No ripping down and rebuilding many times more dense? Just practical common sense? What a let down! ;-)

Walter Russell Mead: "...you can’t tell what the tide is doing by measuring how far each individual wave gets up the beach. The second thing greens need to get is that the climate discussion is different from the policy discussion. If your policy ideas are unworkable it doesn’t matter who is right about the climate."

Thank you Crosscut for publishing this letter from Tom Harris since it serves to expose the methods that the global warming denialist use to spread disinformation and create the perception in the public eye that the science behind global warming is uncertain.

First, let's be clear who the author is. While Tom Harris may currently be the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, previous to this post he was executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). Two of the three founding directors of NRSP were paid oil and gas industry lobbyist associated with the Ottowa-based PR and lobbying firm High Park Group (HPG). One of the directors Tim Egan was the president of the High Park Advocacy Group and a retired lobbyist for the Canadian Gas Association and Canadian Electricity Association. The other director was Julio Legos who was director of regulatory affairs for HPG. [1] Harris' position prior to NRSP was Director of Operation at High Park Group. According to Sourcewatch [2],

"In August 2006, Charles Montgomery wrote in The Globe and Mail that Tom Harris was then a senior associate with HPG, which was a "registered lobbyist for the Canadian Electricity Association (web) and the Canadian Gas Association (web)."'

Thus, it can be seen that the NSRP and most likely also International Climate Science Coalition are astroturf or front organizations for the fossil fuel industry.

Second, Harris' letter exposes the second characteristic of the global warming denialists by mis-representing or cherry-picking data from scientific studies. The Dole, et al. paper “Was there A Basis For Anticipating The 2010 Russian Heat wave?” evaluates the following question:

"The goal of this study is to identify the primary causes of the Russian heat wave and to assess to what extent it might have been anticipated from prior knowledge of natural and human forcings and observed regional climate trends." [3]

The NOAA press releases [4] accompanying the study states the following:

"The heat wave was due primarily to a natural phenomenon called an atmospheric "blocking pattern," in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880, the researchers found."

Harris conveniently leaves out this next point that is emphasized in the NOAA press release:

"The researchers cautioned that this extreme event provides a glimpse into the region's future as greenhouse gases continue to increase, and the signal of a warming climate, even at this regional scale, begins to emerge more clearly from natural variability in coming decades. Climate models evaluated for the new study show a rapidly increasing risk of such heat waves in western Russia, from less than one percent in 2010, to 10 percent or more by the end of this century." [4]

The authors' conclusions thus are directly opposite of those that Harris purports the study to show. If one reviews the study (see link below), the authors are quite clear that the increased likelihood of such droughts/heatwaves will occur in the future as global warming intensifies.

Climatologists state that it is difficulty to assign blame solely on global warming for any single extreme weather event. However, global warming is just like loading the dice in that it makes extreme weather events more likely. Denialist's under the pay of the fossil fuel interests such as Tom Harris conveniently fail to communicate that message from the scientists.

[1] Climate cover-up: the crusade to deny global warming By James Hoggan, Richard D. Littlemore, pp. 54-55
[2] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris_(Canadian_engineer/PR_specialist)
[3] http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/tao.zhang/2010GL046582.pdf
[4] http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html

Global warming denialists and hired PR experts like Tom Harris also use the inherent skepticism of science to create the impression that the "science isn't settled". But by its very nature to expose the truth, scientists are taught to challenge the conclusions and assumptions that others may reach. It is only through this inherent process of questioning that science reaches firm conclusions.

As an example, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section for the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and lead author in the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports, has this to say concerning the Dole paper.

"The Dole et al paper “Was there a basis for anticipating the 2010 Russian Heat Wave” is superficial and does not come close to answering the question in an appropriate manner. Many statements are not justified and are actually irresponsible. The question itself is ill posed because we never expect to predict such a specific event under any circumstances, but with climate change, the odds of certain kinds of events do change.

The paper focuses on the Russian heat wave in July 2010. But it has an extremely narrow focus and does not examine conditions elsewhere in the hemisphere. The atmospheric circulation is global and interlinked over thousands of miles. It so happens that record breaking flooding occurred in July in China and India, to be followed by record breaking flooding in Pakistan in August. Is this a coincidence? No, it is not but these events are never mentioned.
...
The question in this case is not whether a blocking anticyclone was the “cause” of the heat wave. Of course it wasn’t, it was a symptom. The question should be why was the blocking high so intense and why did it last for 6 weeks with only minor breaks? Many examples are known as to why this sort of thing happens. Natural weather varies widely, but when unusual persistence occurs it is always linked to anomalous forcing of the atmosphere, usually from anomalous SSTs [Sea Surface Temperatures] . The best example is El Nino. Hence an external influence (the ocean) puts an imprint on the atmosphere that makes it favorable for anticyclones to develop, persist, and redevelop in some regions, as happened evidently over Russia.

The proximate cause then is the high SSTs south of Asia, which undoubtedly had (and still have) a global warming component. Moreover, global warming no doubt helped the drying and high temperatures, once the conditions favorable for them to occur were present."[5]

In other words, Trenberth states that Dole fails to account for the other anomalies happening simultaneously to the Russian heatwave/drought and thus the drought cannot be considered in isolation as the Dole study does. Furthermore, Trenberth states the persistence of the heat wave--which killed over 50,000 people--is directly due to the high sea surface temperatures (SST).

So is the "science settled" as to whether or not the 2010 Russian heatwave/drought is caused by global warming? No it isn't. There is legitimate disagreement. One might give the argument from Trenberth more weight though considering his level of expertise in the subject and given his arguments.

Is the "science settled" as to whether Russia faces hotter summers in the future? To that question, both Dole and Trenberth would agree. But then an energy company lobbyist wouldn't be earning his pay if he made that statement, would he?

[5] http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/03/14/207683/noaa-russian-heat-wave-trenberth-attribution/

Put money into infrastructure?
No way. We need more studies. The bureaucracy demands money.

Meanwhile...

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/08/15/brrrrr-snowy-summer-setting-records-at-mount-rainier/

Thanks Pythagoras. It sure read like a climate change denier piece. Usually the tone gives them away, trying to sound like a wise old person but never actually confronting the fact that CO2 is over 350ppm and in the history of the ice, we've NEVER seen it this high. And it happened in the last 100 years, which happens to coincide with our increased burning of fossil fuel.

Oh and Blue Light, what you don't seem to get, is that the increase in snow levels on Mt. Rainier, Mt Bachelor etc. are due to there being more moisture in the air from evaporation from a warmer ocean and air. Thus at altitude it snows more and harder.

You may have noticed that it rained a whole heck of a lot around here this spring, and it rained harder (larger droplets) than I can remember in the last 30 years I've been here. It used to be the joke was you could tell the tourists because they carried umbrellas because the rain was more of a mist. No more.

So thanks for giving us yet another data point confirming climate change.

From the ICSC website's mission statement: "ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not be limited to, the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy sources with wind turbines, solar power, biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources."

Ah yes, those dangerous impacts.

I am not a fan or censorship, but I am a fan of accountability. If a piece of writing is known to have purposeful factual misrepresentation, it should not be put up in the public conversation. This letter to the editor should be withdrawn from Crosscut because it purposefully misleads the writer. This letter is propaganda, plain and simple. If it is left up, it should have a big red asterisk. Freedom of speech does not equate to obligation to publish.

Or, as explained by Al Gore:
"Many of the extreme and destructive events are the result of the rapid increase in the amount of heat energy from the sun that is trapped in the atmosphere, which is radically disrupting the planet's water cycle. More heat energy evaporates more water into the air, and the warmer air holds a lot more moisture. This has huge consequences that we now see all around the world.

When a storm unleashes a downpour of rain or snow, the precipitation does not originate just in the part of the sky directly above where it falls. Storms reach out — sometimes as far as 2,000 miles — to suck in water vapor from large areas of the sky, including the skies above oceans, where water vapor has increased by four percent in just the last 30 years. (Scientists often compare this phenomenon to what happens in a bathtub when you open the drain; the water rushing out comes from the whole tub, not just from the part of the tub directly above the drain. And when the tub is filled with more water, more goes down the drain. In the same way, when the warmer sky is filled with a lot more water vapor, there are bigger downpours when a storm cell opens the "drain.")

In many areas, these bigger downpours also mean longer periods between storms — at the same time that the extra heat in the air is also drying out the soil. That is part of the reason so many areas have been experiencing both record floods and deeper, longer-lasting droughts....

Determining what is real can be a challenge in our culture, but in order to make wise choices in the presence of such grave risks, we must use common sense and the rule of reason in coming to an agreement on what is true....First, become a committed advocate for solving the crisis...[e.g., don't give either party money until further notice]. Second, deepen your commitment by making consumer choices that reduce energy use and reduce your impact on the environment. [e.g. give up flying]. Third, join an organization committed to action on this issue [e.g.] The Alliance for Climate Protection (climateprotect.org), which I chair. Fourth, contact your local newspapers and television stations when they put out claptrap.... Finally, and above all, don't give up on the political system....The ability to perceive reality is a prerequisite for self-governance."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622

It is normal these days to see ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies in response to any serious challenge to any scientific element of the global warming scare. I suspect this is because some of us are getting too close to the target for comfort for many who support the hypothesis of human caused dangerous GW. So the intent appears to be to disgrace the messenger so that no one will really think about what we have to say.

Even if the ad homs attacks, etc. were correct (they are not in my case – see next para), nature cares not one whit about who I am or who I used to work for and intelligent people recognize that. All that matters is what is real scientifically, economically and politically (although the latter is often very unreal itself).

I am starting to come to the conclusion that many of these logical fallacies are also put forward to divert me and others on our side of the debate from doing what our donors want us to do, namely engage in public education. I have answered all of these attacks many times in the past and shown how they are either wrong or misleading (or irrelevant). However, so that the editors of this publication and open minded readers have the latest Tom Harris info at their finger tips, I'll go through it again here (at least I am glad to see my letter was read!):

The anonymous Pythagoras writes:

“Thank you Crosscut for publishing this letter from Tom Harris since it serves to expose the methods that the global warming denialist use to spread disinformation and create the perception in the public eye that the science behind global warming is uncertain.”

Response: “global warming denialist”: Calling us "deniers" makes no sense. We promote the idea that, because climate changes all the time, we must help vulnerable people adapt to inevitable changes. And, as Prof. Tim Patterson of the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University testified before the House of Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (2005), "Based on the paleo-climatic data I and others have collected, it's obvious that climate is and always has been variable. In fact, the only constant about climate is change; it changes continually. We certainly have no chance of stopping this natural phenomenon." So Patterson and his peers deny that they deny climate change -- they are denial deniers. The "deniers" label is usually an attempt to equate those who question political correctness on climate to Holocaust deniers. It is a nasty logical fallacy referred to as ad hominem -- "against the man", instead of the idea.

Pythagoras writes (since he apparently can’t pin down anything questionable about the group I have led for the past 3.5 years and now lead, he looks back a few years to my past jobs):

“Two of the three founding directors of NRSP [the group I was with until about 3.5 years ago] were paid oil and gas industry lobbyist associated with the Ottowa(sic)-based PR and lobbying firm High Park Group (HPG). etc.”

Response: They also lobbied on behalf of wind energy, solar and nuclear, I have been told. They worked for a PR firm and so this is what they do.

Pythagoras writes: “Harris' position prior to NRSP was Director of Operation at High Park Group. According to Sourcewatch [2],”

Response: For five months in 2006, I held this position. I never took part in lobbying and never have lobbied as we regard it as a waste of time on this issue until public opinio significantly changes.

Pythagoras writes: "In August 2006, Charles Montgomery wrote in The Globe and Mail that Tom Harris was then a senior associate with HPG, which was a "registered lobbyist for the Canadian Electricity Association (web) and the Canadian Gas Association (web)."' Thus, it can be seen that the NSRP and most likely also International Climate Science Coalition are astroturf or front organizations for the fossil fuel industry.

Response: That is illogical. HPG was also active in other lobbying for solar and wind and nuclear – so what do you conclude then? ICSC has no funding from any industry, let alone the fossil fuel industry. Pythagorus would see this if he simply clicked on our funding button on any page on our site.

Pythagoras writes: Harris conveniently leaves out this next point that is emphasized in the NOAA press release: "The researchers cautioned etc…”

Response: Yes, of course, they always do this since it is important that the researchers do not appear to questions the status quo on the GW issue, no matter what their research actually demonstrates. However, the important point is that their study showed that the Russian heat wave was not the result of human caused GHG warming, even though many people who have not seen this paper either imply, or outright state, that it was.

It is revealing that they admit that in the future, “the signal of a warming climate, even at this regional scale, begins to emerge more clearly from natural variability in coming decades”

“begins to emerge more clearly from natural variability in coming decades” hardly sounds like settled science, as Al Gore and Obama so often claim.

Pythagoras writes: “global warming is just like loading the dice in that it makes extreme weather events more likely.”

Response: No, this is not the case, as explained in my letter to the editor.

Pythagoras writes: “Denialist's under the pay of the fossil fuel interests such as Tom Harris …”

Response: This is a logical fallacy, of course, that just so happens to be completely false besides (see above). It is also an unpleasant violation of the rules of discourse laid out by Cross Cut, specifically their advice to “avoid personal attacks”.

Pythagorus continues in his second post: “Global warming denialists and hired PR experts like Tom Harris”

Response: More false (libelous, actually) logical fallacies.

Pythagorus next cites the comments of Dr. Kevin Trenberth cutting up the Dole paper. This is odd considering Pythagorus previously used the comments of the Dole paper as if they were an authority on future warming. You can’t use the Dole paper as a source to prove your point and then make the point that the Dole paper is garbage to also proove your point.

Pythagorus: “But then an energy company lobbyist wouldn't be earning his pay if he made that statement, would he?”

Response: Just more rather nasty ad hominems – no wonder Pythagorus posts anonymously.

On to the next attacker:

GaryP: “It sure read like a climate change denier piece…etc.”

Response: More logical fallacy garbage from a semi-anoymous poster, I am afraid.

Gary P: “never actually confronting the fact that CO2 is over 350ppm and in the history of the ice, we've NEVER seen it this high.

Response: We are actually at one of the lowest levels of CO2 in the history of the planet (at least as far back as we have decent proxy records, say 500,000,000 years). CO2 levels have been as much as 1700% higher than today in this period and the Earth (440 million years ago) was in the depths of the coldest period in this whole time frame, so I am afraid Gary P is simply wrong here.

Gary P: “And it happened in the last 100 years, which happens to coincide with our increased burning of fossil fuel.”

Response: It also coincides with the decrease in the number of pirates in the world. Corelation does not prove causation.

Gary P: “So thanks for giving us yet another data point confirming climate change.”

Response: Climate changes all the time on planets with atmospheres. We don’t need any data points to confirm what we already know.

Next the anonymous GW pushes for censorship (even though he is not a fan of censorship, so presumably would not want to be censored himself):

“I am not a fan or censorship, but I am a fan of accountability. If a piece of writing is known to have purposeful factual misrepresentation, it should not be put up in the public conversation. This letter to the editor should be withdrawn from Crosscut because it purposefully misleads the writer. This letter is propaganda, plain and simple. If it is left up, it should have a big red asterisk. Freedom of speech does not equate to obligation to publish.

Response: Since there is no factual misrepresentation, “purposeful” (which is a logical fallacy referred to as “motive intent”) or otherwise, I am glad to see the editor has not removed my letter. Some of the postings can now be removed, however, I suggest, as they incorrectly damage our reputation. Or maybe, as GW suggests, a big red asterisk should be put beside them.

Finally, afreeman cites Al Gore, which I think is not worth reading, let alone responding to.

In conclusion, researchers understand that climate science is in its infancy. We cannot forecast climate in 50 years any better than we can forecast weather two weeks ahead. The system is too complex and our understanding of the basic science too primitive. Dr. Chris Essex, professor of applied mathematics at The University of Western Ontario, explains, "Climate is one of the most challenging open problems in modern science. Some knowledgeable scientists believe that the climate problem can never be solved."

That may not be a comforting thought for people who look for definite answers. But science is often like that. While it is our best tool for trying to understand the natural world, it is not magic -- it can only give us what is possible.

Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

Continuation of post from Tom Harris:

Pythagorus next cites the comments of Dr. Kevin Trenberth cutting up the Dole paper. This is odd considering Pythagorus previously used the comments of the Dole paper as if they were an authority on future warming. You can’t use the Dole paper as a source to prove your point and then make the point that the Dole paper is garbage to also proove your point.

Pythagorus: “But then an energy company lobbyist wouldn't be earning his pay if he made that statement, would he?”

Response: Just more rather nasty ad hominems – no wonder Pythagorus posts anonymously.

On to the next attacker:

GaryP: “It sure read like a climate change denier piece…etc.”

Response: More logical fallacy garbage from a semi-anoymous poster, I am afraid.

Gary P: “never actually confronting the fact that CO2 is over 350ppm and in the history of the ice, we've NEVER seen it this high.

Response: We are actually at one of the lowest levels of CO2 in the history of the planet (at least as far back as we have decent proxy records, say 500,000,000 years). CO2 levels have been as much as 1700% higher than today in this period and the Earth (440 million years ago) was in the depths of the coldest period in this whole time frame, so I am afraid Gary P is simply wrong here.

Gary P: “And it happened in the last 100 years, which happens to coincide with our increased burning of fossil fuel.”

Response: It also coincides with the decrease in the number of pirates in the world. Corelation does not prove causation.

Gary P: “So thanks for giving us yet another data point confirming climate change.”

Response: Climate changes all the time on planets with atmospheres. We don’t need any data points to confirm what we already know.

Next the anonymous GW pushes for censorship (even though he is not a fan of censorship, so presumably would not want to be censored himself):

“I am not a fan or censorship, but I am a fan of accountability. If a piece of writing is known to have purposeful factual misrepresentation, it should not be put up in the public conversation. This letter to the editor should be withdrawn from Crosscut because it purposefully misleads the writer. This letter is propaganda, plain and simple. If it is left up, it should have a big red asterisk. Freedom of speech does not equate to obligation to publish.

Response: Since there is no factual misrepresentation, “purposeful” (which is a logical fallacy referred to as “motive intent”) or otherwise, I am glad to see the editor has not removed my letter. Some of the postings can now be removed, however, I suggest, as they incorrectly damage our reputation. Or maybe, as GW suggests, a big red asterisk should be put beside them.

Finally, afreeman cites Al Gore, which I think is not worth reading, let alone responding to.

In conclusion, researchers understand that climate science is in its infancy. We cannot forecast climate in 50 years any better than we can forecast weather two weeks ahead. The system is too complex and our understanding of the basic science too primitive. Dr. Chris Essex, professor of applied mathematics at The University of Western Ontario, explains, "Climate is one of the most challenging open problems in modern science. Some knowledgeable scientists believe that the climate problem can never be solved."

That may not be a comforting thought for people who look for definite answers. But science is often like that. While it is our best tool for trying to understand the natural world, it is not magic -- it can only give us what is possible.

Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

To Tom @ "On to the next attacker:"

Shame on you, but not to worry, it is all too human to get hassled and miss the distinction between those attacking you and those not, and then to forget that the surest and fastest way to effective reasoning is through taking the time to READ the opposing argument (at least all non ad hominem arguments), no matter now many times you think you have heard it.

To all overly emotional activists:
Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning—A Great Courses offering would benefit you, one and all.

"never actually confronting the fact that CO2 is over 350ppm and in the history of the ice, we've NEVER seen it this high."

Actually, its at 394 ppm now.

Pay particular attention to the core "science" in this propaganda piece:

"If the world warms due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures at high latitudes are forecast to rise the most, reducing the difference between arctic and tropical temperatures. Since this differential drives weather, we should see weaker mid-latitude cyclones in a warmer world and so less extremes in weather, not more."

Note that he supplies absolutely no reference to anything supporting this thesis. Nary a single peer reviewed article. No synthesis reports by any respected scientific body. Nada, Zip. Zilch. No respected climatologist supports this.

Note also the way the climate Ostriches have now (mostly) changed their tune. They no longer deny that Greenhouse Gas levels are rising. Sometimes, they even admit that there is global warming.

Also, note that Mr. Harris does not disclose the source of funding for his propaganda operation. But I suppose that if he were actually honest about it, they wouldn't give him money.

Steve E. ,
Gore's rolling stone piece is also guilty as charged, as are you at "no respected climatologists..."
I do agree with you that sources do matter if any of you are interested in coming to public judgment any time soon.

Mr. Harris, the "messenger" is already disgraced. Thrice, in fact, since in addition to your first propaganda piece, you felt it necessary to write two more in the form of comments.

When people write things, they often get responses. Get over it.

Why is Crosscut printing this right-wing propaganda from a non-local source? At least you could have asked that someone from the Great Nearby to put their name to it.

Guys like Harris get paid to politicize and undercut the scientific process. Look at the media manipulation dripping from even the name of their organization, which clearly is designed to confuse readers with the IPCC.

Go to the organization's website for such amusements as the lead headline: "Texas Governor Perry right on climate change."

DrLemming: “Why is Crosscut printing this right-wing propaganda”

Correction: We explain on our site that we are non-partisan and criticize and support participants in the climate debate based solely on what they say, not who they are or what they represent. If President Obama said something as sensible as Gov Perry has on climate change, then we would support that as well.

DrLemming:“Guys like Harris get paid to politicize and undercut the scientific process.”

Correct: Our funders are common citizens who want us to continue to promote what they and we regard as a climate realist point of view on climate change, independent of the politics of the issue. We promote the scientific process and are respectful of rational, open commentary and treat everyone with respect. Does DrLemming do the same?

Steve E. says: "note that Mr. Harris does not disclose the source of funding for his propaganda operation. But I suppose that if he were actually honest about it, they wouldn't give him money."

Correction: visit our site and click "Funding". I find it ironic that an anonymous poster, Steve E., criticizes me, a fully identified poster, for not being open.

Methinks Harris doth protect too much. To quote from his website:

"The identities of all donors are kept strictly confidential to protect their privacy and safety."

Now, that is his right, but its ludicrous for him to point to this as being open about his funding sources. Its well documented that various large fossil fuel corporations and far-right wing super rich have been behind the concerted campaign (primarily, but not exclusively, in this country) to make it seem as if there is a great deal of scientific uncertainty around the key elements of climate change theory:

1) That the overall climate of the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate;
2) That a primary driver of this warming is the increasing concentration of certain greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere;
3) That the increase in GHG is the result of humans burning fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil;
4) That at some point feedback effects of this process, particularly release of huge stores of gaseous carbon stored in permafrost at high latitudes, will cause the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere to "run away;"
5) That the effects of this climate change will likely result in destabilization of human societies planet wide, as well as very long term (i.e. millions of years) impoverishment of the biosphere from mass extinctions.

PS: Harris, please cite some peer reviewed article in a scientific journal supporting your thesis that the global climate change now occurring will not cause more extreme weather events. Or even just one. Come on, you're getting paid to turn out this Climate Ostrich Crap. Its time you worked for your money.

PPS: In answering the above, don't forget to come up with some obfuscation explaining the climate of Venus as being ideal:

Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³ (6.5% that of water). The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).[36] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of ?220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,[37] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. The surface of Venus is often said to resemble Hell.[38]
Studies have suggested that several billion years ago the Venusian atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[39]
Thermal inertia and the transfer of heat by winds in the lower atmosphere mean that the temperature of the Venusian surface does not vary significantly between the night and day sides, despite the planet's extremely slow rotation. Winds at the surface are slow, moving at a few kilometers per hour, but because of the high density of the atmosphere at the Venusian surface, they exert a significant amount of force against obstructions, and transport dust and small stones across the surface. This alone would make it difficult for a human to walk through, even if the heat and lack of oxygen were not a problem.[40]
Above the dense CO2 layer are thick clouds consisting mainly of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid droplets.[41][42] These clouds reflect about 60% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space, and prevent the direct observation of the Venusian surface in visible light. The permanent cloud cover means that although Venus is closer than Earth to the Sun, the Venusian surface is not as well lit. Strong 300 km/h winds at the cloud tops circle the planet about every four to five earth days.[43] Venusian winds move at up to 60 times the speed of the planet's rotation, while Earth's fastest winds are only 10% to 20% rotation speed.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

I only read as far as "Now, that is his right, but its ludicrous for him to point to this as being open about his funding sources." and then stopped because the anonymous Steve E. did not quote to readers the senetnces preceeding the one he cut and past from our site. The following is the rest of the para from the "Funding" Web page we have linked to every other page on our site:

"Since its formation in 2007, ICSC has been funded and supported exclusively by private individuals in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, United States and Canada. We have never received financial support from corporations, foundations or government.

"While we welcome contributions from all sources, including corporations, foundations and government, and are actively soliciting support, ICSC operates as a non-partisan entity, not left or right and independent of political or commercial vested interests. We will not accept donations that are contingent on ICSC promoting a point of view in favour of, or against, any philosophical, political or commercial interest."

... and then the sentence SteveE. chose to highlight appears.

See http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view;=article&id;=510

There are literally thousands of references listed on http://www.nipccreport.org/ that oppose or at least shed doubt on climate dogma. Take a look.

Ok Tom,
As a professional liar you need people without google to earn your keep.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

and

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

You'll note that CO2 has never been higher than it is now.

As for being anonymous, my name is Gary P. and the data doesn't lie, your response to my complaint does.

GaryP writes:

"Ok Tom, As a professional liar you ..."

I always stop reading when people become uncivilized and abusive since I know I am reading the thoughts of a closed mind and one so lacking in confidence in their opinions that they must resort to logial fallacies such as ad homenim attacks.

Dear editor
Please blackball this Gary P guy. I think this would be justifed by his comment "Ok Tom, As a professional liar you ..."

Of the two I prefer the author of the article.

Dear Mr. Harris,
Yet again you attack the messenger and not the data. As my lawyer friends always say, if you have the facts, argue the facts, if you don't blow smoke.

Facts: Current atmospheric CO2 394 parts per million.

Got a better data for this rise than the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years? Got a plan to grow food in northern climates on soil that isn't nearly as good as the mid west?

As for black balling me, I call a spade a spade, if you can't take the heat change jobs. I have yet to see any peer reviewed papers with refuting evidence for the data.

The heat wave was my fault.
I left the stove on one day.