Posts by Abaddon

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
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 .

Abaddon

Qcmbr

Abaddon - why do you suggest that just because people don't toil through your extremely long posts and post a point by point argument that somehow that discounts them or their thoughts?

Maybe my comprehension of 'discussion' is different to you. If someone is discussing something with another and chooses not to reply or mumbles into their sleeve, their thoughts are not so much discounted as unknown. If they broadly summarise ("well, despite all that you're wrong"), but refuse to go into the details of WHY they think the other is wrong, then again their exact thoughts are not so much discounted as unknown.

In both instances it is the choice of the person restricting their responses to not engage fully in the debate. This is fine, but sometimes they want their contribution to be taken as being of equivalent worth to someone who is more engaged in the discussion, without any of the effort. This is not fine.

Obviously you can't be arrogant enough to think that only you have read the evidence and only you have the correct interpretation but you sound as though you are.

Maybe I wouldn't sound like I sound if some people did not regulary show they really, and I do mean really have no idea about the facts involved in a topic. Last week on another AGW thread some posters seemed to have no idea why CO2 producing fuels derived from crops that are planted and grow (absorbing CO2) and are then used (releasing CO2) are better than fossil fuels (where the CO2 being released is not part of a cycle where there is no net increase in CO2 levels). Despite this, such people they were sure they were right about AGW being bullshit and thousands of experts are wrong. And I'm arrogant? Yeah...

On other topics people will claim (for example) that evolution is impossible as it involves randomness; again this displays a profound misunderstanding of what the process of evolution is. Despite this, such people they are sure they were right about Evolution being bullshit and thousands of experts are wrong. And I'm arrogant? Yeah...

I also KNOW many of the counter arguments about subjects I like discussing, and know both sides of the argument (I assure you I'd be one hell of a Creationist, in fact, I was) Prehaps unfairly I have a sense of enuui when I have the same old tired points raised in defense of an opinion, points which I know a little research by the person using them would have rendered redundant.

Your research and wisdom is constantly filtered through your disdain and ends up confusing your message - when I read your posts I can't work out whether you actually care about the points you make or whether you just want to be nasty to people who don't agree.

When I have a discussion with someone who ignores they have insufficient knowledge of a subject to challenge the consensus of scientific opinion, and who shows this by what they say and how they say it, and yet they are unwilling to conceed that the value of their opinion is altered by their lack of knowledge or sometimes to even accept documented facts that show their opinion is demonstrably wrong, I am bothered by the bullshit, arrogance and complacence displayed. Bad me.

If you care about your points it would be welcome to deliver them with grace and respect, if you just want to play biggest bully in the playground then how can you expect to be taken seriously? If every time you talk to someone you end each sentence with a slap to the face you can't expect people who disagree with you to stay and take abuse - I think you mistake your supposed zeal for the truth as an excuse for vitriol. You could be much more persuasive and helpful if you stop typing after you make your point and before you write the slam.

Sometimes you are right. Sometimes by saying this you ignore that it is the person on the other side of the argument who is showing misplaced confidence. I suppose human nature means very few people like this being pointed out, but please show me where I have falsely said someone is showing their lack of knowledge about a subject. As for grace and respect, the point I made earlier stands; how can someone using 'facts' a, b and c as reasons for an opinion credibly ignore these facts being refuted without a response? It shows no respect to the person they are discussing an issue with, and no respect to themsleves either, as they are carrying on with an opinion whose justification has been questioned, which we ALL know (not you maybe as you never were) as xJW's is not a good thing.

1/ The sun is not stable in its output of material, the study of sunspots (as an indicator of sun activity) correlates very closely with temperature fluctuations.

Yes, but this doesn't disprove AGW as the sun's forcings are included and at best come up 65% short of the required level to explain what is happening. See beack up the thread or I'll supply a link.

2/ CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas that doesn't seem to have the impact of water vapour on global temperature.

This is a very cunningly presented red herring by the anti-AGW lobby. Discussion about why we see climate change revolves around those forcings which are changing as logically a forcing that isn't changing can't produce change. Whilst water vapour is undeniably (no one denies it in the AGW lobby) the largest greenhouse 'gas', it isn't changing. Thus water vapour's larger overall role is irrelevent as it is static.

3/ CO2 concentrations seem to match temperature change with a considerable time lag (measured n hundresd of years)rather than as a precursor. Short term temperature fluctuations(over the course of tens of years) are very volatile which argue that other things bear much greater influence on temperature than the gradual increase in CO2 levels. If CO2 was more influential it would have a dampening effect on volatility (just as living by the sea reduces temperature fluctuations in the micro climate.)

Whether CO2 lag does invaldates AGW is disputed; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13. Please let me know what you disagree with in this article.

4/ Temperature change has only been very accurately mapped in the last 150 years, before that we have to rely on more abstract methods such as ice core samples. With this small sample of data we extrapolate far too much IMO - this earth has been through several cycles and is due for another ice age on the geological clock - that means that far more influential forces than greenhouse gases are moving conditions towards an overall cooling. When the earth gets hotter than it is now (and it has been so we are told) then something exerts a cooling effect that reverses the trend. Our ability to affect short term global temperatures by minute additions of a minor greenhouse gas is somewhat implausible.

Please define 'small sample' and tell me what would for you represent a large enough sample for a reliable result. I answer you this way as I feel knowing the extent of the statistical database supporting the argument you're opposing would be illuminating for you, and setting a standard of what WOULD be good enough would stop 'standard creep'. It's a bit like asking someone 'what would prove evolution to you'. I might not be able to prove something to you, but if you define your standards required for certainty I can see whether any evidence would be sufficient.

5/ When temperature change is discussed it is almost exclusively discussed in terms of how bad things will get (malaria will spread, storms will increase, cities will sink, food will get scarcer etc..) This is mythmaking the very thing that religion gets a bum rap for. In times of global change there are winners and losers yet it is portrayed as though all will suffer. If the world was getting cooler then would the argument swing round that we'd all be better off, more land would be available for building or more crops would be available? Research grants don't follow optimistic news.

I agree sometimes the presentation of data is sensationalised. This is typically done on both sides of the debate, but if you dig into reputable and well-supported assesments of impacts (see IPCC v4) you will notice a lack of sensational claims. It is also irrelevent to whether AGW is true or not.

6/ The short term effects of pretending we can keep the global temperature stable despite all the geological, atmospheric and solar effects will reduce the will to solve far more realistic and desirable aims - the extention of modern development and living standards to those sorely in need. Why spend billions on trying to stop ocean levels rising millimeters like some modern day Canute when rather we could educate and develop the threatened peoples so that if catastrophe arrives they have the resources to save themselves?

No one of any credible reputation would pretend 'we can keep the global temperature stable' other than by controlling AGW. If we control AGW we can sit back and enjoy the slow, gradual and unavoidable climate change due to solar, orbital and other natural forcings; it's not like there is an alternative. If you look at IPCCv4 you will see that a variety of scenarios as regards the spread of development are made. Duplicating the route 'we' in the West took is not neccesarily the best model for future development. China is already suffering extreme problems with pollution in general in some areas and is now seeking to avoid the same mistakes we made. If AGW is as factual as contended, the developing world is part of the solution. Recall ALL UK emissions = 2 years of growth in India and China. Fortunately they are smart and negotiate well and will not let themselves be consigned to a developmental slow lane.

7/ The real problem of our human impact upon the world is our rape of its natural resources (in particular the animals and plants) and our lack of effort to live in harmony with our environment and each other. Throwing money at reducing carbon emissions seems to aim at the wrong target, we should stuff trying to twiddle with things we barely understand and try and apply the lessons we have learnt IMO.

What, like don't release pollutants (recall something can be a natural thing in nature but in too high a concentration can have damaging effects) willy-nilly without knowing their effects? Like use renewable resources with no possibility of cartels like OPEC? I like this, we agree on something.

As such I feel that the global hysteria that the media ferments regarding a minor temperature change in the next 50 years that is not only unproven (didn't global temperatures drop between 1940 and 1970?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global-blended-temp-pg.gif is a nice little graph. Put a trend line on it. To me it shows a clear rise that can be explained by AGW, with natural forcing causing fluctuations away from the clear trend that in no way invalidates AGW.

but stops us from focusing on improving our world for all life. Reducing fuel consumption is great if it brings greater health, wealth and happiness to people - it's a disaster if all it does is condemn the under developed countries populations to short , impoverished lives of toil but meet some made up target on a politicians desk.
Engendering a love of our planet is worthwhile and desirable, creating a sense of fear and helplessness regarding an invisible gas is not. I reject the expenditure of money used on such bizarre projects as carbon offsetting when people are starving - we pretend to save them from a flood in 50 years time while denying them the means to educate and feed themselves now.

All based on you assuming you are right, and you are now the one sensationalisng the issue, which I had gathered you objected to other people doing.

I think your time would be far beter spent objecting to the billions being spent on millitary expenditure. We have been conned into keeping millitary expenditure at Cold War levels, where we were prepared to fight a massive foe to the death in a new era where the 'enemy' can be fought far more cost-effectively for a lower cost... as long as you avoid invading countries on a pretext and having to install an Army of occupation which may have been avoided had the removal of Saddam been done slower, with the agreement and participation of other Arabic countries as well as clear unequivocal UN sanction.

To sum up I'm sure we are trying to solve the wrong thing, I think we are focusing on a non-existing problem (global temperature change is not a problem), we are demonising an element on the periodic table (one that boosts plant growth in increased concentrations),

Errr... CO2 isn't an element but I know what you mean...

we are confusing environmentalism and our need to care for our beautiful planet with global cycles and solar fluctuations and we are using science to scare people and force behaviour - to the potential detriment of those in dire need (by diverting funds and trying to reduce economic development which is currently driven by abundant fossil fuels).

All based on you assuming you are right.

I haven't cited reams of study or data simply because the data is available for all to read and make up their own mind - I just wish to sum up the conclusions I have so far come to (and I don't have a fixed position - for me the argument isn't over.)

Mmmmm... Qc, why do you think it's okay for YOU to argue this way and say 'the data is available for all to read and make up their own mind', yet expect others (including the majority of qualified sceintists, a fact which has not be rebutted by the anti-AGW crowd) to supply data? You wouldn't accept their arguments if I said (and it is true) 'the data is available for all to read and make up their own mind'. If you don't like supporting your arguments fine, just don't try to make it sound reasonable.

This last point aside thank you for a well considered post.

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
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 .

Abaddon

Frank,

I'm gonna do these as my schedule permits;

Frank Claim One

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.

Abaddon Refutation

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.

Frank Rebutal

I am having a hard time with this one. Let me see....You support Mann's Hockey stick graph and join in to ridicule those who have pointed out its errors. You know that the Mann et al. graph if taken as accurate undermines the very existence of the medieval warming and Little Ice Age. And further more that Mann defends that omission because he claims it was a local phenomenon to North Western Europe.

Not only do several papers disprove that defense, but your argument above now embraces those climatic events and pulls in Volcanic and Solar forcing that would surely make those past events global.

Abaddon Response

*sigh* I have clearly stated that Mann et. al.'s graph is acknowledged as being contentious. I clearly state I think there are forcings that explain the MWP and LIA. Steve McIntyre, who was one of the biggest critics of the HS graph says;

If the HS were wrong, 2xCO2 is still an issue.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=709

I am not defending Mann; I am defending AGW. you brought the hockey stick into the discussion.

The following links supply information which show there HAS been 'significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/06/23/science/20060623_CLIMATE_GRAPHIC.html

The whole point is that while increases can be characterised as 'within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium', the increase now is not being caused by the solar, orbital and volcanic forcing that caused previous natural variations recorded in the last millennium.

Frank Claim 2

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").

Abaddon Refutation

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

Frank Rebutal

Who is ignoring Ice Cores? You are the undisputed King of Red Herring my friend. Change the topic. You are ignoring the data inconsistencies that have been shown to exist time and time again with ground station temperature reading.

Fact: Ground station data used in the Mann et al 100/1000 years that he crazy glued onto his 900/1000 year inferred data, is predominantly located in the US and Europe. Secondly his choice of data used represents only 7% of the area he sought to compare as a hemisphere wide argument. That data relied upon came primarily from Urban sites that have been shown to suffer from the well documented heat island effect. That is as much as 11 degrees C variant increasing ambient temperature by day and due to slow release at night keeping cities much warmer than surrounding rurals.

http://www.epa.gov/heatislands/

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/heatisl.html

Abaddon Response

With regard to its impact on the claims for AGW IPCC v4 says;

Urban heat island effects were determined to have neglible influence (less than 0.0006 °C per decade over land and zero over oceans) effect on these measurements.

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

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
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 .

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.

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
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 .

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.

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
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 .

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

jw
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 .

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

jw
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 .

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

jw
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.".

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

jw
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 .

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

jw
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 .

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...