Abaddon

Joined

• started 167 topics
• posted 5,219 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Abaddon

• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/25/22326/7454

  Nice bit about the Enron and AGW argument...

  ... like I say, talk about the science...
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  hillary

  I don't think your maps contain any data that refutes AGW, or even data that is unknown by the AGW lobby.

  Thus the question hangs on v.4 of the UN report, which is where the debate is at, and newer papers which can call into quesion that report's conclusions of a 90% liklihood. Or mitigate it, like the report disscussed in this thread which indicates AGW might only be 65% of the total currnt trend. One thing seems logically certain; you cannot dump billions of tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere in a few decades, increasing it by a third (never mind the far larger increase in methane) without it having some effect. Quntification is anothr issue.

  If AGW is as unsupported by the facts as some claim, then that's an easy task. Unless there IS a as yet poorly understood mechanism (like GCR and clouds), looking at primary research, looking for other documeted forcings that could explain current trends, I honestly think there is strong evidence current trends are well over half due to AGW.

  I think sometimes the problem is that AGW cynics (as in presuppositionally cynical to the topic often due to political leanings) vision of the results of AGW in their lifetime as as inaccurate and distorted as many of their claims (like the ten that Frank quoted and dropped when he realised he'd been fooled by his source).

  AGW in our lifetimes (barring major leaps in life extension) is fairly mild; thus the 'what's bad with warmer weather and the beach geting closer' jokes. Some climate shifts, small sea-level rises, developed world suffers less than develping word due to geographical accident and the financial clout of developed countries to build solutions (like the Dutch dykes keeping the North Sea out), but not end of the world as we know it by any streach of the imagination.

  Those relying on the more sensational lobbyistic (of either pro or anti bent) sources of data seem to think AGW in our lifetimes is far far worse, so are protesting that something no-one credible says will happen in our lifetimes won't happen in our lifetimes. There is a certain amount of tilting at windmills going on.

  The whole point about AGW is that if we are the cause, and we don't act now, then it can get very bad indeed. East Antarctic Ice Sheet (due to geographical accident the only ice sheet that is gaining mass from increased snowfall due to a rise in tempertures) holds he equivalent of 150ft rise in sea levels. If that started melting...

  Of course, the fact that shutting down the UK entirely (for example) would reduce carbon emissions by an amount that the growth of India and China would make up in two years highlights the importance of getting the developed world on board. Without that there's no point.

  frozen one

  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.") 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."

  Yay. Proper research and good point. I don't agree with the characterisation of the 'human caused climate change fold' as it is not monolithic, any more than the anti-AGW fold is. The suggestion they don't care what happens to certain glaciers is pretty unsupported if one goes to the corpus of research (unless I am mistaken, in which case I'd like to know), even if certain portions of the 'human caused climate change fold' give science as bad a name as some of the opposite pole (no pun intended).

  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.

  This does happen, but speaking personally, I feel IF the argument being put forward is poor, then looking at the history of the person making the argument is quite pertinent. Someone who has been involved in good quality science their entire career and is free of obvious beholdness to funding groups is reasonably a more reliable source than someone who has gone against concensuses in the past and in the light of passing years was wrong then, and who seems beholden to those funding their researches.

  To suggest such analysis of credibility is fallacious is to suggest an expert witness whose past testimony has been disregarded or disproven in retrials, and who had financial motivations to make such arguments, is as credible an expert witness as one with a comparatively unblemished record and far less evidence of financial motivation in the formation of their opinion.

  What that group fails to remember, or perhaps what they are not aware of, is that one of the nastiest, most corrupt, vile corporations in US history played a vital role in starting the whole human caused warming movement. That company is now bankrupt and gone and the criminal CEO of the firm died before he was sent to prison for his crimes. The name was Enron and the CEO was Ken Lay.

  Actually, I think there is a difference between a corrupt corporation seeing potential for profit in a market where AGW was accepted and a corrupt corporation totally fabricating evidence around the world that supports AGW.

  I have attempted whenever I cast doubts on a researcher to do so from a scientific perspective as well as one of vested interest. If the science is good the motivation is not relevent. I did as you suggeted and find this quote illustrtive of what I often find (and have tried to document in this thread);

  I suggest you look out the window to see if there is any catastrophe happening. While looking, you might check to see which ocean is rising. Also look upwards - exactly where is the much discussed methane cloud? And perhaps someone might gently explain how heavier-than-air car emissions can make it 5-19 miles up where most weather gets to be generated.

  http://www.predictweather.com/articles.asp?ID=36

  After detailing Eron's involvement, the person writing this;

  1/ Asks what ocean is rising, which is just fallacious baring in mind the credible predictions of the rate of sea-level rise due to AGW. It implies this should be far more rapid and observable than is actually claimed.

  2/ Asks about methane clouds, again, more fallacy.

  3/ Asks how car emissions can get high in the atmosphere, which indicates a jaw dropping lack of sceintific comprehension.

  In other words, good science might be supported by vested interests, but that doesn't stop it being good science. The poor science and fallacious argumentation on that site is typical of many by the anti-AGW lobby; I've shown similar flaws on other anti-AGW sites cited by others in this thread. I've yet seen someone document that pro-AGW sites cn be similarly chracterised; as far as I can determine thus far the gap in scientific credibility of material by such 'fan sites' is similar to that seen between Evolutionist and Creationist 'fan-sites'. If I am wrong it is easy to show me.

  Bad science is ALWAYS bad sceince, no matter who supports it.

  As I have been saying from the begining, let's talk about the science.

  It is also interesting to note that Enron clearly DIDN'T want caps put on developing countries, which is an argument so contrary to controlling AGW as to defy belief, and indictive they had a far different agenda to the AGW lobby even if they used the same science and funded it for their own reasons. Thus part of the core of the 'Enron made-up AGW' argument is 'rather' flawed.

  For those who believe global warming is caused by humans (and lets be honest, the primary cause of global warming is Americans, isn't it?) and dismiss contrary evidence as being tainted, why shouldn't your proof be subject to the same scepticism given the very root of the global warming movement was driven by a profit seeking energy company?

  Sceptic away, but let's talk about the science. If I have missed the really riviting anti-AGW science out there, show me.

  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.

  But this conclusion is one based purelyon skepticism, and not on the relative value of the scientific argument, which is the debat I have been trying to encourage.
• 
  85

  Ban on Jeans , T-Shirts & Shorts after the Convention

  by dozy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  apr km insert.

  "even during leisure time , such as when going out to eat after the programme , we should dress as befits ministers... and should not wear such clothing as jeans , shorts or t-shirts.

  what a witness this will give to the community.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  I remember in the bad old days as a married Mini, my then wife picked me up after work (very casual dress) and we drove to her mother's DA, me thinking my x had put MY bag in the car too, as it was all ready to go when I left home.

  Go there and discover my suit is 250 miles away and all I have is very casual clothes.

  It just so happned there was a coach put on by the local Congo to take us to the DA. The 'elder on board' (from a totally different Congo) leapt to the conclusion I was a back-slider when I got on bsoard in jeans and T... it was SO embaressing he Lwas almost praying in the aisle that Jehober help me...

  Typical rule-based moronitude... look at the outside! I have a suit! I am good!
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Obviously the sound of one hand clapping is Brother Apostate patting himself on the back...

  You are a troll; you bring nothing constructive to this discussion and seem to revel in personal attacks for the sake of personal attacks.

  In your big-headed fantasy where you see yourself calling me to account for my behaviour you actually end-up going way beyond anything I do. What a hypocrite. You claim you treat me like this because of how I behave, and then treat posters like hillary who play nice far better than me the same way

  The fact you treat other posters, like hillary (who plays nice far better than I) the same way as me indicates any claim you're trying to teach me a lesson is lie. This is all about you.

  Why not let the moderators do their job, if they consider I go too far, or do you think you're better than them?
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  metatron

  You seem to think anecdotal stories about low temperatures mean global warming isn't happening. You're wrong. It's like someone saying because no one they know has died in a car crash travelling by car is safer than the statistics show.

  Oh, increased snowfall is one characteristic of WARMING if the increase is from 'very' sub-zero temperatures to 'nearer zero degrees C' sub-zero temperatures; the East Antarctic Ice Shelf is growing, because increased temperatures means snowfall has increased. But the lying or self-decieving idiots you source from make such a superficial study of the subject they don't realise this supports climate change as they childishly think more snow means colder.

  Frank

  I am not going to be able to respond to everything you wrote in your first response to one of my earliest posts. Much water has passed under the bridge since then as well I find it hard to believe that you cannot find any of the material I presented to have any validity.

  If there is a fault in my rebutals, show me. To suddenly not be able to defend arguments you advanced or repeated here yourself now they have been rebutted sounds like evasion and excuses. I will happily deal with any further arguments you have made in discussion with other posters that remain open after you have had the courtesy to respond to me properly, rather than cherry pick what you find easy to deal with.

  Perhaps that is just your debating style.

  Actually you will find the pattern of someone making statement, that statemnt being reponded to, and then the original person who made the statement being able to respond in turn is pretty univesral in discussions. Characterising it as me is sad.

  So be it, I guess if it suits the pursuit of truth we can spend the next 100 pages of this thread in an endless, "that's a straw man", "red herring", "lies" and whatever other dismissive catch phrases we can dream up.

  Oh deary me. So, you don't want to discuss things properly? Or don't you realise those terms are recognised as descriptors for fallacious (i.e. false or evasive) arguments? Forgive me if I took too much for granted and responded in short hand, but as each successive point you made was, on examination, shown to be a misrepresentation of the real argument (straw man), a destraction ploy (red herring) to avoid dealling with the actual argument, or a lie (lie), I shifted up a gear. They were such trite arguments great detail wasn't required.

  I realise YOU may not be the one originating them, but repeating them in all sincerity, so don't take my criticism of the arguments you've repeated as criticism of you.

  Additionally because I use WORD as my editor and how this website and it don't seem to get along I am forced to respond in chunks.....if at all...to what you wrote.

  Use notepad; there's a bug in forum software that screws up C&P from Word.

  You'll forgive me if I do not take Shutterbugs word for your credentials.

  In fact let's leave the ego at the door.

  I was responding to his question, so it's my word you choose to take or otherwise. I don't particulary care what you believe in this respect. Deal with the science.

  If you are what you believe to be, then you are comparable to a bully. If you have qualifications that put you in a different league, then you should think about publishing papers yourself or at least not entering into debate with the 98% of the people here who are not academics and do not pretend to be. Why don't you try going head to head with the likes of Defreitas, Baliunas, Edward Wegman or even Claude Allegre?

  Ah, the spite, the resentment. Still not actually dealing with the science. And you are making utterly contrived comparisons; I don't compare myself to anything other than someone with a minor degree in science, and a lot of personal post-degree study of evolutionary biology. Why make a comparison to others I do not make myself? Will distorting what I say make you look good?

  I knew this would end up in just being silly. What difference does Baliunas' opinion on CFC's have to do with the qualified, arguably expert scientific opinion that she and Soon put forward in the article.

  It is the 'arguably' you are ignoring. That's the difference. Someone who ignores a consensus so deep and so well evidentally supported the originators of the theory get Noble Prizes had better have some extremely clear and unambiguous science behind them. She doesn't.

  She is not alone in her opinion although you can sling mud at these names as well I admit.

  Dr. S. Fred Singer, Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and a looong list of others : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

  Yup, you're right, and the mud sticks with this one. His only moment of note seems to be actually being right in a situation where Carl Sagan was wrong. The link shows that he claims glaciers are advancing, yet cannot produce any evidence that this is so. Why do you feel that saying someone who cannot back his claims with any evidence supports Sallie adds credibility to someone who has her usage of citations refuted by those very people she cites?

  Oh, he also dismissed reports on the risks of passive smoking as junk science; was it this thread or another where I pointed out the tobaecco indistry apologists were just like the vast majority of anti-climate change scientists? Why are you proving my point? I mean, thanks and all that, but...? Huh?

  This is directly from the article you quoted;

  Singer has been accused of conflicts of interest, most notably involving financial ties to oil and tobacco companies. [16] [17] In 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris to vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."[18]

  The 1994 AdTI report was part of an attack on EPA regulation of environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [19] Singer was also involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, [20] a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Singer is also a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute,[21] another recipient of Philip Morris and ExxonMobil funds.[22]

  A nonsmoker himself, Singer serves on the Science Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)[23]. The ACSH strongly opposes smoking but otherwise tends to support industry positions on health issues, for example downplaying risks associated with dioxin, asbestos, and other carcinogenic materials.[24]

  In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. While funds were not directed to Singer in his name, publicly available documents show that Singer's non-profit corporation SEPP received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including in 1998 and 2000.[17

  If this fills YOU with confidence about this guy's honesty or competence, well, that is your promblem aned one many readers would not share with you.

  Why are you so unwilling to accept even in the face of evidence you cite yourself that some scietists are incompetent or dishonest, and that in the global warming debate, the evidence clearly shows which side is better characterised that way?

  Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,

  LOL. This guy believes in global warming, but believes human produced CO2 is special and that we should just sit tight and enjoy the ride. So, you like his opinion about CFC's but NOT about Global Warming?

  Dr. Thomas Gold Astrophysicist and Astronomy Professor of Cornell University, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold

  Fascinating chap, an 'out-there' thinker with a middeling strike rate; some genuine good ideas in advance of his time, some total mistakes. But you provide no evidence he'd support Baliunas and Soon.

  Dr. Marcel Nicolet, world famous atmospheric scientist,

  ... who died in 1996, and who could therefore still be a brilliant atmospheric sceintists based upon the sceince when he was working, but totally wrong with newer understandings or evidence.

  Dr. Haroun Tazieff, whose Tazieff Resolution calls for a retraction of the Montreal Protocol,

  Do you realise cutting and pasting without credit is PLAGERISM? At best it is rude, at worst people might think you were trying to make people think you knew this off the top of your head. You got this all from here;

  http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html

  Adding in a few URL's and spreading it out over several lines do not stop what you are doing from being commonly seen as dishonest; don't you know that?

  AND you ignore the FACT the page you are taking it from is using them as BAD examples of skeptics, I quote;

  I believe that skepticism in the face of advocacy is a virtue, but this group gives skepticism a bad name.

  I am wondering if further debate is productive, I mean, you take a quote out of context to suit your argument, but you've not dealt with the ten points you quoted and I refuted.

  Even if all of these scientists mentioned, actually received payments directly from oil companies, how would that make their views any more suspect than those scientists who either support through membership or receive financial support from Greenpeace or the Sierra club? Why is the Fraser Institutes Agenda suspect when it hosts a peer reviewed paper but the tree huggers agenda is above suspicion?

  Because, as the web page you plagerised but prehaps didn't read points out, "skepticism in the face of advocacy is a virtue" but some skeptics give "skepticism a bad name". And I have proved links between AGW cynics and vested interests. You just have vauge accusations.

  You have not at any point responded to the detailed rebutal of claims you made, and you clearly do not evaluate the worth of a scientific argument before using it, seeming instead to select them based on how palatable you find them when compared to whatever preconceptions you have. Sorry if that is harsh, but there is no evidence to the contrary.

  Competency is not the domain of only those who have Sierra Club membership.

  AGAIN, a boring false characterisation.

  At least I hope that is not what you are implying.....

  No, it is actually what you fallaciously implied in your previous sentence; keep track man.

  Yes Wikipedia presents the reference to the 13 authors. One of those authors was of course Mann himself. His refutation consisted of his claim that using inferred temperature readings from the past (i.e. tree rings samplings) coupled with modern instrument readings is accepted practice in his field. That may very well be in the discipline of paleoclimatolgy (I doubt it)

  Frank, come on. What I, or you, or anyone SAY is not of great interest unless we can show that what we say is supported by the evidence. You have a doubt over what is accepted practice in paleoclimatology. You know little about the subject (I am no expert either) so this is unfounded speculation. Why the lack of desire to actually prove your point? Rebut properly or don't bother.

  Further the guff about moisture is a another red herring to imply that Baliunas was out in left field,

  As you've not bothered to prove your point about the initial guff (as I guess you would describe it), further speculation is again of limited interest when you could, if you wanted to, try and prove your point properly.

  Shall we instead actually discuss in detail some of the faults with the S & B paper?

  Like the vauge definition they gave to the MWP? Any 50-year period of warmth, wetness, or drought between the years 800 and 1300?

  Like the straw man they used in comparing ALL the 20th C to other centuries, thus distorting the trend, further distorting the trend by not including many of the most recent records?

  Using a record of plankton in ocean sediment that actually shows the strength of trade winds from 1150 to 1989 (which doesn't even fit their own method of determining the MWP), and of which the original researcher says "he found no 50-year period of medieval extremes in his record. "I think they stretched the data to fit what they wanted to see," he says.

  Using sediment records from the African coast as a proxy for ocean-surface when the original researcher said "Mr. Soon and his colleagues could not justify their conclusions that the African record showed the 20th century as being unexceptional".

  http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/1000yrclimatehistory-d/Sep5-CHEarticle.txt

  Please also note the confirmation of the source they had funds from, more of which here;

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas

  ... when all that Soon and Baliunas noted was that Mann failed to take into account moisture levels as a reasonable mechanism for filtering the data.

  Yes, well, as commented above in the Harvard link "It is absurd to take wetness or dryness as proof of abnormal warmth,"

  Of course, if you wanted to talk about the ten scientific points you provided that I rebutted we wouldn't still be doing a meta-analyis. I'd far rather we discuss actual scientific points in favour of each argument.

  Likewise in DeFreitas own paper critical of Mann, the issue of moisture comes up again. Although accepted to a degree,

  Ah. Now is it accepted or not? Make your mind up. If so, to what degree? See what vaugeness gets you? Correct; NOWHERE.

  In fact, as the latest IPCC report (2007) reports a 90% certainty that recent temperature increases are causd by man, I am curious you want still to attack a paper from 1998. Everyone who has researched the subject knows the conflicting views over the hocky-stick graph. But global warming does not fall or stand on that graph, so please, address more recent research, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

  Lastly, 3 people from Climate Research (Hans von Storch, Clare Goodess, and Mitsuru Ando) are said to have taken exception to the peer reviewed article by Soon & Baliunas only after a much more prestigious paper EOS came down hard on the criticism.

  If a much more prestigious Journal also publishes a more scientifically rigourous review what's the problem? It's about the science (well, it is for me, you're not even discussing the AGW cynical 'science' you brought to the discussion).

  Even though that constitutes the timing of their departures it is rhetorical to conclude that the departures are solely based on what Soon and Baliunas wrote and thereby completely devoid of other factors. In fact to conclude that other factors were at play would give voice to the science of human behavior, personal motivations, logic and reason as it is known to exist in the real world!

  Additionally, since the editorial staff today is made up of 12 people and a further 24 Review Editors (I don't know exactly how many were in place in 2003) I doubt that these 3 people constituted "half" of the editorial staff.

  That first paragraph is a masterpiece of burble, which doesn't prove a thing. The second? "Today", "I don't know exactly how many were in place in 2003" and "I doubt". Wow. What a convincing case. Come on, do it properly.

  http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm?

  Whoops! So far so not rhethorical. Bad peer-review of Soon & Baliunas's paper and a few others caused the resignation which was five out of ten editors that existed then.

  Why do you have this compulsion to NOT check your facts?

  If the departure did in fact constitute 1/2 of the editors, the ones who stayed should carry just as much weight as those who left.

  Now you are speculating as to the mind of the other half; please document your assumption they supported the peer-review process as it was carried out; they could have remanined as Editors and still felt the review process was flawed.

  In other words had all or most of the editors resigned in protest the statement above could be considered more than hype and propaganda.

  I think the additonal research I did shows it is nether hype nor propoganda, and shows you couldn't be arsed to even support your own argument or check your facts, preferring speculation. And this is where I point out again you've not responded to the ten rubbish bits of 'science' you quoted above that I rebutted.

  As for Otto Kinne's statement in the broader context : http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf

  "While the instrument of quality control, the peer review process, has stood the test of time, it should be further developed."

  "Even a very thorough review process cannot include all essential perspectives and it cannot exclude mistakes "or misjudgements."

  "Quality control at CR was practised along generally established lines. There were no problems over the 13 years of CR existence. But there was insufficient attention to the methodological basis of statements that touch on hotly debated controversies and involve pronounced political and economic interests. CR should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication."

  Translation? This is unfortunately how the peer review process works and has for sometime including articles written to support AGW. The only time it becomes an issue is when the subject matter is as hotly debated, and has been politically agendized at the highest levels of Government and Economic Interests.

  He is clearly saying the peer review is not prefect, and that it was deficient in the case we are discussing. Funny how you miss that and focus on "and involve pronounced political and economic interests" whilst still ignoring any real consideration of the science.

  While these statements may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in he paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.

  See? even your own qutations support the point; their paper drew unsupported conclusions. Can we now move on to discussing those ten bits of joke AGW cynicism you support? Or more recent science?

  What about the IPCC report itself? Is it devoid of contradictory statements, inflated numbers, misapplied statistics, revisions after the review process, leaps of faith and logic? If you have read the criticism then you know it is just as guilty if not more so given the number of hands that document passed through before going to press. Those critiques come from detractor and proponent alike! And you know it!

  Yup, but you're not defending your own argument (I know why of course), and being vauge with the acusations. Don't shift focus off bad science you brought to the discussion and now won't touch.

  If you insist, I can list those valid critiques one by one, and you know there are more than 2 of them.

  Start of responding to the ten points you listed that I refuted. Or is saying you were hasty and in error really that difficult? I find one gains more credibility by admitting error than by ignoring it. The link to the fourth report is above, so after you've dealt with the out-standing we can move on to that if you like.

  The controversy over Soon and Baliunas is a tempest in a teapot. And your aspersions toward special interest groups, foundations and think tanks goes both ways, only a plebe would suggest otherwise!

  Errrr.... but the majority of AGW cynics mentioned here DO have provable links with lobby groups, and some are in the pay of lobby groups. Your accusations about the other side (which is FAR larger) are still vauge and unsubstansiated.

  Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters,
  We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming.

  These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century,

  And the rest? If they're right that leaves at least 65% of the recent increases caused by oither means! Maybe it's burning billions of tonnes of fossil fuels!

  Frank, this actually goes further along the road proving the sun is not causing the recent rapid rise (as 35% of what we have wouldn't be considered nearly so rapid or extreme.

  The above document appears of all places on the AGU website. The very authors of the so-called EOS article outrage against Soon and Baliunas in the CR paper!

  Which is maybe why they are credible and other scientists are not? Which was my point.

  Now, I KNOW you've not read ALL thos papers; I've only read three, or two and a bit to be accurate.

  b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review

  Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007

  Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how

  this in turn would impact the mean temperature.

  I quite liked this one until I read this http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/sun2004.pdf

  d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677

  Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little

  Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the

  solar/climate link.

  But DOESN'T really do anything to dispute AGW. Which if you didn't just C&P the links you would have known.

  e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera

  Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584

  North Atlantic oscillation is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as

  identified through sunspot cycles.

  Errr... this is what happens when you weigh your references rather than read them... this would support or attack AGW how exactly? Look at the dates.

  But then you got this entire list from that 'friends of science' website (again without citation) and took their word for it. So much for reading primary research (oh, Soon et. al isn't primary reasearch, it's a meta-analysis, although they can be very useful).

  Rather than hurl insults at Abaddon or anyone else in an attempt to "win a debate" I would rather point the finger at the real culprits in this controversy.

  I agree, thus your outbursts above ("If you are ... or even Claude Allegre?") seem contradictory as you make out I am saying something I am not saying. That's called lying. I play nice if you play nice, okay?

  And yet Abaddon (and others) has the nerve to say those of us who say "the jury is still out", or due to the shenanigans we are as yet unconvinced and skeptical, are acting like JW's!

  No, I have the nerve to state and document;

  • the claims you've repeated are poor science, pretty much until this last post of yours, and then only one paper which doesn't disprove AGW
  • that when you do drag up some nonsense that's shown to be nonsense you avoid admitting it - those ten pionts, eh?

  I simply state;

  • the latest reports give a 90% probability to AGW,
  • that most AGW cynicism is junk science doubted by most credible scientists and is politically or financialy motivated
  • (maybe not on this thread) there are a few interesting theories which might turn everything on its ear (like the GCR one, which you deserve full credit for bringing to the table as no other AGW cynic on the thread got close to a credible doubt).

  What is next? A speech telling us that if "some of you like to do personal study into the bible the actual scientific papers on the subject that you should leave the deep study up to the FDS likes of myself because I have a keen understanding of these issues (go on....ask Shutterbug!). And if you just cannot help but be absorbed in these studies then you should think about getting a hobby! (sound familiar?)

  *sigh* Blue collar bias. If someone with no knowledge of carpentry and no experience of carpentry told a carpenter they were doing it wrong (in a way that would make said carpenter cringe at the lack of knowledge it displayed), most people would agree said person was arrogant and unrealistic. If someone with no knowledge of science and no experience of science told a skilled scientist they were doing it wrong (in a way that would make said scientist cringe at the lack of knowledge it displayed), for some reason the remarks of the person with no knowledge or experience have to be weighed as being of equal quality. How silly.

  Every one has an equal right to an opinion Frank. It doesn't mean every opinion is equal in quality.

  You yourself have shown several times a simple lack of effort has made you make claims a little further study (which you are more than capable of doing but didn't) shows are not well supported, to be polite. I am not saying there is a qualified elite that no one can join; I am asking why some people feel qualified to discuss topics (normally by declaring large numbers of scientists are wrong and a few are right) they clearly don't know well, and aren't prepared to spend time studying.

  Anyone can join a discussion like this credibly if they put the effort in. I have seen posters on this board who have vastly increased their knowledge because they recognised being able to form and defend a credible opinion about complicated subjects takes more than Google, or finding a web site sympathetic to their opinion to crib links from. Everyone does that to an extent, it's being able to seperate wheat from chaff that requires personal study.

  The so called skeptical scientists should not be shunned for expressing doubts, especially if they have qualifications in the fields they are writing/critiquing.

  They should be criticised for poor quality in their research and for unsupported claims, be they pro AGW or anti AGW.

  What makes the JW religion a bad religion is that they do not allow dissent or debate, even doubt is not tolerated. If you were to get one of the GB to go on TV to publicly debate with say Alan Feurbacher (that would never happen but if it did) they would storm off the set instead of answering embarassing questions just like David Suzuki did.

  I'm not supporting Susuki, I am attacking poor quality of AGW cynicism, and think I've made my point.

  I am glad you've shown more willingness to actually discuss the issue than others. The GCR stuff was a good find on your part and is really quite possibly credible, maybe; from what I understand there's more definative research due later this year, but I can't find my reference to it...
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Bro Apo

  Haha. I knew someone with your attitude couldn't remain consistent to their own stated principles (even if I don't agree with the ad hom embedded in them). Here you are, having a debate with me, despite insisting you wouldn't do. Obviously you want some reaction from me other than the dismissal and laughter as for some curious reason you need me to react in order to validate your pathetic existence on this thread.

  I have qualifications as well.

  Yup. Lesser Licker of the Polished Turd, without honour.

  Here is the difference between yours and mine- I have decades of real world experience, you don’t.

  Yes, of course you do sweetie. 100 years old and still turning tricks. And you're enough of a buffoon to make an argument from authority using yourself as the authority. And your swinging scientific argument is? Oh, you've avoided having one. Coward.

  As they say, "Those who are qualified, do, those who can’t, teach."

  As I don't actually teach your failure to insult me is amusing. And 'they' would be nasty inadequates who take pot-shots at a valuable profession I assume. In your self-importnace and dislike for me, all that matters is the insult, not the facts or attacking others along with me.

  You truly are a mental onanist, Abaddon.

  I love the fact you haven't the originality to use your own insults. Abaddon uses Onanism so you copy. LOL.

  You are always making the assumption that you alone are schooled in argumentation theory and logical fallacies. Here’s the point, obtuse one: You are supposed to avoid the use of them, not pepper your entire childish "rebuttal" with ad hominems, strawmen, etc.

  And still we see this dishonest streak of micturition exceed the almost transcendent level of hypocrisy and idiocy he's thus far attained. In his responses to me he has not yet dealt with the scientific arguments ONCE, unless I missed one in the drivel of ad homs his responses to me have consisted of. And note how he can't illustrate his accusations of straw men (another term cribbed off screen in this discussion I guess), just say I do it. Where, liar ?

  This thread, just like all others you’ve posted your propaganda on, demonstrates clearly that you have no capacity to make other than a shallow "argument" based on your narcissistic belief that you are always right.

  Still failing to deal with facts. I have a feeling you are one of these people who thinks the determination of facts in science is like the determination of what band is best in music.

  Your "debate" techniques, as well as responses on this thread and every other always follow the same M.O:

  -bait the others to post citations

  -use ad hominem attacks on the sources of those citations

  -conclude that this "guilt by association" fallacy nullifies the claim of the original citation.

  -oh, and "science" as used by you translates to "science that I can use to bolster my preconceived conclusion"

  Again, dishonestly, you fail to either deal with the scientific responses I have given to those self-same citations. I just add in the obvious and demonstrable lack of credibility to illustrate the level of effort the anti posse put into their research. Of course, you could attempt to show I am wrong to question the credibility of the sources given, or that the rebuttals of the anti-posses nonsense are wrong, but as you can't you lie and whine.

  In a nutshell, "my opinion is always right, my sources are better than your sources, my citations are better than your citations, etc. It’s pathological and pathetic.

  You really do have massive level of resentment. Not so much a chip on your shoulder as a sack of potatoes on each shoulder. Thus far I have pretty much proved my sources ARE better. No one else has really bothered, although I've not read you repeat the same routine with hillary as it bored me when you did it to me. I got enough of your 'flavour' from his responses to you, most enjoyable they were. Frank tried but himself down with poor research.

  What you fail to realize is the same attacks could be made on your (rarely posted) pet sources and citations.

  More lies as I often cite my sources, and will provide citations to anything I don't support with a source on request.

  More lies as a pathetic little piece of web-trash such as yourself would break their fingers typing if they could refute something decently.

  I am not the only one who notices how your claims of education are betrayed by your arrogant, narcissistic style of "debate". My observation, as well as many PMs to the same effect, is that you assume you are right because many will not "debate" you, having observed your child like style of "debate". I am not the only one who doesn’t "debate" with children. Calling someone a "troll", haughtily assuming you are "more qualified", etc, speaks volumes.

  You do realise that apart from people of a similar bent, no one believes a word you type as they can see, although I can be caustic and sarcastic, I actually do back my argument up with facts. As you have lied and falsely attacked people on this thread and others (and I can prove this with your own words), I see no reason to believe a word you say. And so what if you have some PM's from the hard of understanding? The easiest way to shut me up is to show me I am wrong using decent credible science. And I don't ever see that coming from you or your friends, imaginary or otherwise.

  I imagine you need a special walking aid to hold your head up lest you fall over, or that you must wear a helmet at all times lest a sharp object pricks your skull and releases all that hot air.

  BA- Doesn’t "debate" with children.

  You just debated with me, idiot. Although I dispute your classification of me, the fact you contradict yourself further illustrates the depths of looserdom you will plumb.

  PS- Grow up. You opinion is just that, an opinion, not a fact.

  Yup, you obviously feel scientific discussion is like discussing which contestant is best on American Idol. How drool. Some opinions can be demonstrated to be facts. Of course the fact you re entitled to your own opinion but NOT your own facts will come as a surprise to you.

  Oh, whilst I am happy to get as good as I give and vica versa on threads where there is a spirited debate, do not continue to attack me personally on other threads. You attacked me without provocation in this thread, and attacked me specifically when I pointed out in general the attacks made on Al Gore (in the first thread you attacked me in) were straw men and ad homs - again facts the threads will show to be true. I am sure other people do not want your campaign to get Abaddon to spill onto yet other threads and spoil their enjoyment of more polite reasoned debates. I suspect you care so little for other posters you will be incapable of being civilized as your own hate-campaign is far more important to you. To make it very simple I'll probably not bother replying to you again.

  Now, I think the nice man in a white coat wants to take you out of the Media Centre as they need to clean your chair...
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Frank

  I enjoyed reading your post that made the above point. As I am not a climatologist and I suspect neither are you,

  Nope, I'm not. Shutterbug has raised a good point though; I've fairly decent qualifications in science with a broad base. It means I can understand scientific arguments and also I understand the importance of the scientific method.

  Not everyone has that. I know it is quite possible for someone with a non-scientiic background to arge intelligently and accurately on this topic. If they are open-minded and have the analytical skill by other means, and make the effort. One thing I am surprised at (and I'm not talking about you at this point) is how the hell do so many people get out of a cult when, from what they say now, they have the critical thinking capacity and analytical skills of a sandwich. We should ALL have that qualification, so lord knows how some got out...

  Read this scientific article on the relationship of the Sun with earth Climate change in the past 240 years : http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/The%20Varying%20Sun%20and%20Climate%20Change-Baliunas.pdf

  MMmmmmm... did you know one of the authors also thinks CFC's don't deplete the ozone layer (a rather remarkable opinion considering the actual chemistry involved was the subject of a Noble Prize)? Even funnier, without ever retracting her opposition to the idea that CFC's don't deplete the Ozone layer "an article by Baliunas and Soon written for the Heartland Institute in 2000 promoted the idea that ozone depletion, rather than CO2 emissions could explain atmospheric warming.

  The Heartland Institute are an ideological lead lobby group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

  That's just a bitof background to establish what in other cases might be called credibility. All I did was check up on the authors on Wiki, I am also going to deal with their argument, but the background is as illuminating as the validity of the argument they advance.

  Your link is hosted by the Fraser Institute which is ANOTHER ideologically biased lobby group whose world view would make them favour a skeptical view of human-caused climate change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_institute.

  Again, I am going to respond to the article itself, but it is interesting that thus far this skeptical view is conforming to previous descriptors of those typically holding or supporting skeptical views

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas highlights mine

  In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology that concluded that the climate has not changed in the last 2000 years.

  A few months afterward, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work.[9] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result [10].

  Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[11][12] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[13]

  So, their argument is really NOT a decent one.

  Scientists, just like plumbers, have differing degrees of competence and honesty. How wet would Baliunas and Soon make your carpet? And would they overcharge?

  Although the above paper is not dogmatic so as to say Sun activity is the only scenario, it certainly is more reliable than your whimsical comment quoted below.

  My comment was;

  Yes, and the reason that the majority of scientists are concerned is the current increase in temperature cannot be explained by the sun THIS TIME, even though it's role is pivotal and it has caused climate change before.

  I've shown their doubts are unreliable; please find something to refute my statement.

  First of all what majority is that?

  Disingenuous. You MUST know about the IPCC. You MUST know about the percentage of peer-reviewed paers that support the concensus (thus the term 'consensus') as opposed to the percentage of peer-reviewed papers that disagree with the consensus. If you don't, why are you having this discussion? The arguments the cynics are objecting too are so numerous, well known and widely documented acting like you don't know is threatening my initial assessment of how seriously you want to take this debate, especially as you find it so easy to find (bad) opposing arguments.

  Second, since when are the majority right.

  Irrelevant; let's talk about the science .

  The only science you've bought up so far I have rebutted as unreliable. By all means show my rebuttal is unsound.

  Are these scientists you mention climatologists or related to that field? Who are they, what is their expertise, what are their names and what do they say?

  Again, disingenuous. By entering opposing arguments you show you know what the consensus argument is, where it comes from and who it is held by. Unless you are ONLY researching opposing arguments, which isn't 'research' in any desirable guise. So, are you asking me to tell you what you already know, are you ignorant of what you should know to credibly discuss this topic, or are you restricting your 'research' to opposing arguments only (options two and three overlap)?

  Another article on the Sun: http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.html

  Same people, same root claims, same response.

  Articles have been written on Orbital Cycles and Ocean Currents as forcings for Global Warmings as well. Any of these seperately or all together are more plausible causes than CO2 levels caused by man.

  Unsupported claim, vague, undefined. You can do better than that; show me a peer-reviewed paper that supports this claim.

  THAT is an alternative scenario? LOL. What you quoted is a different attribution of principle CAUSE, not a dispute over the immediate reality of human-caused climate change. The author of this holds;

  • A global tipping point will be reached in 10 years if levels of greenhouse gases like methane and CO2 are not reduced. Global warming at this point becomes unstoppable.
  • Global warming is 0.5–0.75 °C in the past century, and about 0.3 °C or more in the last 25 years
  • Climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is 3±1 °C

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

  I also see that you picked up on my comments about the Global Cooling scare I mentioned from the 70's. You seem to take offense to myself and others bringing it up but you actually illustrate our point in your critique.

  What a wonderful mischaracterization. Offense? At the sloppiness shown, yes. And you're not t#e only one using this empty argument parroted from political hacks. People read 'Right-wing Head-in-sand Quarterly" and see some hack spew forth about the 70's ice age thing and use this to doubt the current arguments about global warming.

  Although I mentioned scientific concern at that time it was on the level of scientific concern of the like that the sun will die out and supernova in 5 billion years or so. The scientific community was not behind this scare at all, but rather self serving pseudo scientific journals, newspapers and articles.

  That is precisely what is being done on the issue of Global Warming as far as documentary such as "An Inconvenient truth" are concerned.

  Obviously there is some alarmism over global warming. I don't know how you got the impression I supported alarmism, as I have been repeating a request that people discuss the sceince , and thus far no cynic in this thread has entered a scientific argument which seriously challenges the consensus, including you. as there is now (as the article I provided showed) a VERY different level of certainty about global warming, I'm wondering what your point is over ths?

  Thus far this level of certainty IN the scientific community is what the cynics on this thread are failing to respond to with any science thus far (other than citing discredited arguments which you'd have known were discredited if you didn't use right-wing lobby groups as a source of scientific data, LOL)

  How is that you can point the finger at us for picking out the fringe rhetoric from that period (a loose characterisation of what was really done by myself anyway)

  It's not all about you.

  but you don't seem to apply the same rule to your own conclusions with regard to the sensational claims made by non scientists and non scientific sources. (Kyoto and the UN IPCC report are by their very nature political motivated documents weakly supported by scientists who are acting outside their areas of expertise or at least misapplying their expertise)

  You use right-wing 'think' tanks as your source of scientific data, and don't cross-check to see if they are credible arguments. Thus you have a massive double standard "IPCC is biased let's go to a political lobby group for the truth" LOL. Way to go at signally failing to address the scientific arguments. Is this because you don't have any?

  A thorough examination of the science behind the debate on why Global Warming is not an open and shut case will bring about the same conclusion as you noted above. The sky is not falling now anymore than it was in the 70's. So say the "real scientists" in "real scientific papers and mags". That was my point in bringing the matter up!

  And one I have refuted. REAL scientists ARE sounding alarms that in no way resemble previous sensationalist scares based on speculation by scientists. To say (as you do) that the argument being made by the majority of scientists is along the lines of 'a long-term warming trend over 20,000 years' is simply a lie, but maybe one you repeat in all sincerity.

  We do not need Al Gore on our shoulders as the spokesperson and poster boy for what is best for the planet and humanity.

  Please for the love of non-existent god talk about the fricking SCIENCE . I'm not an Al Gore apologist, I haven't even seen the documentary as I have read up on the subject far more directly than the 3rd hand nature of any such documentary. Nice to see you cannot approach this at anything other than an exercise in partisanism.

  Kyoto? Unfortunately the only way the USA could keep up with Kyoto initiatives that require a cut in emissions of 25% by 2012 is to build more nuclear plants for starters.

  And this is a bad thing why?

  10 common myths about Global Warming : http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

  With friends of science like that science needs no enemies!

  MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

  FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.

  This is where a scientific background is an advantage; I can see the lie. This is a red herring. During the Medieval Maximum and Little Ice Age there were forcings that explained the temperature change.

  Those same orbital volcanic and solar forcings do not explain the current temperature change.

  The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

  Red Herring. "Ignore the ice cores, we can't quibble with them, lets o for the weather stations in urban centres."

  "There has been no catastrophic warming recorded."

  Straw man. Define 'catastrophic'. For ice cubes -0.01 degrees C to + 0.01 degrees C is pretty catastrophic.

  MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

  SixfNine has covered this very well.

  MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

  FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time.

  Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth Brate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming.

  Red Herring. The argument 'there is no proof' ignores the facts that CO2 has a specific heat capacity and that thus if it's concentration increases one can actual CALCULATE how much better at holding on to heat the atmosphere is. Thus the lack of definitive proof CO2 is a forcing is irrelevant; there is no other forcing than GHG's that explains current trends, and the law of physics explain how CO2 would increase the average temperatures as concentrations increased.

  As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

  A citation, a citation, the credibility of the argument depends on a citation! Unfounded claim, but on the balance of probabilities given the quality of claims you have made or supported thus far, a fallacy or rubbish.

  MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

  FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect". Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

  Because it is a red herring. Please show that there has been an increase in water vapour that would explain current climate trends. You can't. IF water vapour was increasing significantly, it would be mentioned more. It isn't so it isn't, as it is the forcings which are CHANGING which MATTER. This is one of my favourate identifying signs for spotting an argument from someone who is using 3rd hand political lobbiests as their primary soiurce of info. It displays not only a low level of knowledge about the issue, but also a lack of desire to learn about the issue and a lack of scientific understanding that hinders understanding the issue. It is no wonder your 'case' is a tissue of fallacies.

  MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

  FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

  Misrepresentation and gross simplification. And no citation. I'll pull the wings of this if you give me citations. I thought you were going to argue on a scientific basis? Where's the science man?

  MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming. A
  FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
  1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
  2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

  Dishonest, it doesn't cite the new report which says it is 90% likely that current climate change is caused by man.

  To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

  Other than the laws of physics and no other candidate other than GHG's?

  MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

  FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

  Semantics. Selenium is a vital element for human life, but can also be poisonous and classified as a pollutent. Concentration of CO2 increases the ability of the atmosphere to hold heat. FACT.

  MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

  FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

  Side issue; every one agrees exact impact on weather is unknown, other than the rise in average temperature patterns and the fact this will cause changes in weather patterns. Some areas will have 'better' weather, others 'worse'.

  MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

  FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

  Only the East Antarctic shelf is increasing mass. Which is just as well as it balances the fact the rest are melting; the East Antarctic shelf when melted would raise sea evels by over 150ft, so the FACT that warmer weather is increasing snowfall onto it is a fortuitous thing indeed. "warmer" dosen't necessarily mean over 0 degrees C.

  MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

  FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder.

  Misrepresentation and lies.

  http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf
  http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsletter/092605.pdf

  How you think you can have a scientific discussion with unsupported claims I do not know. With current trends it is quite likely there will no no summer ice at the North Pole in our lifetimes.

  http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/12/MNGE5MTQ211.DTL&type=science

  And please don't come back with some crap about a Chinese fleet, it's been refuted.

  Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

  This is a lie;

  http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update2.htm

  You should be ashamed to spread crap like this around.

  Every single contributor in that presentation is an established, peer respected, and renowned scientific expert in his field. One of the scientists was even designated by the UN (Dr. Tad Murtry) to examine the data, comment and report back on the accuracy presented in the IPCC report. None of his critical observations were taken into consideration or their validity challenged. Why? Because it did not suit the political agenda.

  You really don't check your sources AT ALL, do you?

  http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1283

  So, maybe you'll actualy tell us what his SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS are??

  Although historical and projected future increases in the air's CO2 concentration and its wrongly-predicted ability to lead to catastrophic global warming have been universally hailed by climate alarmists as diabolically detrimental to human health, scientific studies clearly demonstrate that such is not the case. Throughout the entire course of the Industrial Revolution, during which time the air's CO2 content rose by 35% and its near-surface temperature by about 0.6°C, there has been no detectable negative impact on human longevity. In fact, human lifespan has concurrently experienced an almost unbelievable increase that shows no signs of ultimately leveling off or even slowing down. What is more, warming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. In addition, elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 have been shown to increase the amounts and effectiveness of disease-fighting substances found in plants that protect against various forms of cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

  In light of these many well-documented observations, it is abundantly clear we have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming, i.e., the "twin evils" of the extreme environmental movement. Indeed, these phenomena would appear to be our friends … and friends of the entire biosphere.

  Again, no citations; if you cited accurate information I might be inclined to take your word for it but EVERY SINGLE argument you make is shown to be worthless. It is also the most hilarious straw man. No one credible is saying anything other than 'temperatures are rising due to GHG's, this will change weather patterns and change sea level, this will cause migration if severe or in expecially marginal climatatics and elevations, temperature change will also trigger change in land use, if weather worsens on the whole mortality may increase'. And I cannot recall any scientific papaer that put increases in modern lifespans down to raised CO2 as distinct from modern medicine and hygine, or any papaers claiming that human life spans will reduce because of high CO2 levels as a response to toxicity of CO2. What garbage.

  elderwho

  Yawn. I am surprised you can be bothered to breathe. Please go and be boring elsewhere. Ar are you elderwho is so used to getting the last word in the past, right or wrong, he doesn't understand the last word is no where near as important as the demonstrably accurate word?

  Bro Apostate

  L.O.G.I.C. = Lies, Onanism, Gobbledygook ,Idiocy, Crap

  Well, you've learnt two words or phrases in this thread. Onanism and ad hom. No need to say thanks. What next, You gonna says 'with knobs on'? You are quite the most pathetic excuse for a troll I have seen in a long time. I remember the good old days when a troll could amuse one for days.
• 
  19

  If Al Gore was elected in 2000, would 9/11 happened?

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was thinking about this today, as al gore did win the popular vote and lost because of how the electoral college works.

  so people like to blame 9/11 on bush, and fahrenheit 9/11 really tried to make it look like bush.

  i remember when the movie, "the road to 9/11" came out, clinton was having a fit that it showed the problems with 9/11 started while he was in office.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  911 would still 95% probable under Gore or any other President.

  The game was in play as far as the bad guys went, there's no reason to believe another President would have achieved inter-departmental reform in time to have the inter-departmental synergy neccesary to have stopped it in planning phase, and it's unlikely ny action by another President wouldhave lead to a cancellation of the plan.

  I do agree Gore would have gone into Afghanistan, but not Iraq, unless it was a far different justification, UN sanction, and constellation of allies.
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Shutterbug

  I have a minor degree in Science Education (balanced across the three core subjects). My major is English Literature (BA Hons.), but to be honest I took 2/3 of the science major course before switching to English literature and could equally have had my final degree classified as a BSc due to the excess of points I had (due to the switch of subject I had about a third extra points for course passed). Since then I have studied evolutionary biology to an extent I'd be quite sanguine about sitting a final exam for a Bsc in Evolutionary Biology if I had a few months to review the exact syllabus.

  I wouldn't say I have expert or special knowledge about other areas, but I can critically analyse quite complicated texts on biological or physical science due to my educational background.

  Of course, whether this is enough for you I can't say. I can be as wrong as the next guy, but as no one's bothered actually debating the science yet and every single point raised by the anti lobby in this thread is a meaningless anecdote or provably a misconception or just plain wrong (by all means rebutt these statements), I don't feel very wrong at this moment in time.

  hillary

  Good luck with getting Brother Apo to come up with anything substansive. As (arguably) an arrogant bastard, I know his type. I'm just (on the evidence of all these threads I've posted on the sad obsessive has been reading) an arrogant bastard who backs up his opinions with facts. He's an arrogant bastard who is seethingly resentful towards someone who shows him up for what he is, and of anyone who has taken the trouble to educate themselves. See how he immediately seeks to undermine any claims for scientific background anyone might make? He can't stand the idea that some people are simply more qualified than him, so has to poison the well in advance. Even if someone scaned and posted documention, he'd claim it was Photoshopped. The guy's a joke, and the funniest thing is he actually seems enough of a mouth-breather to think his facade convinces people. No doubt he will do his standard C&P of my post, which I'll not bother reading (unless it looks like a decent scientific response, but I now think this is beyond him).

  He now is trying to claim we are the same person; hey, hillary, I've had some great arguments with myself in the past, if that is the case, eh?

  I am not sure if Abbadon has insinuated in the past that you are rather dull and stupid? If he has not done so, he has been too kind.

  LOL. Now he'll be convinced we are the same people.

  XJW4EVR & elderwho

  You seem to have failed to notice it is the anti lobby on this thread that are refusing to substansiate their claims. From the very start they avoided getting involved in any real scientific discussion.

  You can ignore this all you like, but it is true, and is a far greater indication of how things lie than the conclusions your personal bias (observed previously) draws you too.

  You're free to make similar comments about me having a personal bias based on past threads, but this doesn't change the fact the anti-global warming lobby have no facts to support their claims and cannot explain the evidence that is available, and typically at this level are just parrotting claims (of a quality I think I have demonstrated) made by lobbiests with a political agenda.

  If what I say is wrong, please show me.

  Of course, 'empty vessels' like Bro Apo (as all three of you use Dubbie terminology in your handles I assume you're cognescent of such a scriptual allusion) make it seem like the 'pro' lobby have to prove something. Yet the argument that he and others are typically making is a vauge 'the scientists are wrong'. One can't respond to such vaugeness. I and others would be happy to respond to anything specific - I've already addressed the few specific claims made on this thread above.

  Just one question; isn't it funny how not one person who was rattling on about 'they were wrong about ice ages in the 70's they're wrong bout global warming now' has conceded that the linked article proves what was actually generally thought or alternately attempted to show the article is wrong? What does this tell you? It seems facts don't play a major role in the formation of some people's opinions, so I suppose facts aren't going to dissuade them from opinions either.

  Just a Creationists have no theory to explain the evidence around us (other than 'apparent' age, LOL), so to do the anti-lobby have no theory to explain current trends.

  Frank

  Thank you for actually giving a decent response... maybe we can drag this thread out of the slough of dispond it's fallen into with the help of hillary and others.

  As I am sat in a airport departure lounge with my laptop waiting for a delayed flight, I'd rather respond later. Maybe after my daughter's asleep this evening or on Tuesday when I'm back to normal schedule? Sunday night I am planning on destroying some brain cells and I am travelling Monday evening. Hope you don't mind.