Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. [Archive] - Page 11

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2012, 05:57 PM

900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While a minority of authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

Thats nice they come to their own conclusions. :rolleyes

Also that site certainly likes calling people communists. The Red Scare all over again. I really wish Buckley was still around. The right has gone back to the 1950s.

Whats interesting is that the people that run the site only use their first names and its unknown who they are or what they come from. It does not surprise me that you consider them credible considering your deceptive nature. I found it interesting that they criticized wikipedia for lack of transparency.

They also seem to enjoy accusing people of being communists. There 'write-up' on sourcewatch had the hammer and sickle emblazoned at the top.

You and your sources are typically a study in irony.

I did find this:

http://www.needlebase.com/blog/217-agw-skepticism

At the end of this process, though, I could at least start to have Needle give us some more-definite answers. Needle can do a lot of interesting analytical things, but pretty much all analysis begins with counting. Christian thought the top 10 authors contributed 186 of the papers. Needle's query now shows 200. Christian discovered that #3 author Bruce Kimball's 28 papers were all co-authored with #1 author Sherwood Idso. I saw so many connections that I had Needle calculate a Six Degrees of Sherwood Idso rating, which shows that 308 of these papers can be connected to Idso through just co-authorship of things listed here.

In fact, by clustering all the papers into sets linked by co-authorship chains, we found that the 973 articles on the list come from just 329 groups of authors, again only considering connection chains revealed by these papers, so some of these clusters might be further connected in the wider published space, or by real-world associations. Intriguing.

and this where they talk about the papers on the list many of which were refuted in the peer review process.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/

Topics include:

NOT peer-reviwed
Known to be wrong
Straw Men (and outright lying)
Trivial
Dated
Do NOT support Denial
Mutually exclusive

The author concludes with:

This just a sampling, but this point I decided I had already put more work into the list than the author had and could think of no good reason to do any more. Looking at the third of the list that I did, not one of the papers Beach Garbage 1is current, relevant, peer-reviewed, and supports the Denier claims, not one.

I don’t know about you, but if I dig down 1 m below an outhouse and all I find is exactly what you would expect to find under an outhouse, I am satisfied that the next 2 m will just be more of the same.

If anyone can find anything on the list that actually IS a peer-reviewed paper that is current, relevant, and supports skepticism of anthropogenic climate change, well we should talk about it. Until then, this list seems to be nothing but decomposing shit.

Its just as credible as the mystery men at populartechnology.

Wild Cobra

04-13-2012, 02:44 AM

And since you're so well read on that list, Darrin, would you mind pointing me to the specific papers on it that debunk the effects of CO2?

Thanks!
We've been over this before.

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15567030701568727)

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html)

I know you will find your Gods like Gavin Schmitt, et. al. will have something to debunk these with. They always lie about something. I know I will not change your college indoctrinated mind. Still, if nothing else, it proves the science is not settled and there is not consensus.

Wild Cobra

04-13-2012, 02:47 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

04-13-2012, 04:48 AM

How many papers held dear bu the AGW crowd are peer reviewed via the open process? Funny how they only do closed peer review processes with others who already believe and are indoctrinated.

The closed peer review process is bad science.

During the time period about ten years ago when the astrophysicists thought that increased solar activity was the cause of warming, it was given much credence within the scientific community.

More recently, much work has been done towards forecasting and the effects on the poles and higher altitudes. As has been pointed to increased snowfall past certain gradients combined with increased precipitation overall has mitigated the predicted effects of what you term 'alarmists.'

This has been pointed out to you before in these discussions and you have tried this same tired argument before. One of the main reasons why i disrepect you so much is that you repeat the same initial arguments over and over again and do not even acknowledge the previous rebuttals. Darrin does this too so in teh vein of that quit being so fucking stupid all the time and try to move the discussion forward instead of trying to mire it in your previous stupidity.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-13-2012, 04:49 AM

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 09:10 AM

Those who believe in AGW being the primary cause of our warming do not understand real science. i don't know what else to say. It's all been said, and I'm tired of arguing with religious fanatics, over the religion of AGW.

If you think the real science supports your position, feel free to start publishing papers for peer review that back that up.

Until then, your claims that people "who believe in AGW being the primary cause of our warming do not understand real science" ring pretty hollow.

I am about the farthest one can get from being a "religious fanatic" about anything, and if given reasonable evidence for something am fully able to change my mind about something. Hell, even Darrin can do that once in a while.

The fact that you destroy your own credibility constantly in just about any other topic you discuss by demonstrating a clear bias, and inability to admit you may be wrong about something, does not lead me to give much credence to your claims when you start talking about things, especially when I have not taken the time to read up on.

In the end, I am left with the same conclusion, even so, given that you are not an accredited expert on the field.

I have to balance your claims, along with those of the other Deniers, who very very clearly have as strong a political bias as they accuse all climate scientists of having, with those of the actual scientists who directly claim that they are following evidence with as little bias as possible.

It seems obvious to me that this is a case of simple projection.

The people that seem to be yelling "the climate scientists are politically motivated" the most are the same people who appear to BE the most politically motivated.

That should lead anyone to have some rather grave doubts about such claims.

CosmicCowboy

04-13-2012, 09:14 AM

It's the governments fault. We never had problems until they invented daylight savings time. Now that extra hour of daylight six months a year is burning our planet up and melting the polar ice caps.

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 09:24 AM

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 09:32 AM

How many papers held dear bu the AGW crowd are peer reviewed via the open process? Funny how they only do closed peer review processes with others who already believe and are indoctrinated.

The closed peer review process is bad science.

The closed peer review process is used in most fields of research and has worked well for humanity so far.

But hey, for the purposes of discussion:

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics is an open access publication of the European Geosciences Union. It is a peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing studies investigating the Earth's atmosphere and the underlying chemical and physical processes. It covers the altitude range from the land and ocean surface up to the turbopause, including the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere. The main subject areas comprise atmospheric modelling, field measurements, remote sensing, and laboratory studies of gases, aerosols, clouds and precipitation, isotopes, radiation, dynamics, and biosphere and hydrosphere interactions. Article types published are research and review articles, technical notes, and commentaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_Chemistry_and_Physics
http://www.egu.eu/publications/list-of-publications.html
http://www.egu.eu/publications/open-access-journals.html

If this procress results in reviewed papers that support AGW, then what will your criticism be?

Will you accept that research?

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 09:36 AM

This has been pointed out to you before in these discussions and you have tried this same tired argument before. One of the main reasons why i disrepect you so much is that you repeat the same initial arguments over and over again and do not even acknowledge the previous rebuttals. Darrin does this too so in teh vein of that quit being so fucking stupid all the time and try to move the discussion forward instead of trying to mire it in your previous stupidity.

This kind of thing is exactly why I am VERY deeply skeptical of the people who claim to be AGW skeptics.

They tend to say things, and do things in a manner that directly parallels the 9-11 truthers, creationists, moon hoaxers, and so forth.

The fact that Deniers claim some vast conspiracy on the part of tens of thousands of scientists seals the deal.

Reference:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 09:38 AM

So, you don't know how they turned out?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5782709&postcount=2484
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5782709&postcount=2486
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5782709&postcount=2488
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5782709&postcount=2490

I'll wait. Answer them at your leasure.

Feel free to answer for him, Darrin, W/C.

Not that I will hold my breath for a straight, honest answer.

MannyIsGod

04-13-2012, 10:18 AM

Yoni's MO is to disappear when he gets called on his obvious crap and then wait a while and who up again.

Borat Sagyidev

04-13-2012, 10:39 AM

We've been over this before.

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15567030701568727)

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html)

I know you will find your Gods like Gavin Schmitt, et. al. will have something to debunk these with. They always lie about something. I know I will not change your college indoctrinated mind. Still, if nothing else, it proves the science is not settled and there is not consensus.

College indoctrinated mind, like a strict obediance to conservation laws that are the foundation of thermodynamics, physical reality and just about every field of science?

The paper is termed "Cooling of Atmosphere (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15567030701568727)" and not global cooling for a reason. That said, makes a lot of assumptions to make their case valid. I really don't know what to think of it, it is known co2 effects convection, but they don't exactly quantify it in meaningful terms.

The key mechanism is absorption and has heating leading to convection. They generated a model without the original heat transfer problem in a cloudless and dust-free troposphere.

Water vapor has the opposite effect, something that can be increased with radiative heating. Water vapor addition makes air more buoyant, carrying the water vapor upward, usually until the water vapor condenses into haze, fog or clouds. While buoyant water vapor-containing air is rising heavier dry air elsewhere is descending to replace it as pressure gradients develop. Water vapor entry is a major mediator of vertical motion in the troposphere. The easily mixing adiabatic troposphere is disrupted as water vapor adds energy by changing in state. Rising CO2 the accelerates this process.

I really don't see how this is a significant contributor.

DarrinS

04-13-2012, 11:11 AM

The fact that Deniers claim some vast conspiracy on the part of tens of thousands of scientists seals the deal.

Not tens of thousands -- just a handful of key players. I can post their emails showing their subversion of the peer review process if you'd like.

Winehole23

04-13-2012, 11:15 AM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141236 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186768)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186768

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 11:17 AM

Not tens of thousands -- just a handful of key players. I can post their emails showing their subversion of the peer review process if you'd like.

So if the conspiracy is limited to the few "key players" then, Cosmored/mouse/Parker2112/NbaDan/Darrin/Yonivore/Wild Cobra, then why have the people whose science is being misused by those key players not come forward and clearly stated as much?

Do you have the confessions or statements on the part of any significant number of the tens of thousands of scientists whose work is being misused by the key players?

DarrinS

04-13-2012, 11:18 AM

Winehole23

04-13-2012, 11:21 AM

thanks, but it needn't be. it would've taken about as long to for you post the relevant links as it did to write the post offering to post them.

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 11:22 AM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141236 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186768)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186768

Eyup.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5479677&postcount=27

Ad hominem, rinse, repeat.

If you can't attack the science, attack peer review. That is what conspiracy theorists of all stripes, trying to prove all sorts of things do.

Reference:

Moon hoax thread.

Can we move on to things that haven't been shown to be specious now?

(edit)
To be clear, neither of those questions was directed at WH.

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 11:26 AM

College indoctrinated mind, like a strict obediance to conservation laws that are the foundation of thermodynamics, physical reality and just about every field of science?

The paper is termed "Cooling of Atmosphere (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15567030701568727)" and not global cooling for a reason. That said, makes a lot of assumptions to make their case valid. I really don't know what to think of it, it is known co2 effects convection, but they don't exactly quantify it in meaningful terms.

The key mechanism is absorption and has heating leading to convection. They generated a model without the original heat transfer problem in a cloudless and dust-free troposphere.

Water vapor has the opposite effect, something that can be increased with radiative heating. Water vapor addition makes air more buoyant, carrying the water vapor upward, usually until the water vapor condenses into haze, fog or clouds. While buoyant water vapor-containing air is rising heavier dry air elsewhere is descending to replace it as pressure gradients develop. Water vapor entry is a major mediator of vertical motion in the troposphere. The easily mixing adiabatic troposphere is disrupted as water vapor adds energy by changing in state. Rising CO2 the accelerates this process.

I really don't see how this is a significant contributor.

Assumptions indeed:

Computations based on the adiabatic theory

Adiabatic = no thermal exchange outside of system

Not exactly a holistic way to view large, non-closed complex systems.

Within the confines of the paper, I'm sure it is probably good science.

That would not keep dishonest psuedoscientists from citing it, believing it says something it doesn't.

DarrinS

04-13-2012, 11:38 AM

If you can't attack the science, attack peer review. That is what conspiracy theorists of all stripes, trying to prove all sorts of things do.

I'm not attacking peer review. I'm attacking those that attack peer review, such as

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 12:00 PM

I'm not attacking peer review. I'm attacking those that attack peer review, such as

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

So if the conspiracy is limited to the few "key players" then, Cosmored/mouse/Parker2112/NbaDan/Darrin/Yonivore/Wild Cobra, then why have the people whose science is being misused by those key players not come forward and clearly stated as much?

Do you have the confessions or statements on the part of any significant number of the tens of thousands of scientists whose work is being misused by the key players?

boutons_deux

04-13-2012, 12:01 PM

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/lk041512dAPR-500.jpg

DarrinS

04-13-2012, 12:38 PM

So if the conspiracy is limited to the few "key players" then, Cosmored/mouse/Parker2112/NbaDan/Darrin/Yonivore/Wild Cobra, then why have the people whose science is being misused by those key players not come forward and clearly stated as much?

I don't know if it's being "misused" so much as it is being blocked from publication.

Hypothetical question: If humans ceased emitting CO2 tomorrow, what do you suppose the climate would do after that? Not trying to be facetious.

DarrinS

04-13-2012, 01:28 PM

This video should have Twilight Zone background music.

Go to about 1:50.

Actually says "the oceans will begin to boil" at about 2:12. (:downspin:)

1uxfiuKB_R8

Wild Cobra

04-13-2012, 03:37 PM

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html

Given the knowledge that CO2 emissions are growing exponentially and CO2 concentrations have been rising commensurately during this period of time, I found this selection of data by your website to be... ironic.
I see you continue to miss relavant points.

Please remember something very important. Correlation does not equal causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_causation). This is a major failing of the AGW crowd.

Cherry picking:

Any trend depends heavily upon the choice of start and end points. A judicious selection of such points for can create a wide variety of trends. For example, according to the annual average temperatures from Britain's CRU:

trend for 1900-2006 = 0.72 °C/century

trend for 1945-2006 = 1.05 °C/century

trend for 1975-2006 = 1.87 °C/century,

According to the IPCC AR4, trend for 1750 to 2004 = ~ 0.7 C. Using their sensitivity numbers for delta T:

Calculated increase in temperature from solar changes 1750 to 2004 = ~ 0.5 C.

Calculated increases in temperature from BC emissions 1750 to 2004 = ~ 0.1 C.

What's left for CO2? What other variables are there?

Wild Cobra

04-13-2012, 03:41 PM

The closed peer review process is used in most fields of research and has worked well for humanity so far.

But hey, for the purposes of discussion:

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_Chemistry_and_Physics
http://www.egu.eu/publications/list-of-publications.html
http://www.egu.eu/publications/open-access-journals.html

If this procress results in reviewed papers that support AGW, then what will your criticism be?

Will you accept that research?
It depends on if they took all variables into proper account or not. Have you seen any that do critical analysis of solar and BC changes?

Wild Cobra

04-13-2012, 04:03 PM

Eyup.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5479677&postcount=27

If you can't attack the science, attack peer review. That is what conspiracy theorists of all stripes, trying to prove all sorts of things do.

Keep in mind, that's exactly what the AGW crowd does with every peer reviewed paper from skeptics.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-13-2012, 05:01 PM

Keep in mind, that's exactly what the AGW crowd does with every peer reviewed paper from skeptics.

Not with those astrophysicists,various climatologists, geologists and polar scientists but hey its easier to make up shit for the whole.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-13-2012, 05:07 PM

Not tens of thousands -- just a handful of key players. I can post their emails showing their subversion of the peer review process if you'd like.

Nice attempt at the I know you are but what I am routine. I posted a link that analyzed the authors of your list of AGW skeptic articles and this is what they found:

At the end of this process, though, I could at least start to have Needle give us some more-definite answers. Needle can do a lot of interesting analytical things, but pretty much all analysis begins with counting. Christian thought the top 10 authors contributed 186 of the papers. Needle's query now shows 200. Christian discovered that #3 author Bruce Kimball's 28 papers were all co-authored with #1 author Sherwood Idso. I saw so many connections that I had Needle calculate a Six Degrees of Sherwood Idso rating, which shows that 308 of these papers can be connected to Idso through just co-authorship of things listed here.

In fact, by clustering all the papers into sets linked by co-authorship chains, we found that the 973 articles on the list come from just 329 groups of authors, again only considering connection chains revealed by these papers, so some of these clusters might be further connected in the wider published space, or by real-world associations. Intriguing.

See there is something to substantiation what RG asserts. Now where is your justification? Posting more Hansen Youtubes does not do that although I bet that is what we get.

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 07:14 PM

I don't know if it's being "misused" so much as it is being blocked from publication.

Hypothetical question: If humans ceased emitting CO2 tomorrow, what do you suppose the climate would do after that? Not trying to be facetious.

Cosmored, you have not answered my question.

Do you have the confessions or statements on the part of any significant number of the tens of thousands of scientists whose work is being misused by the "key players"?

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 07:17 PM

It depends on if they took all variables into proper account or not. Have you seen any that do critical analysis of solar and BC changes?

That is not an answer to my question either. You cannot answer a question with a question. That is evasive. I will not answer your questions, if you do not answer mine. Fair is fair.

Assume yes, that they took all variables into proper account.

If this procress results in reviewed papers that support AGW, then what will your criticism be?

Will you accept that research?

RandomGuy

04-13-2012, 07:19 PM

This video should have Twilight Zone background music.

Go to about 1:50.

Actually says "the oceans will begin to boil" at about 2:12. (:downspin:)

1uxfiuKB_R8

Ad hominem.

Mouse, your post is therefore rejected as logically flawed.

I have stopped counting your logically flawed arguments.

What does that say to you about the logical underpinning of your beliefs?

DarrinS

04-13-2012, 07:43 PM

Cosmored, you have not answered my question.

Do you have the confessions or statements on the part of any significant number of the tens of thousands of scientists whose work is being misused by the "key players"?

As far as I know, none of the climate scientists who don't fully accept climategeddon (a.k.a. "deniers") think that their science is being "misused".

DarrinS

04-13-2012, 07:44 PM

Ad hominem.

Mouse, your post is therefore rejected as logically flawed.

I have stopped counting your logically flawed arguments.

What does that say to you about the logical underpinning of your beliefs?

It's not an argument. It's a video of a crazy person.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-13-2012, 10:22 PM

As far as I know, none of the climate scientists who don't fully accept climategeddon (a.k.a. "deniers") think that their science is being "misused".

So what do you think will happen as the trend continues upwards. Its just going to be sunshine rainbows and girls in bikinis?

DarrinS

04-13-2012, 10:36 PM

So what do you think will happen as the trend continues upwards. Its just going to be sunshine rainbows and girls in bikinis?

Trend hasn't done much in the last 14 years.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-13-2012, 11:30 PM

Trend hasn't done much in the last 14 years.

The insurance industry disagrees with you.

Wild Cobra

04-14-2012, 03:17 AM

That is not an answer to my question either. You cannot answer a question with a question. That is evasive. I will not answer your questions, if you do not answer mine. Fair is fair.

LOL...

I'm sometimes the same way, but honestly... without going back, I forget the question. Maybe I'll look back later, but not now.

Assume yes, that they took all variables into proper account.

If they took all the variables into proper account, i would be real interested in how they can still claim CO2 has as much of a warming effect as claimed. I would definitely be interested.

If this procress results in reviewed papers that support AGW, then what will your criticism be?

Please pick your line better.

I do not deny AGW. I deny the severity of AGW claimed.

Remember, the questionnaire that asks loaded questions? I would also be one to be in the top percentile that they turn around and spin as supporting AGW.

Will you accept that research?

If they do use the more recent accepted levels of solar changes and BC changes... absolutely.

Do you know of any?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-14-2012, 03:20 AM

Wild Cobra

04-14-2012, 03:20 AM

Trend hasn't done much in the last 14 years.
No shit.

The weather here has returned to like it was about 40 years ago.

The AGW gods that these lemmings worship simply took advantage of cycles that take decades to go through. I wonder how they plan to keep spinning it through this next decade.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-14-2012, 03:22 AM

No shit.

The weather here has returned to like it was about 40 years ago.

The AGW gods that these lemmings worship simply took advantage of cycles that take decades to go through. I wonder how they plan to keep spinning it through this next decade.

No it hasn't see the above post. Like I said actuaries are taking notice despite energy lobby obfuscation because it impacts their bottom line.

MannyIsGod

04-15-2012, 12:34 AM

No shit.

The weather here has returned to like it was about 40 years ago.

The AGW gods that these lemmings worship simply took advantage of cycles that take decades to go through. I wonder how they plan to keep spinning it through this next decade.

Parts changer and historical climatologist all in one. What aspect of the weather has returned to some 40 year ago average? All of it?

MannyIsGod

04-15-2012, 12:35 AM

I'm looking forward for the ENSO models coming out soon. I think its almost certain we'll see an El Nino develop this summer and when we do then you will likely see global surface temps that rival 2005 and 1998.

MannyIsGod

04-15-2012, 12:36 AM

Pst, Darrin.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

When you claim things that are false enough times do you start to believe them? Isn't that a mental condition?

MannyIsGod

04-15-2012, 12:37 AM

I just don't understand how someone can say the trend is down for 13 years, when the warmest year on record for all temperature series is 2005. SMH

FuzzyLumpkins

04-15-2012, 12:41 AM

MannyIsGod

04-15-2012, 01:27 AM

Thats the exact MO they both use. Especially Darrin. Its only a matter of time before Darrin asks why it cooled in the mid 20th century...again.

MannyIsGod

04-15-2012, 01:27 AM

Honestly its our fault for continuously engaging them. By this point we should know better.

Wild Cobra

04-15-2012, 01:39 AM

Pst, Darrin.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

When you claim things that are false enough times do you start to believe them? Isn't that a mental condition?
How many times did they shuffle the temperature sites around to get those numbers, and how many of those sites had more and more land use changes, creating temperature island, over the years?

Wild Cobra

04-15-2012, 01:43 AM

Honestly its our fault for continuously engaging them. By this point we should know better.
Yet valid points are never properly addressed by the AGW crowd.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_F2aVRfr4Y0Q/TDSdoGeHZCI/AAAAAAAAAvM/ipsXg3FHZVc/s1600/bwi_asos_looking_north.jpg

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/surface-stations/urbana-m-ppt.jpg

http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/tahoe_city3.jpg

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/surface-stations/marysville5-m-web.jpg

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/surface-stations/titusville-m-ppt.jpg

MannyIsGod

04-15-2012, 01:59 AM

B.e.s.t

MannyIsGod

04-15-2012, 02:01 AM

How many times did they shuffle the temperature sites around to get those numbers, and how many of those sites had more and more land use changes, creating temperature island, over the years?

You're an ignorant dumb ass. Read the findings of B.E.S.T. or just spare us all your blather that has been addressed by the very people that are cited for that graphic.

Wild Cobra

04-15-2012, 02:14 AM

You're an ignorant dumb ass. Read the findings of B.E.S.T. or just spare us all your blather that has been addressed by the very people that are cited for that graphic.
I'll bet even BEST is tainted. With all the bullshit, who can we trust on this?

Wild Cobra

04-15-2012, 02:29 AM

ElNono

04-15-2012, 02:31 AM

I thought they were tainted... I'm glad they passed the Wild Cobra sniff test... I'm sure they were killing for it...

Wild Cobra

04-15-2012, 02:50 AM

I thought they were tainted... I'm glad they passed the Wild Cobra sniff test... I'm sure they were killing for it...

"I thought they were tainted" is not a proper reflection of my words "I'll bet."

Maybe not a big difference to you, but it is to me. I was making a statement that I do not hold as fact, but more likely than not. reflecting back your word are effectively restating that I said the are tainted.

Why are you always so unethical?

They are trying to cypher through decades of records, of which they cannot know the full history of their changing surroundings over the years. They may have activists trying to debunk Watt's claims, though I doubt that. It actually appears they are taking Watt's claims serious.

Anyway, as I said about their preliminary graph, it actually allows for what I have said all along about the solar increases from about 1900 to 1950. It raises from 1900 to about 1940 and lowers again, just to resume rising around 1970. The point it levels of is about where a trend line would stop to about 1950. I probably stated three years or so ago that the sun was responsible for most of this increase, and their graph fits my theory even better. The vast increase in industrialization just before WWII put enough smog in the skies to cool the earth. When we started cleaning the skies and placing pollution restraints starting in the 70's, warming from natural sources was allowed to resume.

MannyIsGod

04-15-2012, 02:53 AM

:lol

Wild Cobra

04-15-2012, 03:00 AM

:lol
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/BESTinitial.jpg

FuzzyLumpkins

04-15-2012, 03:18 AM

BEST is probably doing a good job. Still, there are so few uncorrupted measurement sites to go by. I'll give them this. At least their preliminary graphs are not alarming like what the AGW crowd does.

Now you have done the same shit that Darrin does, parts changer. BEST did a study on the effects of urbanization and the like on the temperature data. This has been told to you multiple times. So once again i have something to point to about your lack of intelligence. You do not think BEST does good work or would not repeat the same tupid shit that contradicts their findings

Again here is the study of how you are full of shit:

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf

Here is the salient conclusion of said study?:

The conclusion of the three groups is that the urban heat island contribution to the global average is much smaller than the observed global warming. Support is provided by the studies of Karl et al. (1988), Peterson et al. (1999), Peterson (2003) and Parker (2004) who also conclude that the magnitude of the effect of urban heating on global averages is small.

We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.19 ± 0.19 °C/100yr. This is not statistically consistent with prior estimates, but it does verify that the effect is very small, and almost insignificant on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1 °C/100yr since 1950 in the land average from figure 5A).

You asked me before what i was so adversarial. This is why. You are either so stupid that you should be euthenised for the betterment of mankind. Or you are intentionally trying to be deceiving. This viewpoint has been detailed over and over again. My contempt for you is well founded.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-15-2012, 03:20 AM

"I thought they were tainted" is not a proper reflection of my words "I'll bet."

Maybe not a big difference to you, but it is to me. I was making a statement that I do not hold as fact, but more likely than not. reflecting back your word are effectively restating that I said the are tainted.

Why are you always so unethical?

How on Earth can you call someone unethical when you consistently do not stand by the shit that you spew. Dissemble dissemble dissemble. Accuse someone else of being dishonest is the next step of the WC 3-step program.

ElNono

04-15-2012, 12:15 PM

"I thought they were tainted" is not a proper reflection of my words "I'll bet."

Who cares what you think? :dramaquee

Why are you always so unethical?

You're the epitome of dishonest. You don't even know what unethical means.

Agloco

04-15-2012, 12:41 PM

.......

.......

.........

Yes, yes.....your collective "knowledges" are small. Just deal with it.

Wild Cobra

04-15-2012, 03:53 PM

Food for thought...

Non of us disagree that the norther ice is retreating. Why is there no discussion about the southern ice? Is it because it has an upward trend?

Since you AGW alarmist types like to use correlation to claim causality, I thought I would remind you that there is no large industrial buildup where the polar winds carry soot to the southern ice like the polar winds that carry soot from Asia over the norther ice. I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern ice follows that increase pretty good.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/cryospheresouth20120415-50pct.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png)

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/cryospherenorth20120415-50pct.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png)

FuzzyLumpkins

04-15-2012, 04:06 PM

BEST who is 'an AGW type' clearly states in their cyclical variations that correlation does not imply causation only that its getting hotter. Why must you makes stuff up?

This has already been discussed and the actual paper was linked. The author stated that despite the rising ocean temperatures, increeased precipitation over the landmass combined with gradients consistently below zero there in no net decrease in ice on antarctica. The author even goes out of his way to point out that this does not deny global warming but rather there are still places that are cold and its precipitating more.

You are repeating the same tired shit again. How about we move the discussion forward?

MannyIsGod

04-15-2012, 05:24 PM

Yeah the lack of soot transport must be why the Antarctic land ice is in retreat.

You just keep trying to throw shit against the wall hoping to see some it stick.

Wild Cobra

04-16-2012, 02:03 AM

Yeah the lack of soot transport must be why the Antarctic land ice is in retreat.

You just keep trying to throw shit against the wall hoping to see some it stick.
Did I say warming wasn't real?

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 02:09 AM

I can't keep track of how quickly your arguments change. So right now you're on the warming is real one? Interesting considering your extremely recent questioning of BEST's temp records.

Wild Cobra

04-16-2012, 02:13 AM

I can't keep track of how quickly your arguments change. So right now you're on the warming is real one? Interesting considering your extremely recent questioning of BEST's temp records.
Manny...

You are something else.

I never indicated warming was not real. Why can't you get facts strait?

I didn't know they were BEST's records. Are they? I thought they were using other people's records, which I have some suspicions about. I thought I clarified that.

I am sick and tired of people like you and ElNono making the incorrect argument out of my words. You are effectively lying by doing that.

Do you have any integrity?

Comparing sea ice against sea ice seems reasonable to me. Not land ice vs. sea ice like you are changing to.

Please...

Show an ounce of integrity.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 02:47 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 02:50 AM

Comparing sea to sea ice is reasonable given they are under the same conditions. They are not. Would you care to take a stab at what could possibly be different about the North and South Poles?

Wild Cobra

04-16-2012, 03:30 AM

Comparing sea to sea ice is reasonable given they are under the same conditions. They are not. Would you care to take a stab at what could possibly be different about the North and South Poles?
They are at least far closer than comparing land to sea ice.

Wild Cobra

04-16-2012, 03:30 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Yes, fits you well.

Wild Cobra

04-16-2012, 03:45 AM

I can't keep track of how quickly your arguments change.
My arguments are pretty consistent. Maybe you should read my words instead of assuming things I don't say. Pull out a dictionary if some are too difficult for you.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 04:01 AM

They are at least far closer than comparing land to sea ice.

:lol

Really? Because one is land and one is sea, dumbshit.

:lmao

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 04:02 AM

My arguments are pretty consistent. Maybe you should read my words instead of assuming things I don't say. Pull out a dictionary if some are too difficult for you.

Consistently wrong and consistently stupid. I agree.

Maybe you should go look up ice sheet in the dictionary. Or maybe thermodynamics. Or etc etc

Wild Cobra

04-16-2012, 04:06 AM

Consistently wrong and consistently stupid. I agree.

Maybe you should go look up ice sheet in the dictionary. Or maybe thermodynamics. Or etc etc
Why do you want to change the subject?

Can't argue what you started by merit?

Wild Cobra

04-16-2012, 04:19 AM

I think I know what you are trying to get at, but you are being elusive and want me to assume. I prefer not to when you are so antagonistic and stupid at the same time. I try to have debate, but you come in and start with the put downs. I would rather not go that route, but you have me going there too.

How about just saying what you have to say and be done with it, so I can respond with a reasonable answer, and not assume and be wrong of your intent..

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 04:43 AM

Someone as bright and as informed as you doesn't know what I'm talking about? I'm shocked.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 06:59 AM

Pst, Darrin.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

When you claim things that are false enough times do you start to believe them? Isn't that a mental condition?

Shouldn't 1998 be higher than all points that follow? Everything I've read states 1998 was the hottest.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 10:53 AM

Shouldn't 1998 be higher than all points that follow? Everything I've read states 1998 was the hottest.

But, but he said "pull it".

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 10:56 AM

Yet valid points are never properly addressed by the AGW crowd.
[pictures of ground sensing stations omitted]

BEST did exactly that.

That was obviously an attempt to "properly address" a point you assert, and I accept, is valid.

If BEST didn't properly address that, what would properly address it?

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 11:01 AM

I'll bet even BEST is tainted. With all the bullshit, who can we trust on this?

If all the bullshit were indeed bullshit then it shoudl be readily obvious to the real scientists, who would easily pick it apart, peer-review or no.

The question remains where are the first-hand confessions, or large-scale defections of climate scientists?

Your evil conspiracy loses a lot of its plausibility when you start saying "it is really obvious bullshit", because you expand the number of people who have to be fooled or go along with it.

Your evil conspiracy of scientists grows more implausible the larger it gets.

"It's all bullshit"

and

"It's all just a few key players"

Are not logically compatible.

Is Darrin wrong? Or are you?

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 11:14 AM

But, but he said "pull it".

lame

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 11:19 AM

lame

Indeed.

Cobra says "it is all bullshit", and that, by extension, your "few key players" theory is wrong.

Why is he wrong about that?

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 11:26 AM

I don't know if it's being "misused" so much as it is being blocked from publication.

Hypothetical question: If humans ceased emitting CO2 tomorrow, what do you suppose the climate would do after that? Not trying to be facetious.

Blocked from publication does not work in the internet age, sporto.

That lame excuse doesn't work for Cosmored noticible lack of conspirators, and it doesn't work for you.

I would imagine that our climate would continue doing whatever it was doing, as whatever the effects of our actions have had slowly fade over time.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 11:32 AM

If they took all the variables into proper account, i would be real interested in how they can still claim CO2 has as much of a warming effect as claimed. I would definitely be interested.

Please pick your line better.

I do not deny AGW. I deny the severity of AGW claimed.

Fair enough. You don't think it has been reasonably proven.

Do you have an alternate value, and why have you been keeping this value from the scientific community?

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 11:40 AM

Graphs of global temperature anomaly

One is from 1895 to 1946 -- the other is from 1957 to 2008.

Can you tell which one is which?

http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/26/periodb.gif ------- http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/26/perioda_3.gif

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 11:41 AM

Blocked from publication does not work in the internet age, sporto.

Blogs and personal websites aren't published scientific journals sporto.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 12:15 PM

Shouldn't 1998 be higher than all points that follow? Everything I've read states 1998 was the hottest.

:lmao

Darrin, OF COURSE everything you've read says 1998 was the hottest. If you actually made an effort to look at actual data and not get your information from people with an obvious agenda then you might not be so ignorant on shit like this.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 12:27 PM

Blogs and personal websites aren't published scientific journals sporto.

I'm not attacking peer review.

Then why have those whose efforts were blocked from publications not sought out alternate outlets?

They might be blogs and personal websites, but valid science is valid science.

Again, you didn't answer my question.

Why is Wild Cobra wrong about all the data being bullshit? If it were that, then it would mean a LOT of people were colluding on this, not just a few key players.

Or

If you are right about it being just a "few key players", then there must be a way around them, as you are already pointing out.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 12:29 PM

Why is it that skepticalscience.com, most decidedly NOT a pseudoscientific clearing house takes such care to cite published scientific papers?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 12:35 PM

let's look at PopTech's 850 papers. Even mainstream skeptics like Roger Pielke Jr. as well as others have taken exception to PopTech's list but again, we're going to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him the concept that 850 peer reviewed papers actually do challenge AGW alarm. (I know it's a stretch but we're going to cut him a break, this time.)

Here I just went to Google Scholar. I limited the search to the term "climate change" and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles. I did a pretty thorough perusal of 200 articles of the 100 pages of results and it looks like they are all actual papers and not just references to any blogs or websites. A number are listed as "[citation]" so we might pull out about 10% for good measure. But everything else looks to be published works in a very wide variety of scientific journals. I intentionally left out the 177,000 papers that result when I do the same search on "global warming" since I don't know how many of those will be duplicate hits.

Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.

I'm sure some folks will find ways to quibble about the numbers but I don't think even the very best debater can appreciably alter the resulting percentages. And if they try…

"I'll be back."

Update (Feb 18): In the comments Poptech has brought up several valid points about the search results I came up with. In an effort to better quantify the denominator I did some additional research. I did year by year searches going back 40 years on "climate change" and "global warming", excluded citations, and checked for various other erroneous results.

The outcome was, without even addressing the accuracy of the numerator, that the percentage does not change dramatically. My first cursory search returned 0.1%. The more detailed work resulted in 0.45%. It's a big improvement for Poptech, by almost a factor of 5, but still the denominator is so large that it dwarfs the numerator. If a qualified outside group were to audit Poptech's list I believe the numerator would also shrink significantly.

There is plenty of room for skepticism in all areas of science. Good science relies on healthy skepticism. One highly biased individual creating a subjective list does not rise to the level of good scientific skepticism.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html

850 out of .... almost a million papers?

That is a pretty darn good track record for these few key players.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 02:30 PM

Then why have those whose efforts were blocked from publications not sought out alternate outlets?

They might be blogs and personal websites, but valid science is valid science.

Again, you didn't answer my question.

Why is Wild Cobra wrong about all the data being bullshit? If it were that, then it would mean a LOT of people were colluding on this, not just a few key players.

Or

If you are right about it being just a "few key players", then there must be a way around them, as you are already pointing out.

Seems to me that manipulation of the raw data and rigging the peer-review process are two different issues.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 02:33 PM

:lmao

Darrin, OF COURSE everything you've read says 1998 was the hottest. If you actually made an effort to look at actual data and not get your information from people with an obvious agenda then you might not be so ignorant on shit like this.

1998 is the hottest in the satellite temp data. 2010 is the hottest in GISS and HadCRUT data.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 02:44 PM

Why is it that skepticalscience.com, most decidedly NOT a pseudoscientific clearing house takes such care to cite published scientific papers?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

They sure do take BEST scientist, Judith Curry, to task.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/certainty-monster-vs-uncertainty-ewok.html

She doesn't smear non-alarmist scientists as "pseudoscientists", so she must be part of the problem.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 02:45 PM

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 02:46 PM

Seems to me that manipulation of the raw data and rigging the peer-review process are two different issues.

They are.

Given that we have no massive flood of first-hand confessions on the part of truly consciencious, honest scientists, and there are thousands of climate scientists world-wide, then these two different issues are mutually exclusive.

If, as you say, it is just a few "key players" who are subverting the peer-review process, then those people whose work is being subverted should be out there stating such.

If, as WC says, those scientists are massively faking data, some of the good scientists should be clearly demonstrating that.

Since a large conspiracy at all levels, both by the scientists and the "key players" is harder to sustain without defectors of conscience, the logical take on this is that one or the other is true.

When you assert large conspiracies to not tell the truth, this is what happens, mouse/Cosmored.

So why do you think your "key players" theory is better than WC's "massively faked data" theory?

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 02:55 PM

They sure do take BEST scientist, Judith Curry, to task.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/certainty-monster-vs-uncertainty-ewok.html

She doesn't smear non-alarmist scientists as "pseudoscientists", so she must be part of the problem.

But they don't say she fakes data.

They don't say she suppresses data.

They say she makes some mistakes in her reasoning.

That is what scientists do.

You however, throw whatever shit you can against the wall, hoping it sticks.

You are the pseudoscientist, Darrin. Not an honest scientist doing some decently skeptical analsysis.

Curry has mistaken..

Curry completely disregards the uncertainty range

It's simply inaccurate

Really harsh. :rolleyes

Do you want me to contrast that with the Denier websites you like to link?

It is obvious that one side is politicizing this issue. It just isn't the one you want to think it is.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 02:59 PM

Skeptical Science's Dikran Marsupial has described the uncertainty monster as an "uncertainty Ewok," because while there are of course climate uncertainties, some of which are quite substantial, science and statistics have developed and refined sensible approaches to dealing with them and they are nothing to be scared of. The existence of significant uncertainties does not mean we don't know anything or that no conclusions can be drawn. We understand the main drivers of the climate reasonably well, and the climatologists (and the IPCC) consistently take the remaining uncertaities into account when drawing conclusions.
The uncertainty interval of the AR4 model projections provides a good example of dealing with the uncertainty ewok; they allow us to conclude that a long term (e.g. 30+ years) cooling trend would be inconsistent with our understanding of climate physics (under this scenario), but the level of uncertainty in the projections prevent us from drawing strong conclusions about the expected trend for the next decade, at least using the last generation of climate models.

Not quite the hand-wavy alarmism and "absolute certainty" that the Deniers like to say is charactoristic of AGW supporters.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/certainty-monster-vs-uncertainty-ewok.html

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 03:00 PM

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 03:01 PM

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 03:05 PM

You are the pseudoscientist, Darrin.

As oppposed to the "real scientists" on "The Sketpical Science Team" (:lmao btw). http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

Not an honest scientist doing some decently skeptical analsysis.

According to you, this does not exist.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 03:09 PM

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 03:21 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5782709&postcount=2484
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5782709&postcount=2486
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5782709&postcount=2488
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5782709&postcount=2490

I'll wait. Answer them at your leasure.

Feel free to answer for him, Darrin, W/C.

Not that I will hold my breath for a straight, honest answer.
Manny responded with an IPCC paper. An organization long ago discredited by their lies, misrepresentations, and errors.

Look, I believe the skeptics. You continue to believe the likes of Gore, Hansen, et. al.

I don't think mankind can have any appreciable affect on global climate and nothing that has been put in the public domain has persuaded me otherwise. However, there is plenty out there to convince me the AGCC proponents have a financial stake in making the world believe it exists.

Sue me.

Wild Cobra

04-16-2012, 03:23 PM

BEST did exactly that.

That was obviously an attempt to "properly address" a point you assert, and I accept, is valid.

If BEST didn't properly address that, what would properly address it?
I don't know if there is a way to. Hard to turn back time.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 03:24 PM

You are beating the shit out of your straw man. Big fonts and all. :lmao

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The fact that Deniers claim some vast conspiracy on the part of tens of thousands of scientists seals the deal.

Not tens of thousands -- just a handful of key players. I can post their emails showing their subversion of the peer review process if you'd like.

It isn't a strawman.

Don't get pissy with me if you can't keep your conspiracy theory straight. :bang

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 03:27 PM

Manny responded with an IPCC paper. An organization long ago discredited by their lies, misrepresentations, and errors.

Look, I believe the skeptics. You continue to believe the likes of Gore, Hansen, et. al.

I don't think mankind can have any appreciable affect on global climate and nothing that has been put in the public domain has persuaded me otherwise. However, there is plenty out there to convince me the AGCC proponents have a financial stake in making the world believe it exists.

Sue me.

All those questions were honest, fair questions about what level of evidence you would find acceptable.

That you can't, or won't answer honest, fair questions says volumes.

Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 03:28 PM

You are beating the shit out of your straw man. Big fonts and all. :lmao

It just seems to me that you have no point at all. Hes asked you waht publications have been blocked by the process adn you just start this dissembling nonsense.

of all the stuff you have shown so far in this thread they fall into one or two categories:

1) Actually were published contra your claims or,
2) Straight from obvious energy lobby shill fronts like the Guardian, GWPC, WIWT, Heritage Foundation etc.

Judith Curry who you martyr for herself was not coackblocked from publication.

Unmarked graphs, confirmation bias as unfounded assertions, intellectual laziness towards to material you do post intentional or not.

We have had these exact same arguments that you are trying to extend once again. RG just linked 4 times that responses were ignored. They are getting ignored again.

Last time i tried to talk to you about analysis of periodic signals, you just changed the subject. That is the key of what you are purporting. First question of analysis should be what is T, the period. You and your ilk do not care you just look for any and all segments that average out to a negative slope.

You have no interest in the scientific process, systems analysis and anything else but the conclusions. Its transparent.

You are a shill and if you are not getting paid to behave like this then that is sad indeed.

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 03:32 PM

It isn't a strawman.

Don't get pissy with me if you can't keep your conspiracy theory straight. :bang
Incidentally, I don't think it took a vast conspiracy of tens of thousands of scientists.

I think a few key players, at the University of East Anglia, Goddard, the IPCC, and our own resident Nobel Laureate Vice President were able to build a convincing case that others followed.

I posted an article some time back from one of your tens of thousands of scientists that sheepishly admitted the he had just taken the evidence forwarded by the IPCC crowd at face value and signed on without any critical examination of the science.

I suspect that's much the case across the board. Well, that and the fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of university-connected science professors have literally hundreds of millions of grant dollars riding on this farce continuing.

Money is a compelling motivator. Hansen became a millionaire at Goddard not by being it's Director but by traveling the world pimping AGCC.

Wild Cobra

04-16-2012, 03:43 PM

Let's not forget that some believe Gore will become the first to become a Billionaire by pimping it.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 03:55 PM

It just seems to me that you have no point at all. Hes asked you waht publications have been blocked by the process adn you just start this dissembling nonsense.

I don't know what specific papers were blocked, or what specific papers they attempted to block.

Do I have to keep answering the question?

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 04:04 PM

Wild Cobra

04-16-2012, 04:05 PM

Fuck, it can be frustrating talking to conspiracy theorists. :bang
You brought up financial stake. Why does your confirmation bias only see the oil companies as being in this for money? What can't you have an open mind? Step outside that box please. Take off those colored glasses.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 04:09 PM

I don't know what specific papers were blocked, or what specific papers they attempted to block.

Do I have to keep answering the question?

The obviously conclusion from this statement is to stop making the allegation but not in your world. Just keep on saying the same refuted shit without any justification.

its actually amusing. Your energy lobby overlords have moved on from denial for the most part and are moving onto impact control. You haven't kept up as you vacillate between their story from 5 years ago to the stuff they put out now even though they are mutually exclusive.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 04:12 PM

What can't you have an open mind? Step outside that box please. Take off those colored glasses.

:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:lol :rollin
:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:lol :rollin
:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:lol :rollin

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 04:12 PM

I think this guy has a fair take on climategate and peer review. Maybe not such a conspiracy as much as climate scientists being human.

Climategate Peer Review: Science red in tooth and claw

I am a scientist and I have lived around fellow scientists for many years and I know their feeding habits well. I therefore know that the members of our secular priesthood are ordinary folk. But civilians were blind to this fact because our public relations department has labored hard to tell the world of our sanctity. “Scientists use peer review which is scientific and allows ex cathedra utterances. Amen.”

But the CRU “climategate” emails have revealed the truth that scientists are just people and that peer review is saturated with favoritism, and this has shocked many civilians. It has shaken their faith and left them sputtering. They awoke to the horrible truth: Scientists are just people!

Now all the world can see that scientists, like their civilians brothers, are nasty, brutish, and short-tempered. They are prejudiced, spiteful, and just downright unfriendly. They are catty, vindictive, scornful, manipulative, narrow-minded, and nearly incapable of admitting to a mistake. And they are cliquey.

Thus, we see that the CRU crew define a “good scientist” as one who agrees with them, a “bad scientist” or “no scientist” as one who does not agree with them, and a “mediocre scientist” as somebody who mostly agrees with them. Further, these judgments are carried to the peer-review process.

Claiming lack of peer review was once a reasonable weapon in scientists’ argument armamentarium. After climategate, all can see that this line of logic is as effective as a paper sword.

For example: the CRU crew publicly cry, “If our skeptics had anything to say, let them do it through peer review, otherwise their claims don’t count.” Never mind that this parry is a logical fallacy—an argument is not refuted because it was uttered outside a members-only journal. Pay attention to what they say privately:

Proving bad behavior [about peer review] is very difficult. If you think that [Geophysical Research Letters editor] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.(1)

They say that this journal or that one, because it dared publish peer-reviewed work that did not agree with the CRU consensus should be banished from the fold, and that its editors should resign or be booted, and that everybody should agree not to cite papers from those journals, and so on.

In other words, use muscle and not mind if you don’t like the results. Get rid of the editor and put an agreeable apparatchik in his place.

Another popular thrust: claim that it wasn’t real, genuine, honest-to-goodness peer review that led to skeptical findings being published. Something must have gone horribly wrong for those papers to have seen the light of day! Peer reviewed is thus implicitly defined as that process which publishes only those views that agree with prior convictions.

Sensing that that tactic could fail, some said, “Aha!, let’s see if we can disparage the authors of those skeptical papers: if we can successfully savage and malign them, then their findings are wrong.”

Yes, sir, dear reader, you guessed it. Another logical fallacy. It is absolutely no argument whatsoever to say a finding is wrong because its purveyor is “not a real climatologist” or “has not published much” or that he “has few citations from previous papers.”

It is also a fallacy to say that because a skeptical argument has appeared on a website—and could not pass through the gauntlet of the good-old-boy peer review system—that it need not be answered.

Here’s some advice to my fellow scientists: If an argument appears on a website, or on FOX news, or in a newspaper, or even on the back of the t-shirt, and that argument fails, then simply say so and say why. And then be done with it. Do not make an ass of yourself by claiming that answering criticisms that do not come from your circle of friends is beneath you.

If an argument that is old and has been well refuted elsewhere, say so, and say where a reliable refutation may be found. It makes you look desperate and foolish to say that the argument came from a blogger and is therefore suspect. And it makes people believe the blogger.

Anyway, do not cry foul over skeptical blogs and then simultaneously publish your own blog to disseminate your own beliefs. “They can’t publish a blog but we can.” That just looks stupid.

But don’t let’s get too carried away, everybody. These kind of behind-the-scenes activities, perhaps more heated in some respects, are the same in every field. Climate scientists are people and so are scientists in other areas. Bad behavior is nothing new and will never change, because people will always be people.

—————————————————————————–

(1)I wrote to the author of those words and asked, “I can understand that you feel strongly about the matter, but does your conviction run to harming the career of a fellow scientist merely because he disagrees with you?” I’ll let you know if I receive and answer.

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 04:16 PM

Fuck, it can be frustrating talking to conspiracy theorists. :bang
We've been flogging this horse for years in this forum...

During that time we've actually been able to witness the failure of catastrophic prediction after catastrophic prediction.

Al Gore was telling us 10 years ago we only had 10 years to act.

We were told the snow on Kilimanjaro was melting due to global warming only to find out is was a local phenomena.

Polar bears...

Hurricanes...

Glacial ice...

Temperatures...

Hockey Sticks...

E-mails...

I think I read somewhere the beauty of the AGCC projections is they're predicting catastrophe just far enough in the future that it can be alarming without them being held accountable -- because their predictions are long forgotten -- when the day of doom arrives.

We were all supposed to be starving from overpopulation and food shortages by 1999 -- according to scientists a few decades ago.

We were supposed to all be freezing from global cooling by 2000, according to some of the same tens of thousands of AGCC scientists you want me to believe now.

The Kyoto Protocol was a bank-busting, economy-destroying, farce that only ever promised to affect global temperature by an amount that was ridiculous. Most countries have quietly abandoned the plan.

AGCC proponents want the rest of the world to play keep putting coins in the Whack-a-mole game for them to play.

Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.

Those claims only exist in models designed by a group of people known to harbor some pretty dishonest people.

Can they prove the climate changes? Well, who the fuck can't do that?

Can they prove man is effecting any of that change? No.

This planet has experienced climate more extreme -- in both directions -- than what we have today and that is being predicted by the AGCC alarmists. And, we it will again, whether or not man is around to witness.

How many ice ages did this planet experience before the first human walked the earth? Were there not warming periods between them?

Sorry, I'm not sold. And, with the clowns the AGCC crowd allows to represent their position running around like a bunch of Chicken Littles while, at the same time, creating a bigger carbon footprint than most every other human being on the planet, I doubt I ever will be.

I'll start acting like it's a crisis when the people who tell me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 04:25 PM

Here is where I repeatedly ask a conspiracy theorist to produce some accounts by people who "faked the moon landings", and was ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5719838&postcount=3147

Here is where I ask several conspiracy theorists to produce some accounts by people who "fake global warming data", and was ignored:

(just read the last few pages)

The patterns are sadly similar.

Both conspiracies would require the active collusion of tens, if not hudreds, of thousands of people, including scientists who spend their lives in field of study. Both conspiracies are posited to be to the benefit of the people taking part.

Large conspiracies tend to fall apart when someone really comes forward to out the whole thing. Hell, even small conspiracies fall apart from attacks of conscience.

The only logical conclusion is that, when one side fails to answer fair, honest questions, that side has no interest in being fair or honest.

Once again, Darrin/Yonivore/Wild Cobra have made the case for the OP in the course of trying to disprove AGW. Guys, honestly, you should stop now, I don't need any more evidence for the OP. Thank you all.

Good science requires healthy skepticism. Healthy skepticism in the form of honest questions and good faith answers is good for debate.

It should be obvious at this point, that what we have here is not "healthy" skepticism.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 04:27 PM

You brought up financial stake. Why does your confirmation bias only see the oil companies as being in this for money? What can't you have an open mind? Step outside that box please. Take off those colored glasses.

I did indeed bring up the financial stake.

You can't ask me to have an open mind if you, or Yoni can ignore the trillion dollar elephant in the room.

Sorry it doesn't work that way.

All any of you have to do is to answer a simple yes or no question, honestly.

You can't.

The only logical conclusion is that you don't want to be honest.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 04:31 PM

We've been flogging this horse for years in this forum...

During that time we've actually been able to witness the failure of catastrophic prediction after catastrophic prediction.

Al Gore was telling us 10 years ago we only had 10 years to act.

We were told the snow on Kilimanjaro was melting due to global warming only to find out is was a local phenomena.

Polar bears...

Hurricanes...

Glacial ice...

Temperatures...

Hockey Sticks...

E-mails...

I think I read somewhere the beauty of the AGCC projections is they're predicting catastrophe just far enough in the future that it can be alarming without them being held accountable -- because their predictions are long forgotten -- when the day of doom arrives.

We were all supposed to be starving from overpopulation and food shortages by 1999 -- according to scientists a few decades ago.

We were supposed to all be freezing from global cooling by 2000, according to some of the same tens of thousands of AGCC scientists you want me to believe now.

The Kyoto Protocol was a bank-busting, economy-destroying, farce that only ever promised to affect global temperature by an amount that was ridiculous. Most countries have quietly abandoned the plan.

AGCC proponents want the rest of the world to play keep putting coins in the Whack-a-mole game for them to play.

Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.

Those claims only exist in models designed by a group of people known to harbor some pretty dishonest people.

Can they prove the climate changes? Well, who the fuck can't do that?

Can they prove man is effecting any of that change? No.

This planet has experienced climate more extreme -- in both directions -- than what we have today and that is being predicted by the AGCC alarmists. And, we it will again, whether or not man is around to witness.

How many ice ages did this planet experience before the first human walked the earth? Were there not warming periods between them?

Sorry, I'm not sold. And, with the clowns the AGCC crowd allows to represent their position running around like a bunch of Chicken Littles while, at the same time, creating a bigger carbon footprint than most every other human being on the planet, I doubt I ever will be.

I'll start acting like it's a crisis when the people who tell me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.

All you have here is ad hominems and strawmen. As I said before, I stopped bothering to count them.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 04:39 PM

Those who believe in AGW being the primary cause of our warming do not understand real science. i don't know what else to say. It's all been said, and I'm tired of arguing with religious fanatics, over the religion of AGW.

Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.

Which is more dogmatic:

Someone who claims that out of nearly a million research papers on the subject, there is "no proof" of AGW,

or

someone who acknowledges that it is entirely possible we might not have much affect, but thinks there seems to be enough evidence for it to be a reasonable conclusion?

Either of you, feel free to step up and answer that.

Since you are both liars, I will not hold my breath.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 04:41 PM

Man, the amount of delusion in that last Yonivore post is impressive.

Everyone knows the earth is flat, at the center of the universe, and only 6,000 years old.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 04:41 PM

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 04:45 PM

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 04:48 PM

All you have here is ad hominems and strawmen. As I said before, I stopped bothering to count them.
Okay, let's pick just one.

AGCC proponents have been telling us for years that polar bear populations have been declining due to global climate change. Hell, the polar bear floating on a small ice float has become the international symbol of AGCC.

Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm)

ScienceDaily (May 8, 2008) — Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html)

Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.

Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
And, I would bet those two are what underpins the claim Polar Bears are declining.

Why the Telegraph? Because, I can't find this story in the U. S. mainstream media. At least, it doesn't show up in a Google Search.

So, are Polar Bears increasing or decreasing? And, where they are decreasing, is it due to global warming or some local factor?

The story is similar for all the other "ad hominem and straw men" you claim I've forwarded. But, seriously, I'm not interested in flogging...that's why I didn't respond, initially.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 04:48 PM

Once again, Darrin/Yonivore/Wild Cobra have made the case for the OP in the course of trying to disprove AGW. Guys, honestly, you should stop now, I don't need any more evidence for the OP. Thank you all.

I've already answered several times.

Good science requires healthy skepticism. Healthy skepticism in the form of honest questions and good faith answers is good for debate.

It should be obvious at this point, that what we have here is not "healthy" skepticism.

Can you give an example of a scientist who you think exemplifies a "healthy skepticism" of catastrophic AGW?

I'll wait for your answer.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 04:49 PM

Cosmored, you have not answered my question.

Do you have the confessions or statements on the part of any significant number of the tens of thousands of scientists whose work is being misused by the "key players"?

You are beating the shit out of your straw man. Big fonts and all. :lmao

It isn't a strawman. Your words, your theory, mouse.

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The fact that Deniers claim some vast conspiracy on the part of tens of thousands of scientists seals the deal.

Not tens of thousands -- just a handful of key players. I can post their emails showing their subversion of the peer review process if you'd like.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 04:51 PM

Man, the amount of delusion in that last Yonivore post is impressive.

Everyone knows the earth is flat, at the center of the universe, and only 6,000 years old.

I read his post and didn't see anything about the the earth being flat, at the center of our universe, or only 6K years old.

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 04:51 PM

It isn't going away Cosmored.

Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?
People that sell fossil fuels aren't the only ones skeptical of AGCC.

And, with the advent of "green energy" divisions at most (if not all) of the major fossil fuel companies, they seem to be hedging their bets to make money either way.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 04:53 PM

The population of polar bears is not a factor in any climate model that I know of.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 04:53 PM

I read his post and didn't see anything about the the earth being flat, at the center of our universe, or only 6K years old.

There wasn't.

Do you believe there is zero evidence for humans affecting the climate?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 04:53 PM

I think this guy has a fair take on climategate and peer review. Maybe not such a conspiracy as much as climate scientists being human.

Link? Don't bother. I cannot expect you to be honest; I found it on my own.

The author, also not mentioned in Darrin's quote, is one William Briggs. Now what is interesting here is Mr. Briggs works for one JP Research Inc.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5501

Obviously I went from there to JPR's website and the 'about us' page

http://jpresearch.com/about-us-overview-expertise.htm

Here is what I found cogent:

JP Research, Inc. is a worldwide research consulting firm specializing in statistical, mathematical, engineering and risk analysis. We specialize in assessing whether a product poses an unreasonable risk to user. Our clients include Corporate R&D groups, trade organizations, and major automotive and consumer product manufacturers. The company was founded in 1995 by Jeya Padmanaban, President and Principal Consultant. Jeya is a world-renowned expert in the area of risk analysis, real-world performance and safety studies, particularly with regard to motor vehicle safety and consumer product safety.

Due in part to its state-of-the-art statistical research faculties, JP Research also has a considerable reputation in the litigation and research arena. JP Research’s team of scientists and engineers provide expert testimony in product litigation matters and provide statistical support for research projects.

If you need to spell it our for you its quite simple they are a consulting firm for large corporations who get paid for amongst other things making court testimony. they quite literally are corporate shills.

Regardless the peer review process saw his skeptic articles published in the Journal of Climate:

http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual10671

That article just sounds like butthurt to me.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 04:54 PM

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 04:54 PM

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 04:55 PM

Link? Don't bother. I cannot expect you to be honest; I found it on my own.

The author, also not mentioned in Darrin's quote, is one William Briggs. Now what is interesting here is Mr. Briggs works for one JP Research Inc.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5501

Obviously I went from there to JPR's website and the 'about us' page

http://jpresearch.com/about-us-overview-expertise.htm

Here is what I found cogent:

If you need to spell it our for you its quite simple they are a consulting firm for large corporations who get paid for amongst other things making court testimony. they quite literally are corporate shills.

Regardless the peer review process saw his skeptic articles published in the Journal of Climate:

http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual10671

That article just sounds like butthurt to me.

Alrighty then, boutons.

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 04:57 PM

Which is more dogmatic:

Someone who claims that out of nearly a million research papers on the subject, there is "no proof" of AGW,
Upon how many different theories and data sets and sources are the million research papers based?

Saying something over and over and over and over again, doesn't make it true.

or

someone who acknowledges that it is entirely possible we might not have much affect, but thinks there seems to be enough evidence for it to be a reasonable conclusion?
If the actions they want populations to undertake, based on a belief it is a reasonable conclusion to think man might have a little affect on global climate, were as reasonable, you'd have more of an argument.

Either of you, feel free to step up and answer that.

Since you are both liars, I will not hold my breath.
:lmao

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 04:57 PM

There wasn't.

Do you believe there is zero evidence for humans affecting the climate?

No.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 04:57 PM

No, dickhead.

My answer is NO.

Hey, by the way, my answer to that question is NO.

Am I being obtuse?

:lmao

Bravo, RG. Getting a straight answer out of this dude takes some damn effort but you put it in. Nice.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 04:58 PM

No.

You're on a roll with straight answers.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 04:58 PM

Upon how many different theories and data sets and sources are the million research papers based?

Saying something over and over and over and over again, doesn't make it true.

Repetition and increased font size improves an argument.

-RG

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 04:59 PM

Saying something over and over and over and over again, doesn't make it true.

:lmao

:lol

Thats rich coming from Mr. Zero Evidence.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 04:59 PM

No, dickhead.

My answer is NO.

Hey, by the way, my answer to that question is NO.

Am I being obtuse?

So, you don't have any real evidence or first hand accounts of your conspiracy theory.

If there really are a few key players somehow blocking the "real science" from being done, then you should be able to find a ready supply of climate scientists who feel their real science is being kept from the peer review process.

Get cracking. You could blow this whole thing wide open.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 04:59 PM

Repetition and increased font size improves an argument.

-RG

It got a straight answer out of you. You can ask anyone on this forum who has ever debated with you and that is not an easy task.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 05:02 PM

So, you don't have any real evidence or first hand accounts of your conspiracy theory.

If there really are a few key players somehow blocking the "real science" from being done, then you should be able to find a ready supply of climate scientists who feel their real science is being kept from the peer review process.

Get cracking. You could blow this whole thing wide open.

I have no doubts that the peer review process has its flaws. There have been articles published in any field that should not have been and there have surely been some authors met with resistance that was undue.

I also know that in today's age of information it is impossible to keep good scientific work down. Scientists are the ultimate truth seekers and while they aren't perfect I promise you that if any work that has merit is brought into the public sphere it will be impossible to just dismiss it. Scientists as a whole, want to understand the mechanisms at work.

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 05:02 PM

The longer this goes on, the more you look like Cosmored.

Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?
The use of their product is harmful. It pollutes. Since the Nixon administration, vehicle and fuel technologies have advanced to the point where most toxic exhaust is barely measurable.

In any case, that doesn't mean it affects global climate.

I'm in favor of exploring ways to make the byproducts of petroleum-based energy less harmful to the environment and those of us who have to breath the air.

I just don't believe pollution and climate are the same thing. Two topics frequently conflated by the AGCC proponents. So much so, the EPA felt it necessary to list the harmless byproduct of breathing as a toxic gas.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 05:04 PM

Yonivore, are you discounting CO2 as a green house gas?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 05:04 PM

The obviously conclusion from this statement is to stop making the allegation but not in your world. Just keep on saying the same refuted shit without any justification.

This is what its like talking ato Darrin:

Darrin: the sky is green.
Other: It certainly looks blue to me.
Darrin: *posts blog article without a link and unknown author*
Other: well that blog is nice and all but when i refract the light and measure the wavelength it keeps on coming up with 480-485nm. Do you have any evidence at all that its really green.
Darrin: *ignores the question* Wow, red is an ugly color I do not believe you like it.
Other: Hey red reminds of home, I just like it... hey wait do you have any evidence that the ski is green.
Darrin: No, how many times do I have to tell you. I still cannot believe you think red is a good color. *logs out*

*couple of days go by*

Darrin: the sky is green.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 05:05 PM

there is plenty out there to convince me the AGCC proponents have a financial stake in making the world believe it exists.

All those questions were honest, fair questions about what level of evidence you would find acceptable.

That you can't, or won't answer honest, fair questions says volumes.

Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?

[Ignores question, goes straight to ad hominems on climate scientists]

[more ad hominem]

It isn't going away Cosmored.

Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?

[more ad hominem].

The longer this goes on, the more you look like Cosmored.

Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?

Saying something over and over and over and over again, doesn't make it true.

and

[obfuscation, no answer].

I have been telling Cosmored and mouse that for years in the moon hoax and evolution threads.

Unfortunately for you, I am not stating anything. I am asking a fair question, and one that is important when understanding context.

Claiming one side has some financial incentive, while ignoring the potential financial incentive of the other side or pretending it doesn't exist, is not anyones definition of honest.

I will say I think you are dishonest. All I have to do to prove that is for you to ignore my honest, fair, easily answered, question, while I honestly answer all of your questions in return.

The simple yes, or no.

Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 05:07 PM

:lmao

I'm still cracking up over RG making Darrin crack.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 05:07 PM

Although to be fair, it might because Darrin and Yonivore made RG crack first. :lol

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 05:07 PM

Alrighty then, boutons.

Nice ad hominem. If anything both you and boutons are indiscriminate with what you choose as a source. Examples are compelling not being petulant.

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 05:10 PM

Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?
Yes.

And, I don't know who Cosmored is. Sorry, I'm not that into the various personalities, in here, like some of you are.

But, yes. People who sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in whether or not their product is perceived as causing harm.

Al Gore has a financial stake in the opposite.

So does the IPCC, That Hansen character, and everyone else making money off of the AGCC alarmism.

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 05:13 PM

Yonivore, are you discounting CO2 as a green house gas?
Nope.

I'm discounting man-made sources of CO2 appreciably add to the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - to the extent is has an affect on global climate.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 05:14 PM

But, yes. People who sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in whether or not their product is perceived as causing harm.

Al Gore has a financial stake in the opposite.

So does the IPCC, That Hansen character, and everyone else making money off of the AGCC alarmism.

Yep.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 05:14 PM

Yonivore, are you discounting CO2 as a green house gas?

I hope you have better luck getting straight answer than I have had. :depressed

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 05:16 PM

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 05:19 PM

I hope you have better luck getting straight answer than I have had. :depressed

See post 2659

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 05:21 PM

What about the insurance industry? Their only interest is mitigating claims not waste money on convincing people that claims are rising

i also love how you guys always fall bak on Al Gore and try to pigeonhole the 99% of scientists that consider AGW too much of a rish to ignore.
The leading figures in AGCC are all compromised. Al Gore is just the biggest fish.

Name a major proponent of AGCC that isn't compromised by an association with Al Gore, East Anglia University, and or the IPCC; all of whom have lost all credibility with reasonable people.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 05:21 PM

Yes.

And, I don't know who Cosmored is. Sorry, I'm not that into the various personalities, in here, like some of you are.

But, yes. People who sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in whether or not their product is perceived as causing harm.

Al Gore has a financial stake in the opposite.

So does the IPCC, That Hansen character, and everyone else making money off of the AGCC alarmism.

Cosmored is the dolt who claims that the "apollo moon missions were faked in a studio".

He also has a hard time answering questions directly. It takes you a while to get there, but you are at least not insane.

Thank you for an answer.

So, your reason for not believing the alarmists is that "they have money at stake in promoting their views".

And

You also agree to the reasonable assertion that fossil fuel companies have a financial stake in downplaying evidence that use of their product could be causing harmful environmental changes. I can buy that.

For discussion, I can even buy that some people are benefiting from alarmism.

What about the actual scientists doing the research?

An awful lot of them seem to believe that we are increasingly affecting our climate on a global scale.

Are *they* all lying for money? You say there is NO evidence to indicate this.

That implies a lot of faked data.

(edit)

There have been a few studies and polls of actual climate scientists. Generally the more they know about the subject, the less doubt.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

Yeah, we're going back there.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 05:25 PM

Although to be fair, it might because Darrin and Yonivore made RG crack first. :lol

:bang

It is very, very hard to be patient and polite when people are being evasive and/or dishonest.

The backspace key is my friend. (breathes deeply and calmly) If I posted even 1/4 of the hair-pulling, frustrated, snarky things that run through my head....

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 05:26 PM

Cosmored is the dolt who claims that the "apollo moon missions were faked in a studio".

Do you really equate skepticism of catastrophic AGW with this shit?

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 05:29 PM

So, your reason for not believing the alarmists is that "they have money at stake in promoting their views".
That, and the small but, not insignificant, fact that few, if any of their predictions -- to date -- have come true.

You also agree to the reasonable assertion that fossil fuel companies have a financial stake in downplaying evidence that use of their product could be causing harmful environmental changes. I can buy that.
This is why you don't get direct answers, you want to take a direct answer and mischaracterize it to fit your purposes.

Innocent people have a vested interest in proving their innocence.

Fossil fuel companies have a vested interest in proving their product doesn't cause global climate change. Just ask the coal companies being put out of business by this administration's silly rule on CO2 emissions.

For discussion, I can even buy that some people are benefiting from alarmism.

What about the actual scientists doing the research?

An awful lot of them seem to believe that we are increasingly affecting our climate on a global scale.

Are *they* all lying for money? You say there is NO evidence to indicate this.

That implies a lot of faked data.
It does, doesn't it. Or, as that one scientist put it, a lot of blind obedience to a popular narrative because of the attendant ridicule visited on anyone that dare go against the narrative.

The polar bear scientist as my example.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 05:29 PM

:bang

It is very, very hard to be patient and polite when people are being evasive and/or dishonest.

The backspace key is my friend. (breathes deeply and calmly) If I posted even 1/4 of the hair-pulling, frustrated, snarky things that run through my head....

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

Can you give an example of a scientist who you think exemplifies a "healthy skepticism" of catastrophic AGW?

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 05:32 PM

Do you really equate skepticism of catastrophic AGW with people who think moon landings were faked?

Answer the damn question!!!

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 05:38 PM

Do you really equate skepticism of catastrophic AGW with this shit?

(looks at the title of the thread again)

.... um, yes. Yes, I do.

You seem to be half a step more sane and less sophist than the average truther, but that isn't saying much.

It says to me that there can be SOME meaningful discussion.

(edit)

You would do well to read the OP again.

I deliniate honest skepticism from quackery, as I have done in the last hundred+ pages. This thread is about the latter.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 05:41 PM

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

Can you give an example of a scientist who you think exemplifies a "healthy skepticism" of catastrophic AGW?

Sorry, I missed this one.

In response:

YAY!!! a fair honest question. I will look into it.

I do believe that some of the people on the BEST team were getting there.

Hell, even some of the things you post meet the threshold at times.

It exists. If you still want a specific name, I will do some reading.

Generally the more stilted the language, the less likely it is to be "healthy".

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 05:50 PM

Sorry, I missed this one.

In response:

YAY!!! a fair honest question. I will look into it.

I do believe that some of the people on the BEST team were getting there.

Hell, even some of the things you post meet the threshold at times.

It exists. If you still want a specific name, I will do some reading.

Generally the more stilted the language, the less likely it is to be "healthy".

Janet Curry who he knows damn well about because he crows about her every chance he gets.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 05:52 PM

This is why you don't get direct answers, you want to take a direct answer and mischaracterize it to fit your purposes.

No, I want direct answers because you are evasive and don't like admitting the weaknesses in your arguments even, it seems, to yourself.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch that way.

So we have:

Leaders of the AGW movement are exaggerating about the problem, because they want money.

and

Fossil fuel companies have a massive financial stake in downplaying any evidence that their products are causing global environmental damage from AGW.

and

There is *no* evidence of AGW.

Climate scientists, who are not "leaders" of any movement seem to think there is evidence.

Are they all lying?

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 05:53 PM

Janet Curry who he knows damn well about because he crows about her every chance he gets.

I was actually going to use that name, but wanted to do a little reading.

Janet Curry.

Who also had many of her criticisms answered by BEST's study, if memory serves.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 05:53 PM

The leading figures in AGCC are all compromised. Al Gore is just the biggest fish.

Name a major proponent of AGCC that isn't compromised by an association with Al Gore, East Anglia University, and or the IPCC; all of whom have lost all credibility with reasonable people.

pigeonhole pigeonhole pigeonhole.

Fine lets discount everything Al Gore and AGCC and in fairness discount all the shit from the Guardian, Heritage Foundation, WIWT, and all the other obvious financial interests and just leave the regular scientists.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 05:57 PM

It does, doesn't it. Or, as that one scientist put it, a lot of blind obedience to a popular narrative because of the attendant ridicule visited on anyone that dare go against the narrative.

The polar bear scientist as my example.

Have to go back and re-read that.

If I remember correctly it ended up being a case of a denier administrator bashing actual science, but that is simply what I remember.

It still isn't an answer to the question:

If there is NO evidence, then ALL climate scientists who claim AGW are lying.

Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.

Are they all lying?

If you want to claim there is NO evidence, you have a HUGE burden of proof, given the number of scientists who stake their reputations on the evidence that they feel does support AGW.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 06:02 PM

Janet Curry who he knows damn well about because he crows about her every chance he gets.

Judith Curry. And she's not a skeptic. She just doesn't dismiss skeptical scientists as "deniers".

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 06:03 PM

Do you really equate skepticism of catastrophic AGW with this shit?

Does this sound like the words of a fair skeptic, given the complexity of the data and systems we are looking at, Darrin?

Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.

Or is this the kind of thing a dogmatic who doesn't really care about the evidence would say?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 06:05 PM

Judith Curry. And she's not a skeptic. She just doesn't dismiss skeptical scientists as "deniers".

So those skepitcal scientists she is referring to don't exist? and anyway, why is it our burden to look for someone that supports your bias?

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 06:05 PM

I was actually going to use that name, but wanted to do a little reading.

Janet Curry.

Who also had many of her criticisms answered by BEST's study, if memory serves.

Uh, she is one of the BEST contributors.

http://berkeleyearth.org/about-us/

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 06:10 PM

pigeonhole pigeonhole pigeonhole.

Fine lets discount everything Al Gore and AGCC and in fairness discount all the shit from the Guardian, Heritage Foundation, WIWT, and all the other obvious financial interests and just leave the regular scientists.

Which is where it should be.

The problem is there is a segment of the population that doesn't trust scientists to be honest. "evilution" what a bunch of liberal hooey.

RandomGuy

04-16-2012, 06:11 PM

Uh, she is one of the BEST contributors.

http://berkeleyearth.org/about-us/

Indeed. She helped design the tests. That is what makes her coming out and saying the tests were honest and satisfied a lot of criticisms more credible.

Gotta run.

DarrinS

04-16-2012, 06:11 PM

So those skepitcal scientists she is referring to don't exist? and anyway, why is it our burden to look for someone that supports your bias?

I never asked that. I asked if RG could name a skeptical scientist who had a "healthy skepticism".

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 06:13 PM

Nope.

I'm discounting man-made sources of CO2 appreciably add to the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - to the extent is has an affect on global climate.

Wait, so you think there is zero proof that human emissions are the reason for the CO2 rise? Well, pray tell, what is driving the increase?

Does CO2 at 200 ppm have an appreciable effect on climate?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-16-2012, 06:14 PM

I never asked that. I asked if RG could name a skeptical scientist who had a "healthy skepticism".

Well you have been claiming that the peer review process keeps these guys out. The burden of proof should rest on you for introducing these guys that tried to get published and were rejected for unfair or unethical reasons.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 06:16 PM

I can name several scientists who have had problems with information found in IPCC reports that I believe are correct.

I can name zero scientists whom I feel are correct that discount the effect that increasing CO2 concentrations to 400ppm has on the energy budget of the Earth.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 06:17 PM

I never asked that. I asked if RG could name a skeptical scientist who had a "healthy skepticism".

Define healthy skepticism.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 06:25 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea#On_global_warming_and_hurrican es

Chris Landsea is someone I believe has legit gripes with the IPCC. He's been openly critical of their results regarding hurricanes and I tend to agree with him. (I've argued the same things on this forum before regarding hurricanes)

He does not however, discount AGW.

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 10:07 PM

See, this is the kind of crap that just blows holes in all the alarmist AGCC rhetoric.

Penguins and Global Warming (http://www.penguins-world.com/penguins-and-global-warming.html)

Even penguins are affected by the climate change that takes place out there. Due to global warming around the world, their natural environment is affected. Those species that live in the extremely cold regions depend on the ice because it is what they walk on. When it is melting at fast rates it completely changes their natural environment. At the same time it can make them vulnerable to predators that they were protected from in the past due to the thick sheets of ice.

Scientists believe that half of the population of penguins in the Antarctic region has been depleted in the last 50 years due to the climate change. It is the species known as the Emperor Penguins that have seen the largest losses. This is due to the warming trends continuing for several years. There is plenty of change that takes place over that span of time, and most of it isn’t positive when it comes to the natural habitat of the penguins.
Scientists believe?

Well, not so fast...

Somebody decided to fucking count.

Twice as Many Emperor Penguins as Thought in Antarctica, First-Ever Penguin Count from Space Shows (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120413145303.htm)

Lead author and geographer Peter Fretwell at British Antarctic Survey (BAS), which is funded by the U.K.'s Natural Environment Research Council, explains, "We are delighted to be able to locate and identify such a large number of emperor penguins. We counted 595,000 birds, which is almost double the previous estimates of 270,000-350,000 birds. This is the first comprehensive census of a species taken from space."
So much for scientific "belief."

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 10:10 PM

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 10:11 PM

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 10:17 PM

I don't think you understand that climate science and biology/ecology are not the same thing. The physics and chemistry behind the energy budget of the earth is what is debated here. You seem to want to pick out failed (allegedly) ecological theories (although I don't see you looking at a comprehensive analysis of biological impacts of AGW but rather cherry picking - SURPRISE) from a point in time when AGW hasn't even had that large of an impact.
So, if scientists say global climate change is killing off the penguins and it's proven that's not the case, you say, well, it's not about the penguins.

Polar bears, ditto.

Kilimanjaro, yep.

Glacial ice...same answer.

Hurricanes? If we have a bunch it's because of global climate change -- if not, well, it's because of global climate change.

I believe I even recall some idiot claiming AGCC caused earthquakes.

So, what is the danger, Manny? If none of the predicted catastrophes being blamed on AGCC are 1) not being caused by AGCC and/or 2) aren't really happening at all -- why all the fuss over AGCC?

What is the optimal temperature and climate for Earth and exactly when will we know when we've achieved that?

That's what I want to know. If we determine AGCC exists -- which is rather dubious, at best (climate change, yes -- anthropogenic, not so much) -- what are the dangers?

Wouldn't a warmer climate expand growing zones? Aren't there benefits to a different climate than what we have?

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 10:26 PM

I don't think you understand that climate science and biology/ecology are not the same thing.
And, I'm calling bullshit on this...

All we're ever told is of the biological/ecological consequences of anthropogenic global climate change and that if we don't bring our emissions of CO2 down, we're going to wreak all sorts of calamity on the biological/ecological health of the planet.

All of the examples I listed are of biological/ecological catastrophes predicted by AGCC proponents in an effort to scare the world into buying their scam.

If it's not the biological/ecological consequences, what's the point?

Do you have an interest in maintaining our current climate? If so, why? What's the matter with a few degrees either way? After all, the oceans aren't rising as predicted so, I figure Miami is safe.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 10:30 PM

Glacial ice is in retreat. Kilamanjaro's glaciers are a special case that was - get this - discovered a long ass time ago by scientists through the peer review process. In other words, that was a great example of science at work.

I don't know shit about polar bears or penguins so I'm not going to sit here and pretend what ever biologist out there has said about them but I seriously doubt that all the biological predictions regarding climate change are in danger of being found false. As an example, why have you not brought up any of the ocean species in danger through ocean acidification due to increase warming and increased atmospheric CO2? Because you're not interested in an actual comprehensive look at the how the biosphere is being (or will be) affected but rather cherry picking.

No recent hurricane history has been attributed to climate change by any notable scientific organization. None. This is a complete strawman you've made up.

As for expanded growing zones, in the long term you will MOVE the growing areas and most productive farm areas but that isn't a good thing. For one, infrastructure does not magically up and move itself overnight. There are huge uncertainties in this area but its certainly going to be costly because change always is.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 10:32 PM

Wait, so you think there is zero proof that human emissions are the reason for the CO2 rise? Well, pray tell, what is driving the increase?

Does CO2 at 200 ppm have an appreciable effect on climate?

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 10:39 PM

And, I'm calling bullshit on this...

All we're ever told is of the biological/ecological consequences of anthropogenic global climate change and that if we don't bring our emissions of CO2 down, we're going to wreak all sorts of calamity on the biological/ecological health of the planet.

All of the examples I listed are of biological/ecological catastrophes predicted by AGCC proponents in an effort to scare the world into buying their scam.

If it's not the biological/ecological consequences, what's the point?

Do you have an interest in maintaining our current climate? If so, why? What's the matter with a few degrees either way? After all, the oceans aren't rising as predicted so, I figure Miami is safe.

So you're saying that biology and ecology are the same thing as climate sciences? :lol Ok, call bullshit on that all you want. Won't make it any closer to being true.

You think that an atmospheric chemist is taking into account a single penguin or polar bear when he or she is doing their work? Its fairly impossible to discuss this with you because you have such a poor understanding of how specialized science is or even the basic fundamentals of how the collective knowledge of our species is advanced through science.

You have a lot of atmospheric scientists of different specialties who work on little bits of research that are typically very focused. You may have a guy working on figuring out upper tropospheric humidity proxies and you may have a numerical modeler trying to develop a higher resolution climate model and you may have someone trying to figure out how clouds actually work in order to figure out feedbacks. Then you're going to have hydrologists working on the cryosphere (ie glaciers). This goes on for every discipline. But the guy working on the climate models doesn't specialize in polar bears, and the guy working on glaciers doesn't know very much about how the stratosphere impacts the entire picture. They rely on each other and then proceed based on information provided by others.

In other words, the zoologist who is studying polar bears is going to look at climate projections and then make an analysis based upon his or her knowledge of polar bears on what will happen given a certain increase or a certain change in their habitat. If that zoologist is then incorrect, that is not some kind of verdict on the climate prediction but rather on the biological aspect of the work done. That is a fundamental you simple refuse to understand.

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 10:59 PM

Glacial ice is in retreat.
Not in the Himalayas or parts of Antartica... And, not as fast as claimed in the areas where they are receding. Besides, have the areas being uncovered by receding glaciers been under ice since the beginning of time? Were they ever exposed before industrialization? Yes. I don't see the big deal.

Also, with the melting so far, there's been no appreciable rise in sea levels -- and certainly not the levels we've been warned about.

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html)

Kilamanjaro's glaciers are a special case that was - get this - discovered a long ass time ago by scientists through the peer review process. In other words, that was a great example of science at work.
Don't blame me that the AGCC alarmists didn't get the memos. Because it wasn't a very long ass time ago they were telling us AGCC was melting the snows atop Kilimanjaro.

I don't know shit about polar bears or penguins so I'm not going to sit here and pretend what ever biologist out there has said about them but I seriously doubt that all the biological predictions regarding climate change are in danger of being found false. As an example, why have you not brought up any of the ocean species in danger through ocean acidification due to increase warming and increased atmospheric CO2? Because you're not interested in an actual comprehensive look at the how the biosphere is being (or will be) affected but rather cherry picking.
Well, it could possibly be because all we hear about are polar bears and penguins and rising sea levels and receding glaciers. I haven't heard much alarmism about ocean species. Perhaps krill isn't sexy enough for Al Gore.

I'll check it out. Thanks.

No recent hurricane history has been attributed to climate change by any notable scientific organization. None. This is a complete strawman you've made up.

Extreme weather: it's about to get worse, say scientists (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/extreme-weather-its-about-to-get-worse-say-scientists-20120329-1vz7p.html)

Global warming is leading to such severe storms, droughts and heatwaves that nations should prepare for an unprecedented onslaught of deadly and costly weather disasters, an international panel of climate scientists says in a new report.
The greatest danger from extreme weather is in highly populated, poor regions of the world, the report warns, but no corner of the globe - from Mumbai to Miami - is immune. The document by a Nobel prize-winning panel of climate scientists forecasts stronger tropical cyclones and more frequent heat waves, deluges and droughts.
I believe we call them hurricanes here.

This is from one of your favorite "notable scientific organization[s]," the IPCC.

As for expanded growing zones, in the long term you will MOVE the growing areas and most productive farm areas but that isn't a good thing. For one, infrastructure does not magically up and move itself overnight. There are huge uncertainties in this area but its certainly going to be costly because change always is.
And, we adapt pretty well...always have.

I'm not sure a bit of warming would be a bad thing, Manny.

Again, what is our optimal climate and temperature here on earth?

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 11:04 PM

So you're saying that biology and ecology are the same thing as climate sciences? :lol Ok, call bullshit on that all you want. Won't make it any closer to being true.
No, I'm saying AGCC alarmists are telling me biological and ecological horrors are being visited on the planet because of climate change...in the form of species endangerment, glacial retreat, sea level rises, melting snow caps, disappearing penguins, more catastrophic weather events, etc...

Since you missed the premise, I didn't read the rest of your post.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 11:06 PM

Go back and reread it. Its important and it addresses why your point was wrong. I got your point, and I explained to you why it was wrong.

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 11:16 PM

Go back and reread it. Its important and it addresses why your point was wrong. I got your point, and I explained to you why it was wrong.
Okay, so where's the harm in AGCC if all the biological/ecological scientists predicting global climate change is killing their area of interest are wrong?

Thanks for wasting my time, your explanation still misses the point -- as I thought it would.

In other words, if climate scientists (who don't care about ecological and biological affects) are right and biological and ecological scientists (who don't know about anything except their specialty) are wrong, what's the fucking problem?

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 11:26 PM

Not in the Himalayas or parts of Antartica... And, not as fast as claimed in the areas where they are receding. Besides, have the areas being uncovered by receding glaciers been under ice since the beginning of time? Were they ever exposed before industrialization? Yes. I don't see the big deal.

Also, with the melting so far, there's been no appreciable rise in sea levels -- and certainly not the levels we've been warned about.
[quote]

Do you just make things up? Sea level rise is HIGHER than what was forecast by most of the models. :lol

They are receding globally and they are doing so faster then expected. Everything you've stated here is just flat out wrong. There are places - IE the Himilayas - where there are SHORT TERM stalls, but 10 years doesn't mean much. I guess I would have the same beliefs as you if I thought the data says what you do. The sad fact is that you're pretty much completely wrong.

However, prove me wrong. Provide me with the data that shows sea level rise is lower than expected or that glacial melting across the globe is less than expected.

[quote]
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html)

Sea levels are rising.

http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html

I could link more, if you'd like. Note, those aren't model figures. Those are taken from actual readings across the globe of tidal gauges and from satellite measurements.

Don't blame me that the AGCC alarmists didn't get the memos. Because it wasn't a very long ass time ago they were telling us AGCC was melting the snows atop Kilimanjaro.

I blame you for being ignorant of scientific research almost a decades old talking about this.

http://www.uibk.ac.at/geographie/tropical-glaciology/literatur/kaser_et_al_ijc24(2004).pdf

Well, it could possibly be because all we hear about are polar bears and penguins and rising sea levels and receding glaciers. I haven't heard much alarmism about ocean species. Perhaps krill isn't sexy enough for Al Gore.

I'll check it out. Thanks.

You haven't heard about, IE, you're ignorant on the subject. You and I both know you don't do any reading into the subject as shown by your gross ignorance on many facets of AGW theory so the blame must lie with your blogs not providing you with the proper information. Its like when you came in with the GROUNDBREAKING thought in your head that climate models hadn't even been used to forecast current conditions in an effort to test them.

Extreme weather: it's about to get worse, say scientists (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/extreme-weather-its-about-to-get-worse-say-scientists-20120329-1vz7p.html)

I believe we call them hurricanes here.

This is from one of your favorite "notable scientific organization[s]," the IPCC.

And, we adapt pretty well...always have.

I'm not sure a bit of warming would be a bad thing, Manny.

Again, what is our optimal climate and temperature here on earth?

You realize what a forecast is, Yoni? That places things in the future tense. As in, much further down the line. When warming has reached higher levels. As I said, no scientific organization has attributed any recent hurricane activity - this is the threshold YOU set - to climate change.

We haven't always adapted. You don't seem to understand how recent a development human agrarianism is and how stable the climate has been during this time. In any event, we will adapt. No one is saying the impact will be one where humans go extinct. It will simply be very expensive to do so.

As for your analysis on whether a bit of warming is a good thing, you're not exactly an expert. On the other hands, those who are experts and must plan for the future have definitely said the changing climate is not a good thing. This goes from the military, insurance agencies, and health organizations. Part of the giant conspiracy, though. I know. :lol

The optimal temperature is the one that doesn't costs us trillions of dollars to adapt to. In other words, the climate we've developed our society around.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 11:31 PM

Okay, so where's the harm in AGCC if all the biological/ecological scientists predicting global climate change is killing their area of interest are wrong?

Thanks for wasting my time, your explanation still misses the point -- as I thought it would.

In other words, if climate scientists (who don't care about ecological and biological affects) are right and biological and ecological scientists (who don't know about anything except their specialty) are wrong, what's the fucking problem?

I'm sorry for making you read a bit more, Yoni. I realize how taxing this is on your tiny brain.

Well, first of all, I never claimed all biologists are wrong. As I've pointed out, you've not exactly done a comprehensive review of the research but instead cherry picked two examples while ignoring any others who don't seem to fit your mold as "wrong". Thats your red herring, not mine. I was simply pointing out how your attempts to use polar bears and penguins to disprove AGW theory are misguided and pretty damn wrong.

As far as the problems, you could check with the military, insurance companies, and health organizations on the HUMAN impact. I mean, you LOVE the military so I find it curious how you simply dismiss their findings and their plans to prepare for the changing climate and how much those findings and plans align with what the free market is pricing in via the insurance industry.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 11:32 PM

Wait, so you think there is zero proof that human emissions are the reason for the CO2 rise? Well, pray tell, what is driving the increase?

Does CO2 at 200 ppm have an appreciable effect on climate?

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 11:42 PM

Well, first of all, I never claimed all biologists are wrong.
No, what you said is the biological/ecological scientists focus on their specialty and that those who claim AGCC is the cause of the calamity du jour for their area of specialty, and are wrong, just don't understand climate science.

Then, you said climate scientists don't pay particular attention to the claimed biological/ecological affects of the climate they study.

Finally, you argued that the ecological/biological scientists who claim calamities striking their areas of expertise -- oceanography and marine biology, I presume -- and blame climate change are right when the calamities are actually occurring.

Got it.

Again, what is the optimal climate and temperature for Earth?

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 11:49 PM

You're really going to try to be intellectually dishonest about a post? (I act surprised as if this is the first time).

Who do you think you're fooling, Yoni? Yourself? What I said is right there and I find it laughable (and rather sad) for you to try to mischaracterize what I said right after I said it as if everyone who is reading this is that dumb.

Mmmmk.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2012, 11:50 PM

Also, I answered your question about optimal temperatures. The one our society has developed around and has put an infrastructure around. The one we have now. Not the one we're going to.

Yonivore

04-16-2012, 11:58 PM

Also, I answered your question about optimal temperatures. The one our society has developed around and has put an infrastructure around. The one we have now. Not the one we're going to.
We're unable to adapt?

MannyIsGod

04-17-2012, 12:01 AM

I answered that earlier too. I said we are able to adapt. That doesn't make it either desirable or cheap. It will be costly in many aspects.

I could cut off your arm, Yoni, and you could go on to live a life. Does that make cutting off your arm a desirable effect? The standard of whether or not we can adapt as to whether or not a controllable outcome is desirable is beyond poor.

Yonivore

04-17-2012, 12:03 AM

So you're saying that biology and ecology are the same thing as climate sciences? :lol Ok, call bullshit on that all you want. Won't make it any closer to being true.

You think that an atmospheric chemist is taking into account a single penguin or polar bear when he or she is doing their work? Its fairly impossible to discuss this with you because you have such a poor understanding of how specialized science is or even the basic fundamentals of how the collective knowledge of our species is advanced through science.

You have a lot of atmospheric scientists of different specialties who work on little bits of research that are typically very focused. You may have a guy working on figuring out upper tropospheric humidity proxies and you may have a numerical modeler trying to develop a higher resolution climate model and you may have someone trying to figure out how clouds actually work in order to figure out feedbacks. Then you're going to have hydrologists working on the cryosphere (ie glaciers). This goes on for every discipline. But the guy working on the climate models doesn't specialize in polar bears, and the guy working on glaciers doesn't know very much about how the stratosphere impacts the entire picture. They rely on each other and then proceed based on information provided by others.

In other words, the zoologist who is studying polar bears is going to look at climate projections and then make an analysis based upon his or her knowledge of polar bears on what will happen given a certain increase or a certain change in their habitat. If that zoologist is then incorrect, that is not some kind of verdict on the climate prediction but rather on the biological aspect of the work done. That is a fundamental you simple refuse to understand.
I think it was a fair characterization.

According to you, when scientists make a mistake it's because they don't understand/aren't focused enough about the alien science they were applying to their theory/projection/hypothesis -- except of course when they're right.

Yonivore

04-17-2012, 12:04 AM

MannyIsGod

04-17-2012, 12:06 AM

Yonivore

04-17-2012, 12:13 AM

Globally the temperature will rise somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 degrees C to 4 degrees C. Locally you'll see places that increase far more than that and places that will likely even cool.
Nice hedging.

By when?

Is the military wrong in assessing climate change impacts, Yoni?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change
They could be. They've been wrong before -- about things they know a lot more about, too. Blowing shit up and killing people.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-17-2012, 01:31 AM

Nice hedging.

By when?

They could be. They've been wrong before -- about things they know a lot more about, too. Blowing shit up and killing people.

This is hilarious. Everyone is wrong but the energy lobby. Everyone of the insurance industry, NASA, every national science foundation in the world, the military, and on and on and on is wrong.

But lets go with the energy lobby....

gmfb

admiralsnackbar

04-17-2012, 01:41 AM

Nice hedging.

By when?

Since you and others have stepped out of pure skepticism enough to support the proposition that the warming trend is caused by cosmic forces exclusively, you should be able to at least give a similar timeline corresponding to your chosen theory, right?

Wild Cobra

04-17-2012, 02:32 AM

I did indeed bring up the financial stake.

You can't ask me to have an open mind if you, or Yoni can ignore the trillion dollar elephant in the room.

Sorry it doesn't work that way.

All any of you have to do is to answer a simple yes or no question, honestly.

You can't.

The only logical conclusion is that you don't want to be honest.
This is something you seem to jump to an improper conclusion on. Because there is vested interest to deny AGW, and some funding is done by them, that all organizations associated with a single dime of their money is paying for a certain outcome.

Sorry, I don't buy into your philosophy there. I was making the point that if you believe money pays for bad science, then you should also look at all the money being made and moved around over the idea of strengthening the AGW claim. Unless you are a hypocrite, you must claim AGW science is wrong too.

It can work both ways, and for you to dismiss good scientific skepticism means you do not have an open mind when you don't equally dismiss the opposing viewpoint over the same reasons.

Wild Cobra

04-17-2012, 02:35 AM

Yonivore, are you discounting CO2 as a green house gas?
Why do you keep asking the same question to us when you know what the answer will be? are you insane?

Wild Cobra

04-17-2012, 02:37 AM

:bang

It is very, very hard to be patient and polite when people are being evasive and/or dishonest.

The backspace key is my friend. (breathes deeply and calmly) If I posted even 1/4 of the hair-pulling, frustrated, snarky things that run through my head....
Yes it is. I have a very hard time maintaining my cool with the dishonesty you guys have.

Wild Cobra

04-17-2012, 02:46 AM

Do you just make things up? Sea level rise is HIGHER than what was forecast by most of the models. :lol

Let's assume there is no question about that. Have you seen anywhere that values are stated as to how much is thermal expansion and how much is loss of land ice masses?

How about the reasons for loss of these ice sheets? You were too chicken to answer my question some posts back. Did you know a leading cause of glacier loss... moving faster... breaking up faster... is because of changes in geothermal temperatures? Not temperatures on top of them, but below them.

This is one more indicator that is a false proxy of global warming, natural or man caused.

Wild Cobra

04-17-2012, 02:47 AM

Globally the temperature will rise somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 degrees C to 4 degrees C. Locally you'll see places that increase far more than that and places that will likely even cool.

Is the military wrong in assessing climate change impacts, Yoni?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change

LOL...

scientific American...

LOL...

I wonder who's idea in congress it is to put the AGW agenda in the military budget, making liberals scream more about military spending?

Yonivore

04-17-2012, 08:50 AM

Since you and others have stepped out of pure skepticism enough to support the proposition that the warming trend is caused by cosmic forces exclusively, you should be able to at least give a similar timeline corresponding to your chosen theory, right?
Why?

I'm not a climate scientist.

My whole argument in this thread is that the PRINCIPAL torchbearers that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is real have been seriously discredited over the past decade or so.

I don't argue the climate isn't changing. I am dubious -- with reason, I believe -- that humankind has any appreciable affect on climate or that climate changes are leading us to all these hyperbolic calamities being claimed or that we can do anything to alter the course nature has set for our climate.

This planet has been warming and cooling for a few billion years. It has reach temperatures that are much colder and it has reached temperatures that are much warmer. Long before AGCC became popular, we learned our planet will probably go through these cycles of heating and cooling for as long as it exists...until one day, our Sun will swallow it.

Just about every prominent public figure, with whom I'm familiar, pushing the AGCC Alarm Button, makes money for doing so, doesn't live like anthropogenic global climate change is real, has been seriously wrong about predictions and assertions made and, in some cases, have been caught red-handed fudging the data.

I don't know of any AGCC standard-bearer that remains unsullied.

Do you?

Yonivore

04-17-2012, 09:20 AM

Sea levels are rising.

http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html

I could link more, if you'd like. Note, those aren't model figures. Those are taken from actual readings across the globe of tidal gauges and from satellite measurements.
Sorry Manny, your post was a mess and since it's not my job to decipher poorly constructed posts, nor is this a workplace, and none of what we do in here is really important - I ignored the whole post.

But, when Wild Cobra quoted you on the sea level thing, I decided to follow up on my point -- which you ignored.

Rising sea levels 'the greatest lie ever told' (http://iceagenow.com/Rising_sea_levels_the_greatest_lie_ever_told.htm)

You responded to that statement as if I had made it. I don't think you addressed the underlying premise, forwarded by former chairman of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner in the linked article.

No, instead, you posted links that I didn't read...because, I no longer trust the sources AGCC alarmists keep throwing out there as proof of their models and predictions. They've just been wrong too many times. Sorry.

So, instead of throwing hyperlinks at the problem, Manny, how about you address the points Mörner raises?

Here's a key graf:

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
Care to respond to Dr. Mörner instead of me? Arguably, he knows more about sea level changes than you or I, no?

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 10:13 AM

Care to respond to Dr. Mörner instead of me? Arguably, he knows more about sea level changes than you or I, no?

Indeed he does.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Posted on 6 December 2011 by dana1981
The Spectator has published an article written by Nils-Axel Mörner with his usual denial about sea level rise (which has been re-published by many of the usual suspects). Figure 1 shows the mean global sea level data whose accuracy Mörner denies:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
Figure 1: University of Colorado (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/)global mean sea level time series (with seasonal signal removed)

Mörner claims that the "true experts" think this data is wrong (emphasis added):

"The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an ‘inconvenient truth’: it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever since."

This is quite different from the INQUA official position on climate change, which opens by saying (emphasis added):

Climate change is real
There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and, indirectly, from increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes in many physical and biological systems. It is very likely that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is due to human-induced increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (IPCC 2007).

As George Monbiot has documented, INQUA has been trying to dissociate itself from Mörner's views.

Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that Mörner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."

Tuvalu is among the various individual locations Mörner focuses on in his attempt to distract from global sea level rise. However, it is a rather poor choice, since sea level rise around Tuvalu is faster than the global average (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tuvalu-sea-level-rise.htm)(Figure 2).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_TuvaluSLR-WestPacmap.gif
Figure 2: Map of the Pacific Island region interannual sea level trend (linear variation with time) from the reconstruction 1950-2009. Locations of the 27 tide gauges (black circles and stars) used in the study are superimposed. Stars relate to the 7 tide gauges used in the global reconstruction. Dark areas relate to non-significant trends. From Becker (2011) (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001445) .

So how does Mörner explain the global sea level rise record, in which both satellite altimeters and tide gauges show average global sea level rise on the order of 3 mm per year (Figure 1)? It's all a conspiracy, of course:

"In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year...This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong"

Obviously this conspiracy theory is utterly absurd, and is easily disproven by simply examining the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001, two years before Mörner's accusation of falsified sea level data, which shows an approximately 10 to 15 mm rise in average global sea level from 1993 to 1998 (Figure 3).

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig11-8.gif

Figure 3: Global mean sea level variations (light line) computed from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter data compared with the global averaged sea surface temperature variations (dark line) for 1993 to 1998. The seasonal components have been removed from both time-series. (IPCC TAR (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/408.htm))

In short, Mörner's conspiracy theory and accusation of falsified data is complete nonsense. It's also ironic that Mörner accuses others of falsifying data, since he has previously doctored photographs in his own presentations (i.e. see multiple photos of the Maldives 'marker tree' spliced together here (http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf) and here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/)).

However, even if we disregard the satellite altimetry data and instead examine the tide gauge data that Mörner prefers, his assertions are still clearly false. Church and White (2011) examined sea level data from both tide gauges (TGs), satellite altimeter data (Sat-Alt), and the estimated contribution to the sea level rise from various sources (Figure 4). The net estimated mean sea level rise from tide gauges and satellites is essentially the same.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ChurchWhiteMSL.png

Figure 4: The observed sea level using coastal and island tide gauges (solid black line with grey shading indicating the estimated uncertainty) and using TOPEX/Poseidon/Jason‐1&2 satellite altimeter data (dashed black line). The two estimates have been matched at the start of the altimeter record in 1993. Also shown are the various components contributing to sea level rise (Church and White 2011 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048794.shtml))

Rather than being flat since 1970, as Mörner claimed in The Spectator article, mean sea level has risen more than 80mm over that period, according to tide gauges. In fact, not only is global mean sea level data rising, but the rise is accelerating (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-sea-level-rise-accelerated-since-1880.html).

Highlighting the degree to which his arguments are divorced from reality, in testimony to the British House of Lords (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm), Mörner even presented this laughable graph (which was later reproduced by Monckton and the SPPI (http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-16-bizarro-world-sea-level.html)), simply rotating Figure 1 to produce "the evidence that sea level is not rising" (Figure 5).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Moncktonsnapshot3.png

Figure 5: Tilted global sea level data produced by Monckton and Mörner in the SPPI Monthly CO2 Report for January 2011 (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_jan_2011.pdf)

Nils-Axel Mörner's claims regarding sea level rise are the very definition of denial, involving nothing more than conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated accusations of data falsification wich are easily proven untrue. The mainstream media needs to realize that Mörner is simply not a credible source of information about sea level rise or climate science in general. One individual's unsupported conspiracy theories do not trump empirical observational data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

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

Remember Yoni, you claim "no evidence" of things like this.

None, zip, zilch, nada.

Are these scientists lying about sea levels?

Or is it you believe Moerner, over all the other scientists working on this? Why is that?

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 10:45 AM

Delving into the details... I am not impressed by Moerner's methodology.

While I don't have time to read everything, I did take the time to review one item relating to his "no rise claims".

One critique of the satellite data:

The raw data show a slight fall in sea level over the period by –0.12 (±0.06) mm/year (blue dots). Inferring a global isostatic adjustment correction, which is to be questioned, Casenave et al. (2009) presented a corrected rate of 1.9 (±0.9) mm/year (pink dots). The difference is significant. The question is whether or not this “correction” is justifiable.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_jan_2011.pdf

He raises the question, but never once explains WHY this correction is unjustifiable.

He just says it is 'quesntionable'.

When you dig into the scientific paper he questions, they explain their methodology, and that the raw data is skewed because of the differences in the way the earth is shaped:

However, a GIA
correction has to be applied to this raw ocean mass time series. In
effect, GIA causes a secular change in the mean oceanic geoid that
needs to be removed from the GRACE-based raw ocean mass time
series to obtain the real water mass change of the oceans. This linear
correction is quite large
http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/download/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2009.pdf

This to me is exactly the same stupid shit that truther's pull all the tiem with scientific shit they don't understand.

"it's questionable"

"ok, can you tell me why?"

"no, the scientists just aren't credible"

:bang

Thanks for yet another primer in support of the OP.

MannyIsGod

04-17-2012, 11:15 AM

DarrinS

04-17-2012, 11:26 AM

Yonivore

04-17-2012, 11:59 AM

This is the #1 problem with people like Yoni and Darrin. They find an article somewhere with someone who agrees with their viewpoint - in this case the article on sea level rise - and they completely assume that what that scientist says is proper and is sound. I'm still waiting on Darrin to explain to me what constitutes - in his words - good science.

I then provide scientific studies showing the opposite based upon actual data, and they are summarily dismissed out of hand because they do not conform with the chosen viewpoint.

That should tell you everything you need too know about how Yonivore and Darrin form their viewpoints.
This is the #1 problem with people like Manny and Random. They flood this site with articles they claim disprove our points and ignore the central theme of the skepticism.

First of all, none of us has the time to investigate the efficacy, accuracy, or credibility of the data or claims made by either side. You say they discredit my article, I say my article discredits yours...we've done this for over a decade now.

So, I'll say it one more time. All the PRINCIPAL proponents of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change that dominate the places we typically consume our information -- Al Gore, the UN, its IPCC, prominent political appointees of the alphabet soup of federal agencies, prominent academics -- have all been busted in either significant errors, mischaracterizations of data, or out-and-out fabrications. Almost to a one, they've refused any open debate on the topic and have insisted the "science is settled."

Models, from years ago, that predicted events that were supposed to have already come to pass --- have been wrong.

And, to add insult to injury, damn near every one of the enviro-celebrities and high-minded organizations produce individual sasquatch-sized carbon footprints while they tell me to squeeze my ass into a Prius and quit exhaling so much.

My God, have you seen the spectacles of excess they create in places like Copenhagen and South Africa when they get together to proclaim the imminent doom of our planet if we don't enact draconian measures to reverse our CO2 emissions? Individual jets. Individual limos. It's a farce. Have they never heard of "Go to Meeting" for God's sake?

They're you're problem Manny, not the skeptics. We're just taking our cues from those who get to pick which scientists are on message and which ones are heretics.

I'll start believing there is an anthropogenic global climate change problem when those telling me there is an anthropogenic global climate change problem start acting like there's an anthropogenic global climate change problem.

If your tens of thousands of scientists cannot convince those in our leadership, that deliver the message to the laymen among us, AGCC is a real problem, why should I believe it? Particularly when it is clear those people only carry the bucket because it enriches them.

It's really that simply. You're not going to get me with graphs and the odd scientific paper that you've cherry picked to prove your case. We know those can be manipulated -- by anyone. It's been done and they've been caught doing it and I don't have the expertise to know if the one you post and link here is real or fabricated or just simply wrong.

Give it up and explain to me, instead, why Al Gore -- arguably the Grand Poohbah of AGCC -- doesn't practice what he preaches. Why were the IPCC scientists "hiding the decline?"

And, another thing, what about China? How much good are we doing if we significantly retard our economy through enacting the measures being suggested if China and a few other mega-emitters do nothing?

Seriously, quit with the papers -- they prove nothing in a forum about politics occupied by a bunch of non-scientists that are witnessing the hypocrisy of the celebrities that push your side of the argument. Explain that instead.

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 12:02 PM

I'm glad RG has his go-to site for "climate denial debunking".

Lol skepticalscience.com

"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming."

As far as I can tell, the dude who runs skepticalscience doesn't see any "healthy skepticism" in any of the non-alarmist viewpoints.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

He seems to share my opinion of most self-professed skeptics. The OP and its carefully logged list of your logically flawed arguments says all I need to about that.

Remember this
If there is NO evidence, then ALL climate scientists who claim AGW are lying.

Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.

Are they all lying Darrin?

Does this seem like a dogmatic statement to you?

If you want to claim there is NO evidence, you have a HUGE burden of proof, given the number of scientists who stake their reputations on the evidence that they feel does support AGW.

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 12:03 PM

This is the #1 problem with people like Manny and Random. They flood this site with articles they claim disprove our points and ignore the central theme of the skepticism..

... and this is different than what you do how?

You claim there is no evidence at all.

Are you qualified to evaluate all the evidence?

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 12:06 PM

Give it up and explain to me, instead, why Al Gore -- arguably the Grand Poohbah of AGCC -- doesn't practice what he preaches.

This is ad hominem.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

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

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"

Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

You seem to have missed this the first couple of dozen times this has been pointed out to you. I hope this helps.

I do not feel the need to explain Al Gore's actions.

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 12:08 PM

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4915557&postcount=877

From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner

1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]

In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data

Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 12:11 PM

I'm glad RG has his go-to site for "climate denial debunking".

Lol skepticalscience.com

"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming."

As far as I can tell, the dude who runs skepticalscience doesn't see any "healthy skepticism" in any of the non-alarmist viewpoints.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Would you call simply waving off methodology that you don't like as "questionable", yet failing to explain why you think it is, and support that explaination with any reasonable argument or data to be "healthy skepticism"?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5796105&postcount=2724

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 12:12 PM

Mouse: [statement A]

RG: Here is why that statement is factually wrong or logically flawed. [scientific evidence][logical principles]

Mouse: "nuh-uh" [logically flawed statement about scientific evidence]

RG: That denial was logically flawed, your [statement A] has been debunked.

Mouse: "oh yeah, well..." [Statement B]

RG: Here is why that statement is factually wrong or logically flawed. [scientific evidence][logical principles]

Mouse: [misstatement of scientific theory] [flawed conclusion based on misstatement]

RG: That was a provable misstatement of scientific theory. [logical principles]

Mouse: "nuh-uh" [repeats misstatement]

RG: That is a misstatement of scientific theory.

Mouse: [logically flawed argument about scientific theory]

RG: That isn't right because [logical principles]

GOTO 10

MannyIsGod

04-17-2012, 12:58 PM

This is the #1 problem with people like Manny and Random. They flood this site with articles they claim disprove our points and ignore the central theme of the skepticism.

First of all, none of us has the time to investigate the efficacy, accuracy, or credibility of the data or claims made by either side. You say they discredit my article, I say my article discredits yours...we've done this for over a decade now.

I not only have time, I'm conducting research in the area. Just because you're ignorant of the subject doesn't mean everyone is. And if you don't have time to read up on it, then perhaps you shouldn't make stupid statements such as we have zero proof on the subject.

One on hand, you admit to your ignorance while still maintaining you know that AGW theory is wrong.

You made my point for me. Thanks.

So, I'll say it one more time. All the PRINCIPAL proponents of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change that dominate the places we typically consume our information -- Al Gore, the UN, its IPCC, prominent political appointees of the alphabet soup of federal agencies, prominent academics -- have all been busted in either significant errors, mischaracterizations of data, or out-and-out fabrications. Almost to a one, they've refused any open debate on the topic and have insisted the "science is settled."

Models, from years ago, that predicted events that were supposed to have already come to pass --- have been wrong.

And, to add insult to injury, damn near every one of the enviro-celebrities and high-minded organizations produce individual sasquatch-sized carbon footprints while they tell me to squeeze my ass into a Prius and quit exhaling so much.

My God, have you seen the spectacles of excess they create in places like Copenhagen and South Africa when they get together to proclaim the imminent doom of our planet if we don't enact draconian measures to reverse our CO2 emissions? Individual jets. Individual limos. It's a farce. Have they never heard of "Go to Meeting" for God's sake?

They're you're problem Manny, not the skeptics. We're just taking our cues from those who get to pick which scientists are on message and which ones are heretics.

I'll start believing there is an anthropogenic global climate change problem when those telling me there is an anthropogenic global climate change problem start acting like there's an anthropogenic global climate change problem.

If your tens of thousands of scientists cannot convince those in our leadership, that deliver the message to the laymen among us, AGCC is a real problem, why should I believe it? Particularly when it is clear those people only carry the bucket because it enriches them.

It's really that simply. You're not going to get me with graphs and the odd scientific paper that you've cherry picked to prove your case. We know those can be manipulated -- by anyone. It's been done and they've been caught doing it and I don't have the expertise to know if the one you post and link here is real or fabricated or just simply wrong.

Give it up and explain to me, instead, why Al Gore -- arguably the Grand Poohbah of AGCC -- doesn't practice what he preaches. Why were the IPCC scientists "hiding the decline?"

And, another thing, what about China? How much good are we doing if we significantly retard our economy through enacting the measures being suggested if China and a few other mega-emitters do nothing?

Seriously, quit with the papers -- they prove nothing in a forum about politics occupied by a bunch of non-scientists that are witnessing the hypocrisy of the celebrities that push your side of the argument. Explain that instead.

Actually, there are a good deal of scientists in here. The fact that your'e too stupid to understand the papers isn't my problem. The fact that you've made the statements in this post has made my day.

You're not my target audience, Yoni. :toast

MannyIsGod

04-17-2012, 01:03 PM

They're you're problem Manny, not the skeptics. We're just taking our cues from those who get to pick which scientists are on message and which ones are heretics.

:lol :lol :lol :lol

Yonivore

04-17-2012, 01:19 PM

You're not my target audience, Yoni. :toast
Perhaps if y'all pushed Al Gore, the UN, the IPCC, that Hansen dude, and the rest of the AGCC pimps off the stage and started putting us some real knowledge, you'd have more credibility.

They're not helping your cause. At all.

I don't believe AGCC is a problem not because I don't understand the science but, because people who claim to understand the science -- and agree with you -- don't act like AGCC is a problem. And, I believe there exists reasonable scientists that disagree with you on AGCC.

I think I posted this a while back, I don't remember. In any case, it's the type of stuff you scientists need to address if you have any hope of persuading people like me of your position.

The compelling case against Ed Davey (http://melaniephillips.com/the-compelling-case-against-ed-davey)

As the Global Warming Policy Foundation reports a new book, Die Kalte Sonne, written by Prof Dr Fritz Vahrenholt and geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning, has caused a sensation even in advance of its official publication yesterday. For Prof. Vahrenholt, a renewable energy expert, was one of the fathers of the modern German green movement and believed everything preached by the IPCC. But according to Focus magazine, he is now a far sadder and wiser man:

‘Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy.”

‘In his book he explains how he dug into the IPCC climate report and was horrified by what he had found. Then add the 10 years of stagnant temperatures, failed predictions, Climategate e-mails, and discussions he had with dozens of other skeptical elite scientists. That was more than enough. FOCUS quotes: “I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.”’

Now he discovers this inconvenient truth? What took him so long?
Given what just this one scientists says, and he's not the only skeptic scientist, but -- he used to believe as you do -- there's no reason for me to give any consideration to any scientific paper you link here. You're right, I simply don't have the requisite scientific background to judge its accuracy or credibility. Nor do I have the time to compare the contents of what you post against the contents of the scientific articles posted in opposition.

Why don't you start a SpursTalk science forum. I promise I won't participate. This is a political forum and I'm talking about the political issues related to AGCC.

MannyIsGod

04-17-2012, 01:32 PM

Why start a new forum when this one works just fine? I enjoy your participation. It helps hammer home the intent of RG's thread better than anything we could every say would.

boutons_deux

04-17-2012, 01:35 PM

"This is a political forum"

right-wingers have politicized science.

DarrinS

04-17-2012, 01:39 PM

Remember this
If there is NO evidence, then ALL climate scientists who claim AGW are lying.

Are they all lying Darrin?

I don't think I've ever stated there is NO evidence.

My main issues are (1) how much is caused by CO2 vs. natural (2) what is the climate sensitivity, and (3) what are the nature of feedbacks?

I don't think any of those are known with great certainty.

MannyIsGod

04-17-2012, 01:42 PM

1 is known pretty well but I will grant you 3 is the biggest uncertainty regarding future climate simulations and thus makes 2 into a wider range than it would otherwise be.

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 01:43 PM

I don't believe AGCC is a problem not because I don't understand the science but, because people who claim to understand the science -- and agree with you -- don't act like AGCC is a problem.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5796276&postcount=2730

Rejected and clearly shown as a logically flawed argument.

This has been pointed out to you on several occasions.

Do you not understand how this is illogical?

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 01:49 PM

Again, what is the optimal climate and temperature for Earth?

There is none.

The question is an implied strawman, because no scientists talking about the dangers of AGW claim there is.

Do you understand what a strawman logical fallacy is?

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 01:53 PM

[skepticalscience.com] seems to share my opinion of most self-professed skeptics. The OP and its carefully logged list of your logically flawed arguments says all I need to about that.

Remember this
If there is NO evidence, then ALL climate scientists who claim AGW are lying.

Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.

Are they all lying Darrin?

Does this seem like a dogmatic statement to you?

If you want to claim there is NO evidence, you have a HUGE burden of proof, given the number of scientists who stake their reputations on the evidence that they feel does support AGW.
I don't think I've ever stated there is NO evidence.

My main issues are (1) how much is caused by CO2 vs. natural (2) what is the climate sensitivity, and (3) what are the nature of feedbacks?

I don't think any of those are known with great certainty.

That isn't what I asked.

I asked you if Yonivore's statement seemed dogmatic to you.

The follow up question is based, logically on the assumption that Yoni's statement is correct and the fact there are a lot of scientists willing to say there is evidence.

Are you going to answer either question? Both are fair commentary on a pretty dramatic claim.

RandomGuy

04-17-2012, 02:01 PM

Cognitive dissonance results from holding conflicting ideas simultaneously.

The thought "I believe things based on sound logic" is incompatible with being shown how your reasoning is illogical.

Smoking is a common example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted that cigarettes can cause lung cancer, and smokers must reconcile their habit with the desire to live long and healthy lives. In terms of the theory, the desire to live a long life is dissonant with the activity of doing something that will most likely shorten one's life. The tension produced by these contradictory ideas can be reduced by any number of changes in cognitions and behaviors, including quitting smoking, denying the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer, or justifying one's smoking.[8] For example, smokers could rationalize their behavior by concluding that only a few smokers become ill, that it only happens to very heavy smokers, or that if smoking does not kill them, something else will.[9]

Yeah, I went there.

Yonivore

04-17-2012, 02:06 PM

Cognitive dissonance results from holding conflicting ideas simultaneously.
So, if I've got this right, you're suggesting Al Gore, et. al. are suffering from congnitive dissonance to the extent they preach at the alter of AGCC while ignoring their own alarmist rhetoric in their personal behaviors?

Can you please provide the name of a globally recognized AGCC proponent that doesn't suffer from this "cognitive dissonance."

Yonivore

04-17-2012, 02:09 PM

That isn't what I asked.

I asked you if Yonivore's statement seemed dogmatic to you.
I would say my statement is dogmatic.

But it's a result of a failure of the AGCC community to make a convincing argument on the global political stage where public policy is made.

Your AGCC evangelists are failing to convince the world that AGCC is a problem.

That's your problem.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-17-2012, 02:15 PM

Perhaps if y'all pushed Al Gore, the UN, the IPCC, that Hansen dude, and the rest of the AGCC pimps off the stage and started putting us some real knowledge, you'd have more credibility.

They're not helping your cause. At all.

I don't believe AGCC is a problem not because I don't understand the science but, because people who claim to understand the science -- and agree with you -- don't act like AGCC is a problem. And, I believe there exists reasonable scientists that disagree with you on AGCC.

I think I posted this a while back, I don't remember. In any case, it's the type of stuff you scientists need to address if you have any hope of persuading people like me of your position.

The compelling case against Ed Davey (http://melaniephillips.com/the-compelling-case-against-ed-davey)

Given what just this one scientists says, and he's not the only skeptic scientist, but -- he used to believe as you do -- there's no reason for me to give any consideration to any scientific paper you link here. You're right, I simply don't have the requisite scientific background to judge its accuracy or credibility. Nor do I have the time to compare the contents of what you post against the contents of the scientific articles posted in opposition.

Why don't you start a SpursTalk science forum. I promise I won't participate. This is a political forum and I'm talking about the political issues related to AGCC.

You really do not understand what ad hominem is do you?

You are being like WC now, just blithely repeating the same tired shit. You cannot argue the point. You admit you don't really udnerstand the science so you attack the source.

You notice when RG rebutted Horner, he went to the methodology and the data? All you do is character assassination. Its pretty lame but considering you like partisan politics it doesn't surprise me.

Yonivore

04-17-2012, 02:30 PM

You really do not understand what ad hominem is do you?

You are being like WC now, just blithely repeating the same tired shit. You cannot argue the point. You admit you don't really udnerstand the science so you attack the source.

You notice when RG rebutted Horner, he went to the methodology and the data? All you do is character assassination. Its pretty lame but considering you like partisan politics it doesn't surprise me.
I'll admit to getting mired in the dueling scientists nonsense without a full understanding of the science but, and that's my fault for falling for the trap.

But, you should admit the major players in the global drive to convince me AGCC is real and is bringing catastrophic change to a neighborhood near me have, over the years, been wrong, lied, mischaracterized, and have done other things that have tended to drive nails in the coffins of their credibility on the issue.

As I suggested, perhaps AGCC scientists -- all tens of thousands of them -- should pick a leader and have him, or her, be the standard bearer of their scientific message. Because the clowns now preaching from the AGCC alter are buffoons.

And, that goes back to my original premise, from which I keep getting distracted, that the PRINCIPAL players who have taken up the charge that AGCC is going to be a catastrophe for mankind have yet to modify their own behaviors in a way that would support that charge.

I can see how cigarette smoke kills people.

So far, I don't see how AGCC is affecting anything negatively.

We are told polar bears are declining because of AGCC. They're not.

We are told penguins are declining because of AGCC. They're not.

We are told the snows of Kilimanjaro will forever disappear from that majestic peak because of AGCC. Then we learn the phenomenon is local and not due to global anything.

It goes on and on and on.

Forget cognitive dissonance, name somebody in the public sphere, asking me to accept draconian limits on our productivity that actually lives their life like any of this is a big problem.

Because, to many of us, it just appears to be a scam to enrich the likes of Al Gore, and others either through the farcical carbon credit crap or the folly of dumping billions upon billions into green energy nonsense.