How is the fact that the editors of an American news periodical chose Hitler as their Man of the Year 70 years ago an appropriate analogy to the consensus of the scientific community regarding GW?
That's just stupid!
Global Warming Hysteria
by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Frank75
Frozen:
Thanks for entering the fray with your calm approach to the subject. I have been swatting a fly that has been buzzing around this thread and as I have been balancing his need for attention and my desire to comment "on point" about the hysteria, all or nothing thinking and intellectual intimidation from the AGW camp, scientists, pseudo scientists and bloggers alike.
What one has to understand though is that the human caused climate change fold are not interested in what happened to your glaciers or why elephant seals had a colony in the now frozen Ross Sea. As Abaddon wrote in one of his replies in this thread, "this time."
Precisely! It is all of this special pleading of circumstances that is fueling the debate. It is the old "Sabres win because I wear my lucky Sabres hat" "Well they won games before you got interested in the Sabres and started going to the games"...."Yeah but that doesn't count because it was different!" Sorry Abaddon for not referencing the true author, can I just put author unknown?
Interesting about your glacier maps, Hillary. I tend to look at the current warming period as being part of the natural cycle also. I spent a few years working in Antarctica back in the 90's and am and will always be interested in Antarctic research. I recently read in the Antarctic Sun an article about mummified elephant seals found on the beaches of the Ross Sea. This was a significant find as the presence of elephant seals indicates that the area was much warmer than it is today. The kicker is that the mummified remains are estimated to be 1,000 - 2,500 years old. That isn't all that long ago. (If anyone is interested you can download the pdf at http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/2006-2007/documents/02-04-2007_antarcticsun.pdf and scroll down to page 7. The article is called "Extinct Hunt - Vanished elephant seal colonies indicate Ross Ice Shelf survived warmer climate in recent past.") I've noticed a trend among the man caused warming advocates. Anytime someone presents research that doesn't agree with the man caused global warming proof they tend to dismiss the research by attacking the researcher.
That scientist is from the wrong discipline, this researcher is funded by big business, that project was funded by big oil or coal or the auto industry or whatever boogeyman that springs to their mind. It is classic a "shoot the messenger" approach.
These Ad Hominem attacks are truly what is losing the debate with the public's critical thinkers. David Suzuki storming out of an interview is just but an example of the tantrums being taken by the AGW proponents. Naturally if their side is right, there is urgency to avoid impending doom, but yelling "they're idiots", "that's baloney" or "shilling for big business" ( http://www.canadianvalues.ca/audio/Oakley_Suzuki_clip_3.wav ), is just showing who is losing the debate! The worst is the "Big Oil" lie. Suzuki uses it all the time yet his annual report for Suzuki Foundation shows big business and big Oil is in his camp of donors as well as ATCO the Alberta Natural Gas giant.
Ken Lay recognized from the beginning of the global warming debate that a huge profit potential for Enron existed if it were "proved" that the warming was caused by humans in general and carbon dioxide in particular. Lay had access to the Clinton White House and was an advisor to the President. Ken Lay helped the Clinton administration develop positions for the Kyoto negotiations. Some of the positions that Lay pushed were:
- The official position of the US government is global warming is human caused.
- Carbon dioxide is a pollutant and should be regulated.
- Developing nations would be exempt from carbon emission caps.How would Enron reap huge benefits if global warming became a human caused issue? Enron was in the natural gas business. If carbon dioxide was declared a pollutant and regulated coal fired electrical utilities would switch to natural gas. The result would be an increase in demand for natural gas and the price would rise. Enron was also in the pipeline industry and the more natural gas transported via Enron's pipeline system meant more profit. Enron was a major player in alternative energy being the owner of the largest wind farm in the world. Enron also was a co-owner of the largest solar energy array with British Petroleum. In addition Enron owned several natural gas fired electical utilities. If carbon dioxide were declared a pollutant and regulated, Enron was in a position to to claim scores of carbon credits that would have to be purchased by coal fired "polluters" when they exeded their allocated carbon caps. Enron's excess carbon credits would be a cash cow. Enron's desire to see emerging nations exempted from the warming debate stemmed from the fact that Enron had invested billions in places like India and former Soviet Bloc nations building coal fired power plants and carbon caps would be detrimental for those investments.
The same agenda can be seen in the Canadian Kyoto arena. I think that we can all admit that bias and agendas exist on every level of human society, bit for the most part many who get into legislative bodies like parliaments or the US Congress, really do want to get at the truth of issues that affect their constituents. While legislators try to cut through all of the rhetoric and propaganda it is hard for them not to see the connecting dots in the arguments of the Suzuki's out there.
Unknown to me while I was putting together my last post, Frozen One is drawing the same conclusions from the evidence. Suzuki and Sierra Club/Green Peace, WWF et al are themselves deriving funds from the very same companies that they accuse the skeptics. Therefore they cancel themselves out.
Frozen One does not need to provide Peer Reviewed research papers to back up what he says because it is a given. OPG (who also sponsors Suzuki) is one of the largest Power Generating concerns in Canada. They are one of the worst polluters and yet at the same time run fields of Wind Power, Natural Gas Power, and Major Nuclear Power Generators. No matter what happens with the debate, they win. Why? The same reasons that Frozen One points out!
Encana, ATCO and others will profit from the supply, distribution and infrastructure of increased use of Natural Gas. OPG who is poised to move whatever the decision is by the government stands to profit as well.
You see people, when the government gets involved, we the tax payers pay the bill. Either through direct funding to these corporate giants, or tax and rebuilding incentives that do not exist at present.
Another aspect that the average person is not aware of is how the money flows. Insiders at the top of our establishment, also profit by knowing what is happening in the future. If it is known by the natural gas sector as an example, that the Government is making a push towards converting oil and coal generating plants into that fuel source, then the major players will be buying up the appropriate companies who stand to profit from that policy. Exxon, Encana, Suncor, ATCO etc will use their cash reserves, or issue shares to raise money to buy into companies who stand to benefit, even start their own divisions to harvest profit from the new growth industries. It is a simple process to the war on terror catch phrase...."Follow the Money"!
Companies such as Exxon will profit directly or indirectly from Global Warming Hysteria.
The funny part is that many people from the green side accused the Bush administration of being an Enron puppet while conveniently forgetting that Enron was a crucial player promoting the global warming movement.
I am not directly aware of the above as I find Canadian business scandals depressing enough, let alone looking closely at what is going on south of the border. I wouldn't be surprised as what you say is typically what happens in our politics here. One government F&*%'s up the economy and the next government gets the blame for the ensuing bad times inherited.
My own conclusion is that the global warming movement has little to do with drowning polar bears and a lot to do with expanding power for politicians and skyrocketing profits for firms that are positioned to exploit the guilt and fear associated with the percieved destruction of Mother Earth. It is truely shameless.
Polar bear advocates http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/ (if there is such a thing) make a connection with Global Warming and Polar bear decline in the West Hudson Bay population of 22%. They only mention that group because it is actually the only group experiencing decline according to environment Canada (60-70% of world population is in Canada) Our friends at Wikipedia pick up on the 22% figure and imply that the 20% figure is across the entire population of Polar Bears. Truly investigative, accurate and of course misleading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
What truly makes Polar Bear populations susceptible to environmental change, hunting or their food supply (related to environmental change) is their "low reproductive rates". So many variables weigh in on that impact that it is just childish and absurd to point to one factor. The USFWS currently reports that Aboriginals have been allocating their subsistence kills of Polar Bears to Sport Game Hunters. Environmentalists refuse to acknowledge these "Forcings" on the Bear populations citing treaties that ban sport hunting since the 80's.
Naturally Global warming will have an affect on the arctic wildlife as they go through a period of adaptation. I do not deny Global Warming as it is a fact that we are in a period of interglacial warming. Websites like this naturally evoke emotions that we are the cause (although not dogmatic, they do lean to AGW argumentation citing IPCC and other unnamed or cited papers) and can do something about this "if each of us do our part to reduce CO2", but unfortunately the arctic wildlife populations such as what Frozen One pointed out have changed and adapted in the recent past, they will be adapting to the present climate changes and on into the future.
Are Polar Bear populations declining? Well the one population found on the above website is one of 11 groups I posted about earlier that is declining. 3 are stable and 7 are growing. The Alaska/Kamchatka peninsular group is growing http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/s034.htm ,
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868&k=5287
The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s. As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400. The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.
As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."
The emotional pleas over the Polar Bear ignore the declining global populations of bears in general. The Black, Grizzly, Kodiak, Panda etc, have declined because of human encroachment into their territories. Why don't we depopulate Western Canada, the US and even formerly Panda populated areas of China so that those bear populations can recover?
Like you said the whole debacle is "shameless"
Frank75
-
Frank75
How is the fact that the editors of an American news periodical chose Hitler as their Man of the Year 70 years ago an appropriate analogy to the consensus of the scientific community regarding GW?
That's just stupid!
"Well dumbdumb" (just remembering the Flintstones character Kazoo in your picture)
HITLER 1938? That was the consensus at the time, why is it so hard to understand the connection? With your "Kazoo" powers you should be able to figure it out.
You are misrepresenting what I posted and the thread topic. There is some consensus about GW (Global Warming) you clever dick. What is lacking is consensus about Human causality, or AGW (Anthropogenic GW)
It seems I am not the only one drawing analogy from Hitler! http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/OxfordUnionDebate.htm
In recent days, we have been warned that global warming is a greater threat than the rise of Adolf Hitler in the 1940s. According to Jim Hunter, a Scottish environmental campaigner, "Global warming is a more insidious and longer-term danger than Hitlerism, but it's one that could be far more deadly. Ultimately, it might extinguish humanity itself."
This preposterous hyperbole echoes the alarmist statement by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr Pachauri told an international climate conference in January that unless there are "very deep" cuts in CO2 emissions, humanity may not "survive". Such scare tactics are the typical traits of alarmism.
To start with, alarmism has a propensity for invoking worst-case scenarios. Alarmism necessitates the assertion of certitude and conviction. It abhors doubt or even-handed evaluation of evidence because any balanced assessment might delay political action which is regarded imperative.
Science, on the other hand, requires a sober consideration of all relevant evidence. Instead of emphasising certainty and fervour, it readily admits knowledge gaps and ambiguity. It weighs up all data and arguments unconditionally - pro and con - and evaluates the evidence in an impartial, detached and fair-minded manner - irrespective of political considerations or implications.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying this is how science generally works today - but this is how science should be working. - B.J. Peiser
However saying that there is a consensus or an "overwhelming consensus" of AGW by scientists now is not only a misrepresentation of the facts if not an outright lie, but more or less an apeal to democratic analysis.
Such dismissiveness is not supported by fact but by careful manipulation such as Suzuki claiming on the radio interview I mentioned earlier that over 2500 scientists ( http://www.canadianvalues.ca/audio/Oakley_Suzuki_clip_2.wav ) endorsed the IPCC report, when in fact there are only 51 signatories to the document. Even though there are likely more than 51 scientists who endorse it, if only partially (not agreeing with everything), the above shows the challenge posed to the general public when Scientists change hats from one being analytical to the next being general or even exaggerating their findings.
Add to the above misdirection is the group speak switcheroo from "Global Warming" to the expression "Climate Change". To say there is a consensus on Climate change is true only as it broadly covers GW, AGW and even those who would drag in unrelated issues such as Katrina or Tsunami activity even Global Cooling. http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/StateFear-Deming.htm That is not a consensus.
The "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" paper by Oreskes heralded to confirm the so called consensus is critiqued by several scientists for many reasons first the terminology (the title being Consensus) used and selection criteria is the flawed term "climate change"
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
Paper unpublished produced by Benny J Peiser Faculty of Science Henry Cotton Campus Liverpool John Moores University 15-21 Webster Street Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM
METHOD
I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):
RESULTS
The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".
67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.
87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.
34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".
44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
The above paper by Peiser deals with Oreskes chosen theme "Consensus". Peiser himself in a recent interview submits that he believes an "overwhelming majority" endorse specifically AGW, but that this group is far from being on the same page or unanimous with a further minority disputing the science on an academic level. His closing words:
Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf
See also http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm for his ongoing position regarding Oreskes paper and conclusions.
Again Peiser is entitled to his opinion in the later document about majority this or minority that, but nowhere does he present it as anything more than his own view, all the while standing behind his paper critiquing the idea of Scientific Consensus in general, of Oreskes and the GW Hysteria
Yet, a sober and even-handed risk analysis of the most probable developments over the next one or two generations suggests that most societies will be able to adapt to moderate climate change. In short, there is absolutely no cause for alarm. B.J. Peiser
Also http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Peiser/Peiser_Exeter2005_report.html Commenting on the "Dangerous Climate Change" conference : I return from this meeting with a determination not to give in to this doom-laden mood but to maintain my confident view of humankind that has been capable of coping with whatever nature has thrown at us for millions of year.
We often hear the claim that the science of climate change is settled, that there is general agreement that humans have been causing most of the recent warming trend, and that it will all end in global disaster unless we “do something about it”. Let me state at the outset that I am not sure any of these blanket claims are accurate.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Cardiff-conference.htm At the same time, I ponder the role of consensus as well as the role of the dissident researcher in the workings and politics of modern science.I and others here agree!
Frank75
Here is a listing of some of the scientists who disagree with the idea of consensus, their qualifications and some expressions. http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html
-
LittleToe
Well my 2p would be short and simple:
I don't know to what degree the propaganda about GW is accurate; but I do know that the rate at which we are using the non-renewable resources of this planet is squandering our childrens' future...
I guess the question is whether or not this generation will reap what it sows!
-
Abaddon
Hey Ross,
Quickie question; the wind farms they're putting up near you, what do you think? I was menaing to ask, it comes over in the media as if the locals feel shafted.
-
LittleToe
Gyles:
Its been done stealthily. They've erected two smaller turbines for demonstration, but the farms will incorporate some twice the size (hmmm - psychological games). They don't even turn them on unless the national grid needs more power. We get the eyesore but few of the benefits, as we aren't even looking like getting subsidised electricity. Hence the general feeling of being shafted.That having been said I'm glad that we get to play our part in generating something from our abundant wind. I only wish they'd also install undersea tidal generators, but the technology still needs some improvement. The counter-environmental arguments of risk to birdlife etc. seem pretty far fetched. The turbines wont make much more noise than the force 9 gales that we endure every Winter, either.
So my only grumble would be on the economic vs natural beauty (including risk to tourism) grounds. Give the meagre population of 26,000 free power and it would almost become affordable to live here, while supporting a reasonable chunk of the country's energy requirements!
-
Qcmbr
Anyone see the excellent TV program listed below:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/trailer.html
It was a comprehensive destruction of the link between man and global warming. Frank - you are a voice of reason on this topic. -
Abaddon
Frank
I am sorry you object to defending the arguments you advanced in favour of AGW cynicism.
Say someone says "I don't believe in x" and gives ten reasons why. Say those ten reasons for disbelief are shown to be erroneous. Logically it should make the person basing their disbelief reconsider their stance, if those reasons were the REAL reasons they didn't believe in something.
If they plough on ignoring the fact the reasons they use to justify their opinion are in error, one does have to wonder if those facts WERE the reasons behind them disbelieving something, or whether they were just window dressing justifying a preconception.
Imagine someone giving ten reasons why evolution is wrong, and having someone show them that those ten reasons are false or fallacious, and the person going on believing evolution is false despite the reasons they had for believing evolution being false being shown to be untrue. Hell, you don't have to imagine it, there's plenty of threads you can see the pervasive psychology.
I am glad, however, that you finally are going to look at the fact, that unless you rebut my points, some of the reasons you have for doubting AGW are unfounded.
Regarding Baliunas; her views on CFC's discredit her, not me. If I ignored her arguments against AGW and just looked at the past, your objections would be valid. I don't; I look at her arguments against AGW, and then point out that her contrarianism is nothing new as she has also waded against the tide of opinion (and evidence) in the past. This and her funding give one pause, or at least give me and other pause.
If an expert witness in a court case can be shown to be advancing an unsupported opinion contrary to most, and that they have done this in the past, obviously a jury will consider them more suspect than one who can support their opinion and have a good track record, whom other experts agree with.
Why do you apply a different standard to scientists such as Baliunas than the one I presume you would adopt as a jury member?
Then what about you? Ellsaesser disputes CFC's as well but believes in Global Warming, so then you must accept his view of CFC. So shut up!
Er... this simply doesn't make sense. If I hadn't explained clearly before why Baliunas's track record is an important factor WHEN consider with her arguments against AGW, I hope the above does.
I simply believe until I can be convinced otherwise that the Global Warming of the past century, even centuries can be explained by other means than those theorised by Anthropogenic Global Warming as it relates to CO2.
Believe what you like. As you've yet to show any major faults with the latest research supporting AGW, that would seem to be exactly what you are doing; believing what you like.
Hitler was Time's Man of The Year in 1938!
Your comparison (Nobel Prize:Time Magazine) is invalid. Time do not award people prizes for breakthroughs in science that are documented and accepted as factual due to the weight of the evidence supporting them. They give prizes based on opinions which may not even be resolvable as factual one way or another as they are simply opinions, like 'which band is best'.
The article about the Noble Prize notably fails to mention any Noble Prize for the sciences that was awarded to a theory later found to be without merit. This is the point I was making; the Noble Prize is awarded over cautiously:- as your own link illustrates.
You can carry on believing the Baliunas will maybe be vindicated. Maybe actually reading up on ozone depletion will make you see why I doubt it strongly and see her behaviour as one of industry-apologism spread over decades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion. She was opposing something which is almost universally accepted as scientific fact.
That is why you need to stay focused on the topic. Which in my view is related to the title which deals with not Global Warming so much as the Hysteria surrounding it.
Thus discussion of the practicality of actions is a bit beyond the topic, don't you think? As is discussion of polar bears; AGW does not stand or fall on polar bear population, it is based on totally different evidence. Those ten points you're finally defending are a good example of anti-global warming hysteria. I have constantly asked to talk about the science.
I do not know if my facts are peer reviewed
Oh for god's sake. Stop the churlishness already.
Although brothers in arms such as Abaddon scoff at the idea of them being in bed with big oil,
Please don't misrepresent things again; pretty much every scientist you've mentioned that I have checked up on has a dodgy track-record. You find one who I wouldn't even call a climate scientist and act as if you've proved something. By all means provide a role call of qualified AGW proponents with a track record of bad science and questionable neutrality.
And consensus?
The very person who you quote (who reanalyses the same data set as the oft-cited Oreskes) concludes "Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority." Thank you for proving my point regarding consensus.
Qcmbr
You would call someone 'the voice of reason' if they failed to defend ten points they provided to show how false claims of AGW are after those claims are shown to be false or fallacious.
-
Qcmbr
Abbadon I'd call someone the voice of reason when they talk sense AND don't resort to being an arse while doing it.
-
Abaddon
Yup, I can be an arse. If only everyone were as unbothered about admitting faults in their actions or reasoning, eh?
However, last time I checked being an arse didn't effect the validity of one's opinion one iota though.
I am curious how you feel someone can be the voice of reason if they ignore the points they raised to support their opinion are allegedly false or fallacious, and carry on with their opinion unaltered or without defending those points.
This isn't a go at Frank, this is me being genuinely curious about the thinking process you use to arrive at that conclusion.
I mean, did I miss him rebutting my refutation of 'his' ten points with elegent argumentation or incisive use of well documented data? No, I think not.
Maybe YOU can see the flaws in my rebuttal of those points and will now enlighten me. Or is it more along the lines that you LIKE his position and therefore will verbally support it without regard to the worth of the opinion?
I am sure you wouldn't put your faith in an argument that under analysis was show to be false or fallatious, so therefore if you're supporting it must be able to show me where that rebuttal of mine was wrong.
Thanks in advance for clearing up any confusion.