1936 Kansas City, Missouri hit 100 degrees or higher for 53 days

1937 Yuma, Arizona, recorded 101 - 100 degree days.

1941 Heat wave in the state of Washington.

1950 September 1, 123 degrees at Yuma.

1955 July and August in the Northeast; highs were on average four degrees above normal.

1955 September 1, temperature hit 110 degrees in Los Angeles.

1955 14 days with 110 degrees or higher in Yuma.

1959 June, July, August and September, an average of 7.5 degrees above normal in Los Angeles.

1959 July 10 118 degrees at Yuma; Cow Creek, California reached 125 degrees.

1960 Second hottest month of July in Yuma (1959 first).

1965 July 30 Portland, Oregon hit 107 degrees.

1966 July St. Louis, Missouri, heat wave grips city.

1980 In Dallas, Texas, 42 days hit 100 degrees or higher from June 23 to August 3.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004


Has global warming stopped?

David Whitehouse

Published 19 December 2007

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same
as 2006 and every year since 2001'

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been
told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all
that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses
to melt?

Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most
of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we
digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report
that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at
Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming
camp.

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global
temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no
warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as
2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or
permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as
they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the
greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find
out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide
present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s
surface causing some heat to be retained.

Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse
gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an
enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we
are in trouble.

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the
greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon
dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is
clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward.
It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were
about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more
reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse
effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the
carbon dioxide levels increase.

But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for
some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed
Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of
about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the
global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from
370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3
deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s
not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact.
Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades
and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that
the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence
shows that global warming as such has ceased.
The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the
atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic
activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental
sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an
explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between
1940 and 1978.

But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has
remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting
aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at
precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide
that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems
highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean
cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation.

But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for
the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the
conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global
warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an
improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy
according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the
recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent
warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature
had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming
and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age!
Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases.
But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?

Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond
doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications
to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific
argument. Not so.

Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one
that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our
understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient
explanation for what is going on.
I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the
time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes
delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is
independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for
knowledge to any political cause, however noble.

The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if
we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as
the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far
less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain
why global warming has stopped.

David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC
News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year.
He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography
(John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com

Ancient ice samples have shown that increasing CO2 levels LAG temperature increases.
In other words, increased CO2 levels may be an effect of warmer air caused by sun activity and not a cause of warming.
It appears that warmer air simply holds more CO2 than colder air, just as hot water will dissolve and hold in suspension more sugar (made of carbon) than will cold water.
The sugar does not cause the water to be warmer.

We know so little.
The logic of "we must do something before it's too late" may lead us to doing the wrong thing.
What if Al Gore freezes half the world?

"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

NASA GISS: 2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

Global warming is entirely possible. It has happened millions of times in 5 Billion year history of earth.
The only question is are humans responsible for the current (if true) global warming trend. To deny
global warming or global cooling is to deny geological evidence.

Since humans were not even around for 99.99% of previous global warming cycles, who is foolhardy
enough to claim humans are causing the next global warming? It defies logic. But then politicians defy
logic quite frequently.

Hey, haven't you heard that all those claims about all the warmest years on record having been in the last 14 years bla, bla, bla were debunked a year ago or so. Turns out Al forgot about a bunch of years in the earlier part of the 20th century.

Perhaps it wasn't that well reported in the news. Sort of inconvenient I guess.
TM

The ideas about keeping the planet cleaner, polluting the oceans less and consuming the resources such as forests and other minerals etc more efficiently are still valid though with or without the global warming...

You wouldn't expect to draw any real scientific conclusions from one month's temperature reading or one year's change in the polar ice caps. It's obviously meant to mislead. The embedded chart clearly shows a rising trend in the temperature anomalies except for January's abnormal weather. The author chose to ignore the longer trend of temperatures or shrinking ice caps.

I posted that in August:

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.


http://www.traders-talk.com/mb2/index.php?...mp;hl=implosion

Yeah, why beleeve all those fansy, schmanzy sciontusts who say da earth is warming. It’s damn kold outside. Its just like those sciontusts who say we shudn’t smoke. My unkle Charly smoked for 50 yrs and was hit by a truk. Dem scientusts don’t know nuttin.

I’m gonna smoke and sit in my warm and komfy house and watch it snow. Snow, dat’s rite, I sed snow. Dis global warming krap is just a bunch of hooey. Dem sciontusts also say da earth moves around da sun, and any damn fool can see dat da sun moves around da earth! I'm gonna have me anudder smoke.

I posted this before:

An abundance of research has shown that human beings are conservative processors of fallible information. Such experiments compare human behaviour with the outputs of Bayes's theorem, the formal optimal rule about how opinions... should be revised on the basis of new information. It turns out that opinion change is very orderly, and usually proportional to numbers calculated from Bayes's theorem - but it is insufficient in amount. A convenient first approximation to the data would say that it takes anywhere from two to five observations to do one observations' worth of work in inducing a subject to change his opinion.

psychologist Ward Edwards


It takes more than a single graph or a single media event to change minds.

http://www.traders-talk.com/mb2/index.php?...ation&st=10

Some more from the world of the fansy, schmanzy sciontusts:

Full report at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...teReport#report

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Report Released on December 20, 2007


INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile." (LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is "settled."

A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) - In addition, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK) ]

The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

Like so many views humans attach themselves to, it's more than logic and facts.
There is an emotional, even psychological attachment for many.
It was described in Michael Crichton's insightful speech a few years ago.

Yeah dem fansy, schmancy sciontusts have now got our jenerals, sargents, captens and admerals and stuff beleeving dis global warming hooey is reel.
http://www.securityandclimate.cna.org/

Wat is a tru Amerikan dat can see dat da earth is flat, and da sun rotates round da earth, and dat it still gets kold, and dat I hav smoked for years and only koff a litle, but am not ded, to beleeve. Dees sciontust dont no nuttin! Dey sed smokin would kil me, but I'm still here. Dey sed da earth is gettin warmer, well, its snowin outside. Wat do dey no.

The Allenby Column
by Brad Allenby
January 2008
The Dangerous Rise of Carbon Fundamentalism
A professor writing in the Medical Journal of Australia calls on the Australian government to impose a carbon charge of $5,000 on every birth, annual carbon fees of $800 per child and provide a carbon credit for sterilization. Another recent article in the New Scientist suggests that the problem with obesity is the additional carbon load it imposes on the environment; others that a major social cost of divorce is the additional carbon burden resulting from splitting up families.

A recent study from the Swedish Ministry of Sustainable Development argues that males have a disproportionately larger impact on global warming ("women cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide emissions than men and thus considerably less climate change").The Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that those who suggest that climate change is not a catastrophic challenge are no different than Hitler (he now claims that his words were taken out of context, but the reporter who conducted the interview, Lars From, stands by it). E. O. Wilson calls such people parasites. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman writes that "global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers."

There are always fringe articles and unfortunate comments in areas of active public debate. But the sheer volume of articles, the vicious language and the retranslation of so many social and cultural trends -- divorce, obesity, gender conflict and much else -- into terms of carbon footprint suggests that something more fundamental is going on.

Most obviously, the extreme language -- comparing academics who disagree about interpretation of data to Hitler or to Holocaust deniers -- is indicative of a profound if subtle reframing of climate change. One does not debate Hitler: the use of such language indicates a shift from helping the public and policymakers understand a complex issue, to demonizing disagreement, especially regarding policies favored by the scientific community.

The data driven and exploratory processes of science are choked off by inculcation of belief systems that rely on archetypal and emotive strength. Importantly, the extreme language is directed not against those who deny anthropogenic climate change completely, for there are few of those left (a credit to the traditional scientific debate process while it still existed in this area), but those who, while accepting the existence of the phenomenon, do not believe it is an existential and immediate crisis. The authority of science is relied on not for factual enlightenment but as ideological foundation for authoritarian policy prescriptions which might otherwise be difficult to implement.

This is reinforced by the number of articles, some verging on self-parody, that redefine more and more social and cultural phenomenon in terms of carbon footprint. It is not that each assertion may be wrong; indeed, since life at base is creating order, it is not surprising that changes in individual, social and institutional networks will have concomitant implications for coupled natural systems -- especially energy and material consumption and thus the carbon cycle.

Defining complex human behaviors and states, such as obesity or having children, in terms of carbon footprint, however, enables a new structure of good and evil to be imposed on society. Obesity is now morally questionable not for health reasons or Calvinist theology, but because it is evil in that you are destroying the world through your carbon footprint-generating gluttony. A complex public health problem is nicely converted into a simplistic moral mapping.

Similarly, the Swedish article uses climate change to reinvent the ecofeminist condemnation of males as evil destroyers of the environment (the New Scientist lead on the news item read "Male eco-villians"). The campaign to create a moral universe predicated on carbon footprint, which began with anti-SUV initiatives, is now extending across society as a whole. Climate change science and policy is rapidly becoming carbon fundamentalism, an over-simplistic but comprehensive structure of moral valuation that can be applied to virtually any individual or institution.

As the IPCC Nobel Peace Prize and perusal of journals reveals, many scientists are active participants in this process. But fundamentalism of any stripe is dangerous because it oversimplifies complex problems and because it facilitates "good" versus "evil" framing that cuts off dialog and thus tends to be profoundly anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, anti-rational -- and anti-scientific. Because science is for many people an important source of information, guidance and truth, in the short run it can provide substantial authority for carbon fundamentalism. Converting science into an authoritarian belief system is, however, dangerous not just to those whom it demonizes but, eventually, to the health of the institution itself.

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=36591