Defending my statements. Re. dana?

Question

Global Warming Alarmist dana recently asked two questions suggesting that GW sceptics (“deniers” as he insists on calling them) are ignorant and make unsupported claims. (See… http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgOT8_D0rVyOQscQmCm1i6kgBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20070915114539AALKDM0&show=7#profile-info-20f3291b9320a302e9070bf55325531daa and… http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsnaXgA5ZRZt6X2rPr60moggBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20070915140412AAXC2h9&show=7#profile-info-20f3291b9320a302e9070bf55325531daa )

In answering those questions, I pointed out that dana himself was just as guilty of this, and cited as proof the fact that he has quoted the flawed Mann hockey stick graph and claimed that James Hansen’s 1988 guesses of how much temperature would rise by 2000 were “extremely accurate”.

Dana didn’t respond to me in the questions themselves, but subsequently contacted me direct with the following…

“Subject: defend your statements
Message: I have never once used Mann's hockey stick graph, and Hansen's 1988 climate predictions were quite accurate.

Prove otherwise.”

So, to prove I was correct, I’ll offer the following evidence.

Dana quotes Mann’s flawed hockey stick graph…

Unfortunately for dana he did this very thing in a very rare question that I asked! You can see the question here (sorry it’s so long and boring)… http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsxhAZGekv69jV8u4.CHmUt6Oxh.;_ylv=3?qid=20070912075054AAu0eNQ

In his answer, dana links to this… http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm Now, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s the Mann hockey-stick graph, is it not?

So that’s point one proved.

Second, dana claims that Hansen’s predictions were “quite accurate”.

He’s toned it down since this question (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Agm4aV2DSrBfL6ZP68p8B6whBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20070909173304AALMqMw&show=7#profile-info-7f7fad4dad3ac93317fb1101235512b2aa ) where he describes them as “extremely accurate”.

My answer to that question fairly demolishes Hansen’s predictions and shows that they were not even remotely accurate and, in fact, the claim that they were is basically a lie.

Thus I feel I am correct in stating that dana is just as guilty of using questionable evidence to support his belief in man-made catastrophic global warming, as any sceptic is of doing the same to support the opposite view.

I believe the appropriate saying at this juncture would begin “People in glass houses…”

Comments?

So many errors, so little time. Where to begin. I suppose I’ll “begin at the beginning” (as the king said gravely)

Vasanth K: Er? Can I skim over this one?

afratta437: I tend to agree.

Anders: Interesting, but not a comment on my question.

Mr Jello: As Anders, above.

Paul H: A-ha! Here we go. I’m not going to get into yet another discussion regarding whether or not Mann’s “hockey-stick” graph was flawed; it’s a whole separate question. Ask it if you want to discuss it. If you want to read all about its problems have a look here… http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf If you want to read the “best bit” start at the penultimate paragraph of page 10 and pay careful attention to figure 7 on page 11 showing 7 runs of Mann’s algorithm with random red noise and one with Mann’s actual data. Can you tell the “real” hockey-stick from the 7 “false” ones?

So, moving onto your comments about Hansen. I hadn’t read the article by Hansen in your third link, so thanks for that. There are several comments I’d like to make about it, but, again, that’s for another question. He doesn’t actually say very much in support of the suggestion that he was correct, other than simply showing the graph.

Interestingly, however, this is the exact same graph that was used on the page dana linked to, in the answer where I challenged the “Hansen was extremely accurate” view. So, the question immediately arises: While it is understandable that Hansen’s 1999 article has the observed temp line stopping in 1998 (as you later say, he would have needed a time machine to make it go further), why does the site dana linked to use it? They could, and I would argue should, keep their site up to date. Why do they have an eight year old graph supporting their claim? Again, is it because it looks better than an up to date one?

With regard to Patrick Michaels, it is important to remember that, until it became apparent in 2000 that Hansen’s scenario A was way out, *everybody* was quoting it as the almost certain outcome. This phenomenon of always quoting the worse-case scenarios is still apparent today; you can try it yourself by asking the question: “How much will sea levels rise by 2100?” I can almost guarantee that the answers you’ll get from the alarmists will be much greater than the IPCC’s average estimate of about 15 inches. Everyone always quotes the highest figure they can find, thus Michaels can be forgiven for attempting to disprove what everybody was quoting.

You then quote a graph and claim that “1988 had a temperature anomaly of ~0.2oC” Er? No, actually. I think you’re looking at the cold year of 1989! Remember, 1988 was a very hot year – it was actually the year before; that dot just above the 0.3°C, so shall we say 0.31°C? So that’s within 0.02°C of 2000 (which I’ll accept is about 0.33°C) or about 1/50th of a degree. Does 1/50th of a degree count as “close to” as I said in my answer?

Also note that you’re not quoting the satellite data as I did so we’re also arguing about which data source is more accurate. I firmly believe that the new satellite data is more reliable than the surface data given the latter’s problems with coverage and placement. (See… http://www.surfacestations.org/ )

I agree that comparing single years to each other is meaningless – I was just pointing out that that’s what a GWA would have done – had it been to their benefit (dare I ask how good Hansen’s graph would have looked had he smoothed 1998?)

And excuse me, I have never said that the trend post 1998 is “one of falling temperatures”. I mentioned that temperatures dropped like a rock in 1999 from the high of 1998, but I never even hinted at the suggestion that that was any kind of trend. I *have* said that there is no trend in temperature since 2002 and the graph you link to supports that conclusion.

And I disagree that there is still good agreement between data and model. Since most data records still have 1998 as their hottest year, the recorded temperature is falling further and further behind Hansen’s model. You can only claim differently if cherry-pick the one dataset that has 2005/2006 as “the hottest years ever”. Using the satellite data (arguably the most reliable record) we have barely surpassed Hansen’s 0.3°C today after 18 years.

Thus, based on your evidence I see no reason to retract any of my claims.

EnragedParrot: Hello again :) “Hockey-stick” – So you accept that it may have been a blatant lie, but you claim that that’s not important and I should continue to trust people who lied to me? LOL Don’t worry, I’m just baiting you, I’m happy to let it drop for the purposes of this question. The fact is dana linked to it, and to your next paragraph, no, we were discussing the MWP, and the top graph was the past 140 years, so it was definitely Mann’s graph he was referring to.

No, my basic arguments runs like this. Hansen said 0.45°C, 0.3°C or 0.25°C. Actual outturn was 0.14°C. Thus Hansen was wrong. Simple as that.

I was not trying to suggest that there’s been no warming since 1998. I *did* point out that temperatures dropped like a rock after 1998, back to around the temperature of 1988, but I never suggested that that was the start of a cooling trend, just that the graph wouldn’t have looked as good had he put those years in. I’ve subsequently learned (from Paul, above) that he created that graph in 1999, so Hansen can be forgiven, but I would argue that dana’s source should have used a graph that included the years 1999 and 2000. One has to ask the question why they haven’t, and I would suggest the answer is that they know damn well it won’t look as convincing. Wouldn’t you agree that that’s slightly dishonest?

Your next two paragraphs are moot, because you’ve misunderstood my point.

BTW, your graph: Are you sure about that 2001 plot? It can’t possibly be that high, can it? Oh, and even your graph shows no warming since 2002 – isn’t it exciting wondering whether it’ll go up or down next? LOL

Again where has this idea that I said that temperatures were trending down come from? My answer never once mentioned a downward trend, I simply pointed out, correctly, that temperatures dropped like a rock after 1998. Even your graph shows this: 1998 = ~0.58 2000= ~0.29. That’s almost all of Hansen’s Scenario B 0.3°C, in just two years. Under the circumstances I’d think that constitutes dropping like a rock.

Let me be very clear about this: I’m not suggesting that this drop in temperature implies anything about future temperatures. All I’m pointing out is that if you run the trend from ’88 to (the very host year of) ’98 you get a rise of 0.22°C. If you assume the trend will continue like that, you get a rise by 2000 of 0.26°C – very close to Hansen’s guess. These figures are very different from that actual figure of 0.14°C by 2000. Let’s face facts here, Hansen was very, very lucky we got that insanely hot 1998, because, without it, the observed figure would have been much lower. If we look at the ’88 – 97 trend (i.e. losing the very hot 1998) and project it to 2000, we get -0.02°C (note the minus!).

Do you see what I’m getting at now? Hansen… was… wrong.

Thus, dana’s evidence that Crichton was wrong is an error. I’ll accept that it was, perhaps, an honest error, because he didn’t know the truth. But he knows now, doesn’t he? So will he do it again?

Salomón II: As has been pointed out, the data you quote was for the US only, so has only limited reference to global temperatures.

The most interesting thing about this error is the fact that it was discovered by Stephen McIntyre. So, good old Steve was clever enough to spot the error that all climate scientists had missed, but, when he claims that the Mann “hockey-stick” graph is flawed, he’s just an idiot who should be ignored.

You’ve got to laugh at the GWAs, haven’t you?

And speaking of GWAs…

Bob: Well, *bits* of it were overly smoothed. Other bits were actively *encouraged* to rise. Hence even random data will produce a hockey-stick result.

I really don’t get this illogical defence of Mann’s graph. Let me say this yet again:

Random data will produce the same hockey-stick graph 99% of the time.

Am I missing something here? If I am, please explain it to me, because I can’t see it.

Again, here is what you need to read… http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

Another good quote (speaking of the bottom panel of Figure 6 in the document that shows a trendless line with no “up-tick” at the end) …

“…It shows what happens when Mann’s PC algorithm is applied to the NOAMER data after removing 20 bristlecone pine series. Without these hockey stick shapes to mine for, the Mann method generates a result just like that from a conventional PC algorithm, and shows the dominant pattern is not hockey stick-shaped at all. Without the bristlecone pines the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the 15th century

Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts.”

So Mann *knew* it was flawed!

So, your quote that “The big swing up is real…” is not actually true.

As to the later graphs supporting the suggestion that the MWP was cooler than today, well, call me paranoid, but I have my doubts. I’m not going to get into the whole argument again though, as you know, I asked a question about it and wrote reams and reams.

A-ha! The man himself.

Dana: Actually, I did try to reply, but Y!A said…

“Oops

You cannot send messages until you enable Yahoo! Answers email communications.”

At which point I thought “Er? Oh sod it, I’ll ask a question and work out what the heck that is later”

Sorry.

To your first point… One word… Thin.

I have a few problems with that train of thought - would the error bars (if they had them) on one of the more recent graphs, that *do* show a little MPW, have encompassed the current warming? In other words, you can’t take a graph that completely deleted the MWP and claim that it’s significant that the current warm period is not even with the error bars.

Whatever, we don’t want to get talking about the MWP again.

So what you’re basically saying is, you did it by accident. Fair enough.

BTW, I just loved your quote “So technically your claim was correct, but basically it was wrong.” Er? Okay. LOL

Hansen. Again, I disagree. It does not matter how many graphs you show me proving that the temperature is rising. No one disputes that. The question is: did it rise as much as Hansen guessed. And the answer to that question is: no.

I note with interest that the source for figure 3 in your link is a certain “James Hansen”. Now, I don’t know why, but that name rings a bell for some reason.

You don’t think that, perhaps, just maybe, there’s a slight, off-chance that he might be a teensy-weensy little bit unreliable as a source to confirm his own findings?

The only way you can get Hansen’s guesses to be “extremely accurate” is to use the GISS dataset, but do you think it is safe to use that dataset when it is maintained by, amongst others, James Hansen? Remember, this is the *only* dataset that has 2005/6 as warmer than 1998.

To be completely fair (and at the risk of shooting myself in the foot), let’s calculate the trends with two other surface station records: GHCN & HadCRUT3. (Let’s remember that these are surface station datasets and thus suffer from potential problems of placement and coverage)

Straightforward ’88 – ’00: GHCN= 0.26°C. HadCRUT3= 0.26°C.

’88 – ’98 then project to ’00: GHCN= 0.24°C. HadCRUT3= 0.31°C.

’88 – ’97 then project to ’00: GHCN= -0.07°C. HadCRUT3= 0.11°C.

So, both of these datasets give a value of 0.26°C, so that’s just within his Scenario C, but still well below his Scenario B. Thus I would again claim that Scenario B was not “extremely accurate”. You could claim that of C, but not B.

The lower result for the GHCN ’88 – ’98 figure was a surprise. I think it’s because it has ’90 as quite hot, only .06°C cooler than ’98, which reduces the slope. On HadCRUT3 ’90 was 0.34°C lower than ’98.

Answer 1

Good job, chuda.

I've been through this bogus Hansen prediction a couple of times with Dana. The questions, and subsequently my answers are nowhere to be found. Imagine that...

Just like a stopped clock is still correct twice a day, let's not be too eager to congratulate Mr. Hansen. As you, chuda, I believe a rolling prediction is useless. Let's compare Hansen's predictions to the last finalized year - 2006. We'll even give them home court advantage by using the beloved and oft cited wiki instrumental graph instead of satellite numbers:

Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Hansen:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/00fig1.gif

As you see, in 2006, the instrumental record shows an anomaly of slightly over 0.4C. When you compare Hansen's predictions for 2006, you get this:

A (most dire) ~1.0C, a 0.8C jump from 1988, 4 times (400%) the actual jump of ~0.2C.

B (Hansen's "preferred") ~0.8C, a 0.6C jump, 3x (300%) the actual jump.

C (CO2 emissions frozen at 2000 levels) ~0.7C, a 0.5C jump, 2.5x (250%) the actual jump.

But, maybe I'm not being generous enough. The Wiki graph show 2006 as slightly above 0.4C and 1988 as slightly below 0.2C...so let's say that the actual jump was 0.25C (super generous!) We get:

A 300% off
B 240% off
C 200% off

I don't know what people consider "ballpark figures", but if your ballpark is the Grand Canyon, then yeah, Hanson MAY be close.

Just how generous am I being? Well, if I instead used Hansen's actual numbers from 1988 it would give us a starting anomaly of ~0.35C giving us this:

A 1600% off
B 1200% off
C 1000% off

Or even more so, since Hansen himself submitted this 1998 evidence of the "accuracy" of his predictions, then he was, in effect, standing by it's post-1998 accuracy. As those predictions were entirely opposite the observed temperatures through 2006, the predictions would be invalidated.

Even if we bent the rules and used the arbitrary 0.0C baseline of the anomaly, we would still get extremely large errors:

A 150%
B 100%
C 75%

Anyone who wants to frame Hansen's prediction in gold is totally welcome. You may be able to trade it in on some Enron stock...

Answer 2

I won't talk about Hansen's predictions - I don't know enough about that, nor do I care much. One guys opinion just isn't a big deal. I'll stick with the data.

But the hockey stick was basically correct. The historical data was overly smoothed (averaged). That obliterated both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Bad idea. But the basic conclusion, that we're unusually warm, even compared to the Medieval Warm Period, was affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences when they reviewed the hockey stick.

Short version, the fact that some lumps were smoothed out in the historical data doesn't affect the big swing up in the measured data. The big swing up is real, and large, even if you don't smooth the historical data as aggressively.

Since then people have used less aggressive statistical methods, and developed graphs which clearly show the MWP and the LIA. And that also show that what's going on now is unusual, and that we've exceeded the MWP.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

(amancalledchuda - co2science distorts the data. I took a sloppy run at saying that and 3DM appropriately had me for lunch. I'll have a question about the MWP that will discuss it more rigorously later this week)

Salomon talks about the NASA data. The change involved was tiny. It amounted to less than a tenth of a degree for the US. It didn't affect the warming trend except at the one year where it was applied.

Worldwide it was completely insignificant, about 0.001 C. Which is why the media (and the scientific community) aren't making a big deal of it - it isn't a big deal. The fact that deniers are trying to make a big deal about it shows that they have no good arguments.

EDIT - Look at the graph I linked to. It clearly shows the MWP and the LIA. And that we're now above the MWP. That's real, not a statistical artifact. What happens if you use Mann's smoothing is not relevant to that argument, although the NAS said Mann's smoothed graph was basically real, contrary to what deniers claim..

Answer 3

My intention was for you to defend yourself via email (which is why I emailed you), but if you want to do this in public, I suppose that's fine too. Not as easy to go back and forth, but whatever.

The answer to your first question is apparently technically yes. Graph b in my first link is derived from a Mann paper, however the reason I linked it was simply to show the size of the error bars. I did not use it to discuss the MWP, which is in fact cut off on the particular graph I illustrated anyway, as it only goes back to 1000 AD.

Basically it was the only graph I could find in a quick search which showed error bars. So technically your claim was correct, but basically it was wrong. Anytime I discuss temperatures over the past 1000 years I use the 10 temperature reconstruction graph. As a matter of fact, I used it in the very answer you linked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Your second claim is wrong. Hansen's predictions were indeed very accurate, especially given the uncertainty of carbon emissions post-1988. The fact that 1998 was an anomalously hot year doesn't make his predictions any less accurate. The planet has continued to warm from '90s levels:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

In fact you can see an update of his predictions vs. actual temperature measurements up to about 2005 in Figure 3 here:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

As you can see, they remain spot-on.

Since you have no response to my answer, I created a new question about it.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahj_9Ts6XCPlEPR8x0ZiSSPsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070917133123AAXOAXN

Answer 4

amancallechuca,
I'll let Dana answer this himself.


afratta437,

"trevor and bob have been caught in similar situations."

"when the truth is discovered, it is ignored and they carry the same half truths as 100% fact."

"real, half facts, distortions, or fabrication are all fair game, as the outcome justifies the means."

"i know I've been in positions such as this before and refused to participate.

how can people feel good about themselves and their work doing this?"

Lol, I think unjust comes to mind. I see you much rather address this then their scientific claims. Too bad your Q&A's are private otherwise I would see for some of these situations in your past. I have a hunch they would appear.


Salomón II,
"Unfortunately, global warming alarmists are following the typical path of all political ideologues, which is to defend their pet doctrines tooth and nail, without any regard for truth, history, and common sense."

Why do you use one country as a determent when it comes to global warming? You are purposedly skewing this issue by stating that global warming is inaccurate just because one country had warmer temperatures in the recent past. This is why it is called "climate change", because there will be different effects on the climate. Some areas will be cooling, some warming. The overall effect, which is the global one, is an increase in temperatures. In how high regard do you hold the truth?

Answer 5

If you make informed decisions and approach your penny stock investments with the same thoroughness that you’d use in your other investments, you too can unlock a whole lot of profit potential. Learn here https://tr.im/zEVpF

It’s absolutely true that penny stock investors can make very quick gains. Synutra International, Inc. (NASDAQ: SYUT) is a great example of a penny stock. This dairy-based, nutritional-products company has jumped from a little Bulletin Board operation to a billion dollar corporation. The company finally graduated from Over-the-Counter status to the NASDAQ Stock Market bringing with it 113% gains in less than two months.

This happens all the time and it’s how some of the best investors in the world became the richest investors in the world. Buying some shares for pennies on the dollar and selling at $10 or $20 is possibly the fastest way from being a hobby investor to a super investor

Answer 6

Ah, cool. So now that we've established what you =weren't= talking about, I think it's time to move on to what you =were= : p

First though, I have to defend my graph, which I've become rather fond of. First, I honestly have no idea why the smoothed plot shows 2001 so high. I simply plotted the anomalies (blue line), then smoothed them using a five year moving average to make the trend more visible. The red line is what came out. It probably was mostly due to my pathetic spreadsheet skills. But I'm sure more smoothing would bring it back down again, I just didn't want to waste the time to do it.

Second, the smoothed plot doesn't show anything past 2002 is for exactly the reason I mentioned above. I used a five year moving average to smooth it, which means I can't complete the plot until next year (if I had a mind to). But even a cursory glance over the unsmoothed graph clearly shows a warming trend.

http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k111/EnragedPirate/?action=view¤t=tempgraph.png

Anyway, I think this issue was pretty much cleared up following the posting of Dana's comparison of the updated '88 projections. They seem to confirm perfectly with the trend. And remember, the trend is all we're interested in here. Hanson couldn't possibly have predicted the large year to year natural variation. I mean, you and I sitting here nitpicking individual years and puzzling over why they might have been off is fun and all, but I assure you, we haven't got the foggiest idea what we're talking about.

That said, I agree with you that Hanson's projections are mostly irrelevant now anyway. Our understanding of the physical processes behind the climate has improved by leaps and bounds in the twenty years since Hanson made his projections. Physical models of climate are now much, much more accurate than they were in 1988. I daresay his projections are kind of ancient history now.

Answer 7

Some recent hard facts about James Hansen, NASA and global warming.

Data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) now show the hottest year since 1880 was 1934. Nineteen-ninety-eight dropped to second, while the third hottest year was way back in 1921. Indeed, four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, while only three were in the past decade.

The real 15 hottest years are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its sharp rise; seven occurred afterwards.

Many global warming fanatics have pointed to NASA as proof that their concerns about a warming planet are justified. They have repeatedly cited the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), whose director, James Hansen, has asserted that nine of the 10 warmest years in history have occurred since 1995, with 1998 the warmest.

When NASA was confronted with evidence provided by Climate Audit, a blog run by Stephen McIntyre devoted to auditing the statistical methods and data used in historical reconstructions of past climate data, it reversed itself. Without the fanfare used to hype the global warming fanaticism it had earlier supported, NASA now says four of the top 10 years of high temperatures are from the 1930s. Several previously selected "warm" years - 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 - fell behind 1900.

GISS now says its previous claim that 1998 was the warmest year in American history is no longer valid. The warmest year was 1934.

Has any of this new information changed the minds of the global warming fundamentalists? Nope. Neither has much of it seen the light of day in the mainstream media, which continue to carry stories where seldom is heard an alternative word and the skies are polluted all day.

The truth is what really should matter to all of us. Unfortunately, global warming alarmists are following the typical path of all political ideologues, which is to defend their pet doctrines tooth and nail, without any regard for truth, history, and common sense.

Answer 8

Penny stocks are loosely categorized companies with share prices of below $5 and with market caps of under $200 million. They are sometimes referred to as "the slot machines of the equity market" because of the money involved. There may be a good place for penny stocks in the portfolio of an experienced, advanced investor, however, if you follow this guide you will learn the most efficient strategies https://tr.im/c8109

Answer 9

You've lost me mate, what are you on about, hockey sticks? I leave the science to the scientists, how is it you have the time and patience for this.

The scientists are paid by governments and big business so that thier scientific boffins can translate and advise on policy and business plans, and then the decision makers take us plebs into account. Yes, that's where we come into the equation

As for this sort of discussion, you'll not persuade each other, on that you must agree, nor will you persuade anyone else. people recognize bad natured hectoring and wasted enenergy when they see them,

Answer 10

Good show, amancalledchuda, hold their toes to the fire and keep them honest. I accept Climate Change as something which occurs without Man's influence. I feel much of the GW panic is purely for political gain, for power and tax money. That is why they throw labels at those scientists with opposing views, calling them "deniers, ignorant, dishonest, sell-outs, non-scientists" and refusing to hire them, provide research money, to allow them to publish.

Yes, we do produce too much pollution, but I doubt it has more than a minuscule effect, since one volcano can produce more greenhouse gasses than Man has in all of history. Our CO2 production is nothing compared to Nature. The CO2 panic is also politically driven to get power, make money and raise taxes.