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

Frank

Frank Claim Three

"There has been no catastrophic warming recorded."

Abaddon Refutation

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

Frank Rebutal (part)

OK, I can play that game, define overwhelming consensus!

Abaddon Response (part)

Easy; the opinion of the National Science Academies of the US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, Italy, Russia, Japan, China, India and Brazil seems a pretty good concensus.

The paper by Oreskes http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The retraction by Dr. Peiser, who authored a paper widely cited by AGW cynics which said the research by Oreskes was wrong and only 30% of scientists held a pro AGW opinion; he now states; "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser. Can you explain why so many anti-AGW websites cite the original Peiser paper and not his subsequent climb-down? I am curious.

Frank Rebutal (rest)

Catastrophic in reference to the recent past is probably a poor choice of words although it clearly means in keeping with the Myth being promulgated, namely "rising at a rapid unprecedented rate".

Abaddon Response (rest)

Your evasion aside, you seem to grant that the phrasing used ('catastrophic') was a 'poor choice'... maybe a misrepresentation? Or straw man? At risk of making a point of it, is it that hard to say 'golly, you have a point there, that is a very misleading way to phrase it'.

And temperature "rising at a rapid unprecedented rate" is not a myth. If it IS, then you will be able to show me figures that show temperature increases like (scale of and duration in which it occured) those on the following graph have occured before in absense of solar, volcanic, orbital or other natural forcing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

It's not happened in the past 2,000;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

... but hell, myths are EASY to disprove, so over to you.

So much so far for anti-AGW claims. The arguments made to support that 'AGW claims are myths' do NOT stand up to examination.

Frank Claim Four

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.

Abaddon Refutation

SixfNine has covered this very well.

Frank Rebutal (part)

Actually the the Mann et al graph used by IPCC shows a gradual decline in the global temperature for the past 900 years then the sudden increase.

I don't think 6of9 covered this at all. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/130204/2313220/post.ashx#2313220 provides a Red Herring if it is meant to deal with the 10 Myths presented by FOS.

The paper quoted is a fanciful list of supposed arguments against Mann's Hockey Stick Graph by the Website entitled REAL CLIMATE http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

Nowhere does 6of9 give credit to the source used, but you do not point that out but you take great pains in sifting through my posts that are full of hyperlinks and point out items I may have overlooked listing the citation or giving credit. That is just the type of unscientific approach the community of doomsday sayers use in fomenting this hysteria. Birds of a feather!

Abaddon Response (part)

Oh purlease; this is pathetic. You carelessly ommit fair attributation of data and then rather than apologising you falsely claim another person also did it and ask me why I didn't check up on their attributations.

Frank, SixofNine DID include his source. It's the one I would have quoted (and in fact have elsewhere). Look at his post under 'Filed under'. Paleoclimate is a link.

You also show you've not bothered to even read it; it is not 'a fanciful list of supposed arguments against Mann's Hockey Stick Graph' but, rather, ones in favour of the graph BY Mann. And 'fanciful' is easy to type, howabout actaully responding to the points, or is that too much effort? You want the same value of opinion but don;t want to work for it? Ha...!

Frank Rebutal (part)

The truth is as the Myth above states that the historical proxy data of the Hockey Stick graph with its unconventional shell came for the last 100 years data proves nothing more than it's authors wanted it to prove.

Abaddon Response (part)

If you had read the material supplied by SixofNine or this http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121 you would realise that OTHER authors have found the same using different methodology, thus the above claim is unsupported by fact. The lay term for this is 'big fat lie'.

Frank Rebutal (part)

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age.

Abaddon Response (part)

You seem to have missed this paragraph which shows LIA and other natural variations appear in reconstructions that also show recent rapid rises.

Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder "Little Ice Age" and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004).

Frank Rebutal (part)

Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

Abaddon Response (part)

The 40-70 drop was a NATURAL trend explained by NATURAL forcing. Current trends are NOT explainable by natural forcings. I fail to see why, if AGW is such a contrived argument, you have failed time and time again to show what forcings explain recent rapid rises. Is it the sun? The orbit? Come on Frank... show me the scintilating good science and alternative hypothesis for current trends. What... there isn't one? And despite having no alternative explanation you'll indulge in the repetition of misrepresentative and just all-out WRONG arguments? Why?

Frank Rebutal (part)

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

Abaddon Response (part)

If you had read the material supplied you would realise that other studies showing the current rapid trend authors have found the same using different methodology, thus the above claim is unsupported by fact.

Frank Rebutal (rest)

This Hockey Stick Graph is really quite miraculous as John Daly pointed out. In the 1990 IPCC report they used this commonly accepted temperature graph for the past 1000 years:

However with the Third assessment (TAR-2000) the IPCC adopted the new Mann graph Watchtower style without so much as an apology for misleading us all with the old graph above.

Abaddon Response (rest)

As all the data agrees that there is a recent rapid rise, and as this is what the hockey sticks shows, and as Mann HAS responded to criticism (despite you falsely claiming otherwise), I do not see any need for apologies for misleading data unless you feel like it, as the misleading data, clearly and demonsrably in these posts is coming from YOU. You claim Six plagerised when he cited his source, and then post a series of claims that any one who read the article cited by SixofNine would not have made, as some of the claims are demonstably falsified by the quoted article.

You are also STILL arguing about years old data and ignoring the latest data WHICH STILL SUPPORTS AGW. This so reminds me of Creationists using 'irreducable complexity' arguments that were refuted years ago (as they don't know they were refuted as they don't attempt to get an impartial view).

I'll do myth 3 another day.

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?