EPA supresses study skeptical of global warming. (page 8)

besty

@RGB

Then I will put your Oregon Petition Project in the trash where it belongs :-)

sorry RGB, I almost forgot to bin this for you, but seeing as you conceded you didn't want to answer my simple question about what YOU think the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 is, the least I can do is keep my side of the bargain.

OK I'm now officially embarrassed for you - www.petitionproject.org if you want to see for yourself the offending website.

To read about the flaws in the methodology of the Oregon Project http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12 if you are interested but to summarize:

The base concept of the Project is an Appeal to Authority fallacy - loads of smart people agree with me therefore you should to.

Compounding this problem is an Appeal to False Authority - how many of the scientists who signed the petition have doctoral qualifications in earth or climate sciences and have made their qualification the basis for their career? A Maths PhD or a Climate Sciences PhD from many decades ago with no ongoing work in a related field are both PhD's, but are to varying degrees irrelevant to building a consensus on climate change. It's like asking Madonna her opinion on the economy of Ghana - she is famous and people may listen, but ultimately she is not the best source of informed opinion.

The methodology of the petiton is fatally flawed. Petition packets were sent to scientists which included a bogus 'research paper' to help these so-called experts make their minds up. Why the need for junk science to be included with the petition? That doesn't sound scientific or even impartial. What kind of survey gives you a skewed view of the science before asking you to sign your name to a position statement that included over 20 separate propositions. Did the signatories agree with all 20 propositions or just some of them? We don't know. How many packets did the organisers send out to receive 31,000 back? How was fact-checking carried out to make sure there were no duplicates, no bogus entries etc etc? We don't know.

And I could go on. This Project is not a fair representation of current scientific thinking on climate change and the organisers have no business representing it as such.

caliber

besty

I apologize - I'm now belabouring the point:

The slight down-tick in the most recent figures shown at top right of the graph is what climate change deniers are using as 'proof' the planet is not warming. Sad really.

The story here describes the most recent agreements made to curb emissions.

sweet pea

deniers have bailed - until the next time.

JWoods

RGB

BTS

EDIT - i apologize - this was posted by Besty using Sweepy's laptop.

hemp lover

I've learned a lot from reading your posts, Besty, though a lot of it is over my head (but I'm trying to keep up ;-). I appreciate your efforts to educate.

besty

thanks HL - any time a denier pastes their misinformation on this forum I will try to rebutt it.

as usual they have slunk away quietly leaving their defecation for someone else to clear up :-)

The-Borg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5804831/Climate-change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html

besty

With regards to the above link there are plenty of mainstream media outlets that give voice to deniers.

In this case the controversial historian/journalist 72 year old Christopher Booker has recently been embroiled in several science based disasters namely:

1 - asbestos is the same as talc and is not dangerous to humans

2 - breathing other people's second hand smoke is not harmful

3 - BSE is not the cause of CJD in humans (mad cow disease)

and of course he is a supporter of Intelligent Design - go figure.

So no surprise really that he would also go to claim that 'global warming was disproved in 2008'. I think it's important to set his beliefs on climate change in context with his other beliefs.

I will take a look at his claims in more detail, but as I've said before I trust scientists more than journalists on this issue - thats why I try to avoid quoting media sources, particularly those with demonstrably whacked out views on other subjects.

SixofNine

You suffer fools with far more patience and graciousness than I've ever been able to muster, besty.

I think you'll enjoy the following (more at link): http://www.birminghamfreepress.com/v8/0709.html

How to Argue With a
Global Warming Denier

1. Don’t expect them to change their mind.
If someone really wanted to know if global warming is a reality they would just go to a legitimate source like the National Academy of Sciences’ website and look it up.

2. Limit your arguments to written debates.
Don’t get involved in a formal debate with a global warming denier, don’t get into it around the dinner table and, whatever you do, don’t call in the local AM radio show. Understand that your opponent will have no evidence on his side so he will have to lie. If it’s a lie you haven’t prepared for you’ll get burned. In a written debate you can check out any bogus claims.

3. Familiarize yourself with the standard denier talking points.
One great thing about the global warming denial movement is they keep rehashing the same old arguments. The 31,000 scientists that signed a petition, global cooling in the ‘70s. Memorize the rebuttals to these and you’ll be off to a good start.

4. Don’t get trapped into defending Al Gore.
A lot of deniers hate Al Gore with a passion and will accuse you of worshiping him. Al Gore won the friggin’ Nobel Peace Prize, he doesn’t need defending.

5. Realize the denier’s dubious motives.
Obviously the denier isn’t interested in real science. Most of them are right-wing religious fanatics who associate environmentalism with the political left and thus Satan. Some deniers are worried about the economic costs of some of the proposed solutions and are willing to entertain anything, no matter how unfounded, that safeguards their wallet.

6. Keep the subject about science.
The question is whether or not humans are contributing significantly to global warming. Not the size of Al Gore's house or China not having to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.

7. Be warned your opponent will try to redefine science.
Many global warming deniers are also creationists and are familiar with how to argue for something that’s not true. Because science is open ended and always being modified, the denier will try to equate scientific consensus with any crackpot hypothesis he can imagine. Remember, just because something might possibly be wrong it’s not equivalent to something that is almost certainly wrong.

8, The denier will challenge your sources.
Because he has no credible sources and all you have to do is quote NASA, the EPA, the IPCC or pretty much any university program or scientific body your opponent will have to find reasons to discredit anyone in a position to know what they are talking about. Be prepared to explain why a university press is more legitimate than a right-wing blog. Then be prepared to be accused of being closed-minded.

9. Be sure to check his sources.
Remember, global warming deniers have no facts on their side. They also assume other people don’t check footnotes and references and will easily be exposed as either uninformed or dishonest with the least bit of fact checking.

10. Have fun!
Arguing with global warming deniers is easy and satisfying. It makes you feel smart even if you’re a bit below average. Feel free to jump in with both feet because all the science is on your side and they are trying to defend some sinister conspiracy involving the entire science community, the media and all the world’s governments.

beksbks

I see Hemp and Six got to it first, but I was just going to adore you Besty. I get far too emotional and impatient to respond to all the nonesense posted on this and other issues of importance. Please keep doing what you do.

EPA supresses study skeptical of global warming.

Share this