Frank75

Joined

• started 6 topics
• posted 585 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Frank75

• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

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

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

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

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  HS said

  I think that statement is a tad dramatic. This thread has actually been quite well served given the passions on both sides of the camp. I think that perhaps people who argue politics and disputed science should grow thicker skins or perhaps stay away from such threads.

  Perhaps you misunderstood the context of what I said as nowhere do I ever mention this thread. I was talking about the societal politics with regard to the scientific community as it related to Qcmbr's post about the IPCC report and this issue. What is going on in the debate (in general between the scientists not by us on this thread) or lack of it, over GW is why we are even having this discussion.

  Gyles and I, are a product of the European education system, especially the University system, which injects healthy doses of cynicism in its products and which unlike the US system has little respect or time for larger than life characters. Where others see political heroes and Yankee soundbytes, we just see plastic teeth and pin-striped hemorrhoids. This may account for our thicker skins and more pointed style, even when we challenge each other.

  People are people regardless of their education as we can see by the name calling and ad hominem attacks going on between the scientists on both sides of the pond. There is no doubt in my mind that as the political world invades every aspect of our society including our hallowed places of academia, the truth is becoming harder and harder to find. How can Scientists who derive their livelihood even if just through University professorship by the donations of wealthy citizens and corporations, tuition, and government funding for their research retain their objectivity?

  Like the gods of the ancients had an affect on the societies they touched, we tend to imitate or at least get swayed by their modern counterparts today. Larger than life characters exist in Europe too, and most of the time they do not know what they are talking about either. Just look at the McCartney's! What they are doing to one another is far more cruel than anything that could be done to a seal with a club!

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

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

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  $200,000 research grant produces Irrefutable evidence of global warming!

  Qcmbr:

  I just had a chance to read your post you made after being encouraged to look at the IPCC report yourself http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/130204/2327310/post.ashx#2327310

  You show by reasoning on the language used in the report that we are dealing with an essentially political document designed to meet the protocols of diplomacy but presented as a scientific brief. As the point you extracted about the "reduction of damage caused by climate change" and rightly point out as asinine.

  I think that we as a society will continue to stumble forward and make mistakes along the way as we have throughout our history regardless of what happens to the climate. Hopefully our collective consciences and influence on our political structure will minimize the mistakes, The truth is that we really have no map for the future but only a past with which to draw our lessons from. Even with that knowledge our societies power structure in the hands of politicians and policy makers is no match for the power of nature. Science which is in its infancy compared to politics, is supposed to have a different protocol. Taken from my name sake, that protocol should always be frankness/pragmatism in addition to questioning, challenging, progressiveness and exploration into the unknown. Our history would show that this is the opposite of what politics is and does.

  My hope is that as science advances and grows that it stays true to the process above and those by which science has been defined as, but that it never matures into what politics has become.

  Some scientists who are just people after all have allowed fear to enter into the process, at least in this instance to expedite some of their concerns.

  If the IPCC report represents the future of science and politics in some marriage of convenience then there will be a tragic end to what has distinguished the scientific community, namely objective research and a search for the truth.

  Winston Churchill once said, "I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents."

  I would say that the debate before us has resembled the ugly head of politics in almost every respect. "If it quacks like a duck...."

  The present challenge may not be GW at all but to pure science and the pursuit of truth as science lowers itself to the protocols of politics.

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

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

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Sorry, here is the 3,000,000 year graph.

  

  Oh and I have just about had it with the f%$&'ing ERROR message each and every time I post, which has lost me many a rant to the cyber void.

  No longer use Word since you're suggestions early on, I just edit inside the window and still find I need to post with Firefox and then edit with IE7 until it sits right or for some unknown reason it won't let me edit anymore.

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

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

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  But I'm glad I read this thread because this is, oh heck I'll just say it, it is like a laboratory and it demonstrates so well on a small scale why it is so hard to get us people to do anything constructive to save our planet. Thank you for your time.

  John

  Thanks John. I appreciate your comments and I think after being involved with this thread almost from the start that I can say 98 percent of the posters are very much interested in salvation for the planet. All that is happening is we are trying to get at the truth of what will/can provably do that if there is anything we are in fact able to do.

  Really the whole thing started out about the hype/hysteria over GW. I have been in business management most of my adult life. Early in that career, I could be swayed because of inexperience an naivety by dramatic emotional appeals to deal with problems (sometimes very real, other times very imaginary) in the work process either mechanical or human resource related. As a result I learned to take a "step back, wait a minute, let's sleep on it" approach when someone comes to me with doom and gloom, one sided stories or a closed, thick paper folder I would never have time to go through for analysis. Sadly I have purchased expensive equipment/processes that performed no better, marginally better or even much worse than the old ones. Even greater sadness do I feel when it came to human resource issues in those early days. Sad because I was manipulated into letting go good people because I couldn't see past the private agendas of ambitious sometimes ruthless people.

  As a result I learned to take things with a grain of salt when the red flags of agenda are clearly present. Yes Abaddon, even agendas on the critical side of the GW issue!

  Most of the back and forth I have had with Abaddon is role playing. At least on my part. I believe in the middle of the road approach on this one as I believe that is where we and the science will ultimately end up. Also because personally I care very much for the earth's natural resources, environment and my community responsibility. One of the issues brought against me when I was removed from the JW hierarchy well before finally being DF'd was over my efforts to get my book study group involved in the community and be better citizens. One way was to pick up garbage over a couple of Saturday mornings in the spring, another was to shovel driveways, pick up prescriptions or run other errands for shut ins etc. I also pay extra for green power and my business goes out of its way to encourage safe environmental solutions, reduce, reuse and recycle.

  But there again I was able to use my experience when the industry I am in went hysterical over the environment. I remember the claims of saving the planet by buying this product or eliminating this or that. Many companies jumped on the band wagon with "Environmentally Friendly this" and "biodegradable that" which are absolutely useless catchphrases. The same things are being said about solutions to global warming too. I remember what I learned about being sceptical and now apply it to the many arguments being put forward as well as "earth friendly" solutions being promoted to replace fossil fuels. We don't want earth friendly replacements, we want safe, sustainable, practical, worthwhile/worthy solutions.

  A prostitute is friendly but is hardly safeand hardly long term sustainable. So before we rush headlong from the frying pan into the fire lets make sure our next steps are well thought out. This is not as easy as finding something to replace the propellants in Lysol spray or lemon pledge!

  Abaddon wants to debate, like in debate class. I have chosen the devils advocate role on this one, as it reminds me of the time I was given pro abortion to debate in my high school debate. At the time and place an unpleasant prospect. Especially being raised a JW! At any rate I understand many of the arguments Abaddon raises although he still has not proved or established anything that reasonable scientific doubt and alternate theories cannot at present still account for or explain. So as the devils advocate it would not be right to roll over just yet, especially when someone clearly dismissive of contrary opinion who has shown a God Complex in his constant appeal to his own authority or pseudo expertise.

  Abaddon, has dismiss FOS and CO2 science as junk/crank science and I reject Real Climate project, Exxon secrets etc. along with all of the other scientists who are dismissive of constructive critique and debate as a purely defensive mechanism. I wonder if I can be permitted to post sobering information from someone who clearly supports AGW, but by his own accord is only 2/3 convinced from the science which he says has not completed the scientific process/requirement from theory and hypothetical to proven and established yet.

  That is Richard A. Muller

  In one of his papers on Ice Ages and Global Climate change he discusses the pattern of our earths long history in a gradual meaningful way.

  I wish to post the graphs he use to illustrate the difficulty we have as humans when it comes to knowing how best to tamper with the complex, monstrous task of "SAVING THE PLANET"

  Here is a general recent view of climate that has roused the current debates about GW in general and AGW more specifically.

  

  This graph clearly shows an upward trend and even if we go into a downward trend over the next 20-25 years, the upward momentum will still be present.

  I have said a lot about the Mann et al graph and the contention and controversy it has produced.

  What happens if we step back using similar data to Mann et al. (only proxy data exists prior to 1900), but instead of looking at 1000 years, lets look at the start of the Greco/Roman age of mankind that dates back more than 2400 years.

  Does it not make sense that we should go back to such a relevant Genesis of our age, as opposed to the dark ages which is totally arbitrary, statistically short and inappropriate to say the least?

  

  What happens if we step back even farther using similar data again to what Mann used but instead of looking at 2400 years, lets look at the start of the agriculture age which was about 7000 BC.

  Since our civilization is at stake, should we not go back to the start of it, as opposed to some other arbitrary point?

  

  What starts to emerge as far as a picture of the true nature of climate variance when we zoom out to take a snapshot of 2400 years or 12,000?

  Does the name calling, brow beating or chest beating start to diminish? Shouldn't it?

  None of this argues for or against AGW. It is just a collection of graphs that as far as I know is not challenged or disputed.

  Now what about 100,000 years?

  

  Or 420,000 years?

  

  Now 3,000,000?

  

  I have searched and can find nothing critical of Muller, his credentials or aspersions about who he sleeps with. So I wonder if his comments with pass without cheap shots from Abaddon or anyone else.

  Muller wrote the following in 2003/2004 when the Mann et al. hockey stick graph and the Soon, Baliunas, Macintyre debacle was still raging.

  He had this to say after giving benefit of the doubt to the motives of all involved:

  It was unfortunate that many scientists endorsed the hockey stick before it could be subjected to the tedious review of time. Ironically, it appears that these scientists skipped the vetting precisely because the results were so important.
  

  Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

  Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist's instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious.

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

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

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Abaddon: Essentially you have attacked the argument for AGW as mischaracterised by webpages like FOS I wouldn't wipe my butt with (I think I have documented why).

  You have attacked papers supporting AGW using papers authored by obvious (and demonstrable) opinions for hire, ignored the refutations of such anti-AGW papers, ignored the climb-down of the authors of such papers, or tried (prehaps unwittingly) to imply things like CO2 solubility have been 'missed out' of the data supporting AGW.

  You sound like a broken record. "Obvious" and "demonstrated"? By you? where? You have demonstrated nothing but hearsay and counter opinions by zealots that are themselves flawed.

  The burden of proof is on you to support your position. Attacking my comments by the way is not supporting your position.

  Prove that FOS scientists are any less reliable than those who author Real Climate Project.

  Accusation is not proof of guilt, and the lack of accusation is not proof of innocense!

  Please no emotional appeals to Exxonsecrets and Sciencecop et al. Their so called evidence reads like the evidence presented at my DF'ing!

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

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

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Brian

  I've been avoiding this topic as I've watched it grow.

  That is a shame as you seem to be able to say in one post what I have been arguing over 12 pages!. Thanks for weighing in.

  Abaddon:

  Did you not check the dates? Or did you not mention that you are quoting an older opinion of his as this isn't about facts for you?

  You are a monkey! Of course I know which was said first and when. Do you not know what adjunct means? All of that crap you state above about Peisers admission in 2006 doesn't change his overall criticism of Oreskes, just acknowledges some meaningless discrepancies. He says just that you if you read in context you twit. Peiser's data was somewhat different, but essentially contained the same source material. He found 1117 articles and Oreskes reported on 998. He asked for the search criteria and acted on the information given to prepare his critique. If anything the addition of 120 more references from the data base Oreskes cited should have vindicated her consensus statements. The fact that they didn't implies that Oreskes left out information that was not favorable to her argument.

  My argument above was that you have not proved there has been any "climb down" by means of the email to Media Watch in 2006.

  As I explained above, I included *all* documents (i.e. 1247) whereas Oreskes only used "articles" (however, there are only 905 abstracts in the ISI databank)

  > It implies that, given this methodology, the 34 articles you found that "reject or doubt the view that human activities > are the main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years" may not have been included in the 928 articles > randomly selected by Prof Oreskes. Is this possible?

  Yes, that is indeed the case. I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.

  Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

  He stands by his main contention so you can stop playing with the so called facts you are trying to use to paint me into a corner. It isn't working and it won't work.

  Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active.

  That "small" active community is just as large as the small active pro AGW community at the other end of the spectrum as shown in one survey Peiser noted. These findings by Bray point that out:

  “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1 indicates “strongly agree” and a value of 7 indicates “strongly disagree”. Countries, and number of responses from each country are as follows:
  USA n = 372; Canada n = 14; Germany n = 56; Italy n = 14; Denmark n = 5; Netherlands n = 4; Sweden n = 5; France n = 5; U.K. n = 18; Australia n = 21; Norway n = 3; Finland n = 3; New Zealand n = 6; Austria n = 3; Ethiopia n = 1; South Africa n = 3; Poland n = 1 Switzerland n = 7; Mexico n = 3; Russia n = 1; Argentina n = 1; India n = 3; Spain n = 2 Japan n = 3; Brazil n = 1; Taiwan n = 1; Bulgaria n = 1
  

  To the question posed above there were 530 valid responses. Descriptive statistics are as follows:

  Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median = 3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84; Variance = 3.386

  Frequencies:

  1 strongly agree 50 (9.4% of valid responses)

  2 134 (25.3% of valid responses)

  3 112 (21.1% of valid responses)

  4 75 (14.2% of valid responses)

  5 45 (8.5% of valid responses)

  6 60 (10.8% valid responses)

  7 strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of valid responses)

  Rather than being dogmatic like you the above survey illustrates that the number who are strongly convinced about AGW are balanced by an equal if not statistically larger number who strongly remain unconvinced.

  The median results along with the undecided/ambivalent number prove you along with the IPCC and Oreskes to be liars or at least intellectually dishonest. My owning stock in Chevron does not invalidate this conclusion, it is the facts that do so.

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

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

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Abaddon:

  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.

  Wikipedia:Egas Moniz received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1949 for his development of prefrontal leucotomy. In the United States, a modified version of this procedure, often referred to as the "ice pick lobotomy", was instituted in a highly unethical manner, and was performed somewhat indiscriminately. The procedure has fallen into disrepute and was later prohibited in several countries.

  I like the way you handled this. Dismissive as usual. You argued that Baliunas must be a crank/quack for her contrarian views on CFC's BECAUSE Nobel awards were given to 3 CFC scientists for their work. What kind of foundational argument is that?

  I merely pointed to Wikipedia's collection of controversies to point out the ridiculousness of such a position of certitude. Your reasoning would have us conclude that unless the science that has since called into question the work of Moniz, were themselves given the Nobel prize, his Nobel prize somehow trumps the present "disrepute" of his work! Can you not acknowledge that Nobel prizes no matter how they scrutinise the selection process or what category involved, can later become scandalous after other information comes to light? Whether talking about Kissinger's involvement in war mongering operations coming to light or the one involving Moniz noted above. Time will tell. That is all I was saying.

  The experience of Einstein's stormy relationship with Nobel is grounds enough for dismissing your assumptions about the institution. Einstein and the Nobel Committee:Authority vs.Expertise

  The whole CFC connection with the ozone layer discussion is still not over. I am not arguing in favor of scepticism of the merit for the Nobel prize. Obviously scandal is rare by comparison to the number of awards granted. Nor do I question the research, conclusions and science of Molina, Crutzen & Rowland, as I lack the expertise to do so. I just encourage people to be critical thinkers and apply scepticism about the absolute claims made by scientific theorists or their cheering section. Even award winning ones. My upbringing inside the Watchtower reinforces that position.

  The jury is still out on CFC and ozone in the real world of the upper atmosphere until we pass the threshold years of 2024, 2050 and 2068. 2024 is argued to be the year that we start to see a turnaround in the ozone, 2050 is an arbitrary target date for seeing the hole close while 2068 is supposed to see the end of the problem. You and I will likely be gone by then so it is our children who will know whether the CFC ban was justified along with criticism that Baliunas and others put forward during the debate over them.

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

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

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Abaddon

  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.

  You are grossly misrepresenting Peiser's position/paper as well as mine. He merely pointed out that using the same information source Oreskes cited for her consensus actually revealed no such consensus at all. To say that "these 998 scientific articles conclusively prove consensus" and then Peiser argues and proves that those sources make no such point about majority view, in fact the opposite is inferred through a lack of positive statements in those very documents, does not mean that Peiser is opposed to the idea of a majority AGW climatologists. He simply rejects that those sources can be used to establish the consensus argument. There is no "climbdown" Oreskes paper is in error, it is provably false even fraudulent.

  Peiser still stands by what he wrote:

  Yet the scientific community is far from any global warming consensus, as was revealed by a recent survey among some 500 international climate researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch of the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes."

  I fail to see how his email comments in any way is a retraction or contradicts what he said in 2005. Perhaps he feels 75% is overwhelming, or perhaps he came across another poll that shows a different ratio. Peisers acknowledging that does not make it a slam dunk or as rosey as you state for the AGW consensus argument or your brand of AGW and you know it. The context of his later email quote reveals that this "overwhelming majority" about AGW is far from being on the same page.

  Again, just because he cites a scientific poll about where climatologist stand (75 AGW, 25 against), doesn't mean he embraces as final those numbers either. It was simply an adjunct to his critique of Oreskes. Had the survey included all scientists involved in the field studying GW there would possibly be a reason to embrace the "overwhelming majority" that you embrace. However that is not the context of Peiser's paper.

  I asked you to define majority and you mocked my request in your dismissive style. I would say that the 75% of this poll by Von Storch is a majority in a democratic sense, but not an overwhelming one in a scientific sense. I would also say that 25% is a minority but not a small minority in either sense. To me overwhelming would be 95+% and a minority 5-% and I am sure that many would concur. However this phantom 95% would need to have a solid consensus to make the majority argument have any meaning.

  You are here on this thread waving the banner of SCIENCE, typing the word in HUGE letters. You are however undermining your own position by means of mocking people who side with the 25% (or more like Allegre's recent switch). As Peiser noted:

  The stifling of dissent and the curtailing of scientific skepticism is bringing climate research into disrepute. Science is supposed to work by critical evaluation, open-mindedness and self-correction. There is a fear among climate alarmists that the very existence of scientific skepticism and doubts about their gloomy predictions will be used by politicians to delay action. But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science.

  I would also suggest in response to your last question, that you could answer the question YOURSELF as to why Peiser himself does not post the so-called retraction on his website under his "Global Warming" section where it would appropriately fit if he felt it valid/accurate. I only included that email in my post in the interests of being fair in this discussion.

  I submit that your zeroing in on the overwhelming majority comment is unfair because you attempt to apply a different meaning to it than Peiser himself implies through his own published statements, i.e. 75/25

  Do you accept those number Peiser revealed of 75%/25% as accurate? Can you establish or demonstrate what you mean by overwhelming with references to data, polls or at least something more emperical than "trust me" because shutterbug does?

  I provide for those interested some of his more definitive adjunct statements by Peiser that shed light on the mystery. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm

  it is quite remarkable that the global mean temperature, as recorded by NASA's global Land-Ocean Temperature Index, has actually dropped slightly during the last couple of years -- notwithstanding increased levels of CO2 emissions. Two more years of cooling and we may even see the reappearance of a new Ice Age scare.

  Whatever one may think of these odd developments, the idea that the sun is the principal driver of terrestrial climate has been gaining ground in recent years. Last month, Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top Earth scientists, published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded that "empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."

  What the Russian, Israeli and Canadian researchers have in common is that they allocate much of the climate change to solar variability rather than human causes. They also publish their papers in some of the world's leading scientific journals. So why is it that a recent study published in the leading U.S. journal Science categorically claims that skeptical papers don't exist in the peer-reviewed literature?

  Moving right along.....

  What happened to the countless research papers that show .... that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain? An unbiased analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers (many of them written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change." The truth is, there is no such thing.

  In conclusion I would like to purposefully drag a red herring across this debate. Peiser also analysed some of the health issues that have been raised over global warming using peer reviewed articles on the topic of climate related mortality.

  I would like to be clear at this point that the observations are directed toward climate only and are not dealing with respiratory problems and other diseases associated with pollution known to be behind CO2 emissions. I like most am keen on all efforts to clean up the pollution that is detrimental to health.

  These studies essentially falsify the contention that future warming will lead to a significant increase of heat-related mortality rates. In fact, some of Britain's leading medical experts have calculated that a rise of the average temperature by two degrees Celsius over the next 50 years would increase heat-related deaths in Britain by about 2,000 - but would reduce cold-related deaths by about 20,000http://www.sma.org/smj2004/11/00007611-200411000-00016.pdf

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

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

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Frank

  I am sorry you object to defending the arguments you advanced in favour of AGW cynicism.

  Statements like this that attempt to characterise my position are transparent.

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

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

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

  The points I have raised, even the polar bear, all support my position as a skeptic. Everything that the AGW lobby, while being "far from unanimous" has to say or contribute to the HYSTERIA, can and has been challenged by reputable scientists using the same data.

  Even the Real Climate website principle author Gavin Schmidt has been challenge on his CO2 AGW modeling by Jeffrey Glassman's paper on THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE. His paper provides the "supported claim" you asked for back here

  There Glassman shows that the solubility of CO2 of earths oceans diminishes as water temperature rises. When he puts the Vostok ice core data on a graph the correlation is easily seen.

  

  It has been shown in other research papers that the Ocean is a sink for CO2 and yet others see it as a contributor to Atmospheric CO2. The contention now is that the oceans do both, depending on their temperature.

  Not stating anything in the absolute here, (this is Glassmans paper) insights like this prove that we still have a long way to go in determining exactly what processes are at work, and what should be done if anything. So as individuals we have a right and responsibility to remain skeptical until such time as a clearer perspective is gradually revealed.

  Glassman concludes:

  CARBON DIOXIDE SHOULD NO LONGER DRIVE PUBLIC POLICY The discovery that the Vostok CO2 record is an effect of the oceanic solubility pump has profound effects on the science and on public policy.

  Over those 420,000 years, warm ocean water has regulated the concentration of CO2 by release of this gas into the atmosphere. Because there is no trace of build–up of CO2 from forest fires, volcanoes, or the oceans themselves, cold waters must be scrubbing CO2 out of the air. Since there is no difference between man-made and natural CO2, anthropogenic CO2 is sure to meet the same fate.

  To the extent that the analyst’s Vostok temperature trace represents a global atmosphere temperature, so does the concentration of CO2. Thus, CO2 is a proxy for global temperature, and attempting to control global temperatures by regulating anthropogenic CO2 is unfounded, futile, and wasteful.

  Glassmans observations on the GCM's (the fanciful Global Climate Models) being proffered by so called experts are a must read for anyone who is yet undecided about the AGW CO2 hysteria.

  Frank said: What is disputed is the causality of the warming. One camp insists on dwelling on the human component. Do humans have an impact on the environment, YES. That is impossible to deny.

  Does this impact or footprint play a role in the warming trend that we are observing? Possibly! So let's apply the scientific method to that hypothesis!

  No "we" do not deny Global Warming, but merely contest that Global warming is caused by CO2 levels (at all, in part or let alone just those emitted by mankind) HERE

  Rather than falsely characterising my position, you could provide some facts yourself about your position that AGW is a fact and the all important CO2 plays the dominant roll. If I am not allowed to use biased sources like FOS then you are not permited to use Real Climate! Deal?

  Abaddon: 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.

  I never advanced the 10 myths as an absolute position of mine firstly, secondly nowhere have you proved those myths to be erroneous! You merely dismissed them as lies. However you feel that I am somehow required to do so.

  You are in the sandbox playing army soldier with the other kids playing cops and robbers. Have you always had a hard time getting along with your peers? Relationships? Divorced by any chance?

  How can you contend my belief when right from the start my position and others has clearly been one of a skeptic due to the hysteria? Such skepticism only being reinforced by the 10 myths authored by scientists as qualified if not more so than the "Real Climate Project" contributors most of whom are hardly even 30.

  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.

  I think the above statement of yours is the best proof for disbelief in AGW. You see, if the universe revolves around you as you contend then the scientific models are completely wrong!

  My not responding to your every comment is not a refusal to respond. I'll bet you were a Dub elder once with logic like that, if not well on your way to being one.

  Likewise my failure to address your rebuttal does not make doubt of AGW unfounded, anymore than your refusal to comment on, say, Allegre's recent position change on AGW makes your reason for AGW belief unfounded.

  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.

  Peisers personal statement in an email aside, (which says nothing other than his opinion, an opinion that is nowhere found on his website) His paper that reviewed the many flaws of Oreskes paper dealt with the provably dishonest statements. You are the one who has made the argument about credibility either lending to or taking away from the positions being made. Rather than plucking his the statement above, you should see that his personal view (which is in no way backed up with reference or quantified) only bolsters his rebuttal of Oreskes paper. He still maintains that Oreskes drew conclusions and made outright claims from the 928 articles that are provably not there, in fact coming from thin air. Even though he admits a majority believe in human causality, he points out that there is still no consensus, in fact "consensus is far from unanimous".

  Peiser:

  Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory.

  But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.

  Then we get on your merry go round over the Mann et al HS graph:

  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.

  Abaddon: I am beginning to see why BAtold me not to waste my time with you. At least this is public and people can read and inform themselves.

  You had the nerve to go at me about 6of9's rebuttal of my posting of the FOS 10 myths, (actually you only pointed to his straw man of the HS graph being the linchpin for AGW) when you knew very well that the 10 myths were very laughably different than the ones put up by FOS. In fact those 10 strawman myths (if I may) do nothing to address the issues FOS has raised. At any rate I did refute his rebuttal

  I am the one who should "sigh*. Where have you admitted the HS graph is contentious? That would be a good start, even for you.

  How can you say you are not defending this graph when it is part of the IPCC report? In 2000 the report postured a 66% certitude, then replaced an accepted temperature model of the past 1000 years with the Mann et al HS graph.

  You cannot argue that my use of a paper or citing an source requires that I accept everything an author of a paper states, or even what an author has done or said in the past, and then exempt yourself!

  Abaddon: Until you 'antis' come up with more credible references ... I'll not hold my breath. Although I would enjoy a decent debate about the scientific claims made on either side I doubt any of you will oblige me. HERE

  Frank75: What pisses me off is how those who dispute Al Gores very profitable I might add, docufiction are called names like "Global Warming deniers". As if they are denying the holocaust! The truth is it is not as cut and dried as that at all. The voices in the back, and many learned and respected voices I might add are not denying that the earth is and has been warming for millennia, because that is undeniable from the scientific data. What they are doing is asking for scientific proof that greenhouse gases are to blame and that the principle cause is CO2 from humanities footprint which is actually very small. HERE

  I am not "Anti GW", I am opposed to the hysteria and religious hysteria at that. All I have said from the beginning is it is not as cut and dried as the IPCC report and persons such as yourself claim it to be.

  In the POST where you lay out your viewpoint and include the weblink to "Real Climate" to a page disputing the relevancy of pointing to the ICE AGE scare of the 70's is a case in point. Real Climate project has a list of pro AGW agenda scientists including Mann who is listed number two on the contributors page with Gavin Schmidt as number one. These two have been primarily attacking the scientists who disagree with their conclusions.

  For you to definitively herald this "project" (which seems to be the source of your few references) as the supreme opinion is your choice, but to cast aspersions to the Big Oil agenda which is patently false at the likes of FOS or the Frazer Institute is hypocritical.

  As one of the principle IPCC GCM modelers Gavin Schmidt has openly admitted that he has left out input data from alternate forcings such as cosmic rays. http://www.rawls.org/Global_warming_omitted_var.htm

  NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt recently justified leaving cosmic radiation out of NASA models on the grounds that the effect is not needed. “[T]here is no obvious need for ‘new’ or unknown physics to explain what [is] going on,” he explains to science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle (at Pournelle’s website). Earth to NASA: it isn’t enough to tweak your model to fit the historical temperature record. You have to fit ALL the data, including the evidence that cosmic radiation produces cloud cover. If you leave out a real effect, your model is WRONG. Warming that ought to be attributed to solar activity gets misattributed to greenhouse gases, and whatever predictions you make on the basis of those exaggerated warming effects are lies.

  These lies are intentional. The goal is to have a grounds for demanding the curtailment of human activity. That is the founding stone of environmental religion. Environmentalists see man as displacing nature, and in this contest, they side with nature. As the self-appointed representatives of a natural world that cannot speak for itself, they see all human impacts as by definition bad, and the interdiction of human impacts as necessarily good, regardless of whether the pretext for curtailing human activity is honest or dishonest.

  Gavin Schmidt’s rejection of proper scientific principles is just one example.

  Not everyone shares your affection for the science of the authors of your Real Climate Project

  Frank75