More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[mikkey 0]

Quote

in fact far too many to even begin to cope with at a rational level

Well, welcome to the real world. This is actually one of the big issues. Nature is extremely complex - this is why many people have issues with the Co2 explanation and the modeling.

You should also have a look at Michael Crichton and not dismiss it "he writes novels" - as he his main points are around humans inabaility to fully understand and manage complex systems - like climate change.


PS: You wrote:

Quote

I'd love to go into each one in detail but because of the shear volume of points, it's impossible. At least within the time constaints I have at the moment.

But you had time to reserach in detail who is involved with the institue that sponsored one of the films.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[quade 4]

I watched "Swindle".

I have not yet had time to watch the one linked to tonight.

Quote

I find the comparison of the 2 documentaries with 9/11 conspiracies pathetic.

Never said YOU had to look at them that way. Only that -I- did.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

I'm at work . . . stealing processor cycles between rendering video.

It's pretty easy to surf text . . . kinda hard on the computer to render video and watch.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mikkey 0]

One of the myths that tick me off is that the current GW "believe" is universally accepted and that sceptics are all paid by oil companies or loonies and their work on par with 9/11 conspiracy theories.

1. Scientists who doubt there's a scientific "consensus" that we face dangerous man-made global warming:

Prof John Christy, IPCC lead author and head of Alabama's Earth System Science Centre: "I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists (who say) humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true."

Prof Charles Wax, Mississippi state climatologist: "There isn't a consensus among scientists."

Dr Roy Spencer, formerly NASA's senior climate scientist: "The only consensus I'm aware of is that it's warmed in the last century."

Prof emeritus Joel Kauffman, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia: "(M)any professors of climate science realise that carbon dioxide generated by human activity has caused little or no global warming."

2. IPCC scientists who doubt even the IPCC, said to represent 2500 scientists who all believe in dangerous man-made warming.

Prof Yuri Izrael, IPCC vice-chairman: "There is no serious threat to the climate."

Richard Lindzen, former IPCC lead author and meteorology professor at MIT: "There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons."

Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC reviewer: "The continued fairly unchanging warm weather since 1998 shows no signs of increasing, and is probably influenced by changes in the sun."

Dr Christopher Landsea, former IPCC author and hurricane expert: "It is beyond me why my (IPCC) colleagues would utilise the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming . . . I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

3. Petitions of scientists who doubt the faith.

A 2006 letter to Canada's Prime Minister signed by 60 experts in climate-related fields: " 'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified."

The Oregon Petition of Dr Frederick Seitz, US National Academy of Sciences past president, with the verified signatures of 17,800 scientists and technicians, including 2600 climate scientists: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere."

The 2005 Leipzig Petition of Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at Virginia University, and signed by about 80 prominent scientists and academics: "(W)e cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions."

4. Experts who once believed but now doubt.

Prof Nir Shaviv, Hebrew University astrophysicist: "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming."

Dr David Bellamy, famed green activist: "Global warming is largely a natural phenomenon."

Dr Reid Bryson, top climatologist and founding chairman of Wisconsin University's meteorology department: Temperatures are rising "because we're coming out of the little ice age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air".

Prof Tim Patterson, Carleton University paleo-climatologist: "The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

Prof Emeritus Jan Veizer, Ottawa University environmental geochemist: "The past record strongly favours the solar/cosmic alternative (to human gases) as the principal climate driver."

5. Australian doubters.

Bob Carter, research professor at James Cook University: "That 20th century warming - the most recent of many previous warm phases of similar or greater magnitude - was dangerous or human-caused, or even that the warming has continued after 1998, all yet remain to be demonstrated."

William Kininmonth, former National Climate Centre head: "(A)larmist predictions have no sound basis."

Dr David Evans, former climate modeller at the Australian Greenhouse Office: "(N)ew evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now sceptical."

Ian Plimer, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University: Blaming humans is "pseudo-science".

6. Interesting doubters.

Prof Antonio Zichichi, World Federation of Scientists president: Plausible "man is not to blame".

Prof Edward Wegman, who led an inquiry for a US Congressional committee to check IPCC statistics: "The assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported."

The late Roger Revelle, the professor Al Gore says first warned him of warming: The science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action".

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of Russia's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory: "Solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040. It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on earth in 15 to 20 years."

There's dozens more. Now count: How many has the media spoken to?

Isn't it high time it let just some of these sceptics - at least this once - explain themselves to the public?

Debate really shouldn't be this frightening. Not if the truth is on your side.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

The Oregon Petition of Dr Frederick Seitz, US National Academy of Sciences past president, with the verified signatures of 17,800 scientists and technicians, including 2600 climate scientists: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere."

I really recommend look closely at the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" before including the so-called petition in your speech. It's a well-known fraud. The rest of your post might or might not be credible. I don't know.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[quade 4]

Quote

I really recommend look closely at the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" before including the so-called petition in your speech. It's a well-known fraud. The rest of your post might or might not be credible. I don't know.

Source Watch info HERE.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[narcimund 0]

Oh. You should also inspect some others in your list:

* Prof John Christy appears to have changed his mind

* Leipzig Petition of Fred Singer: Go look that one up too. It's funny.

* Dr Roy Spencer, formerly NASA's senior climate scientist is also an Intelilgent Design enthusiast. There are some who might consider that a bad sign.

* "IPCC scientists who doubt even the IPCC, said to represent 2500 scientists": without a link this claims smacks of National Inquirer. Citing your sources would help a lot.

...skipping ahead because I've got work to do today...

* Ian Plimer, professor of mining geology. mining geology???

* Habibullo Abdussamatov: "Solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s... a steep cooling of the climate on earth in 15 to 20 years." Steep cooling? But we were just told the sun was causing the WARMING! Which is it?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,114]

>Steep cooling? But we were just told the sun was causing the WARMING! Which is it?

Doesn't really matter. The objective is to sow doubt, not to talk about what's going on. Victory for many of the denier activists is measured in how much confusion they can sow. Then they can claim "there's no consensus! We don't know anything!"

This, of course, is a derivative of the now-famous Chewbacca Defense.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

One of the myths that tick me off is that the current GW "believe" is universally accepted and that sceptics are all paid by oil companies or loonies and their work on par with 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I don't know anything about some of your sources, but if you're posting this to prove that sceptics aren't loonies, you should edit it down first. There are some real loonies messing up your results.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Steep cooling? But we were just told the sun was causing the WARMING! Which is it?

Doesn't really matter. The objective is to sow doubt, not to talk about what's going on. Victory for many of the denier activists is measured in how much confusion they can sow. Then they can claim "there's no consensus! We don't know anything!"

This, of course, is a derivative of the now-famous Chewbacca Defense.

From Dr Bryson

Q. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

Ok, and for those who like to FALSELY claim I have inserted the word "Wrong" (or even probably) well, just let me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,114]

> Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

Indeed. Science is not a democracy, and basic physical processes are not amenable to alteration through popular opinion. Fortunately, the scientific process does not require a vote to come to an understanding. We now know that cigarettes are bad for you, even though the "cigarettes are bad" platform was never elected (and even though millions were spent trying to sow dissent with that position.)

[narcimund 0]

Quote

{blah blah unconnected blah}

Chewbacca Defense: "When someone asserts his claim by saying something so patently nonsensical that the listener's brain shuts down completely."

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,114]

"Ladies and gentlemen, the scientists out there would certainly want you to believe that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are causing the planet to slowly warm. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost believe them myself! But, ladies and gentlemen, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with global warming? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this subject! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a scientist talking about climate change, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're thinking about this tonight, is the debate over climate change settled? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it's not settled! It doesn't even make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, then there's no consensus!"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

"Ladies and gentlemen, the scientists out there would certainly want you to believe that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are causing the planet to slowly warm. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost believe them myself! But, ladies and gentlemen, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with global warming? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this subject! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a scientist talking about climate change, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're thinking about this tonight, is the debate over climate change settled? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it's not settled! It doesn't even make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, then there's no consensus!"

OK, I will ask publicly. What the hell are you trying to say???? In straight forward terms please

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

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

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mikkey 0]

I find it interesting how again individual skeptics are attacked - never seen that with GW doomsayers. The list I used is from one of my sources and some of them might be more or less credible, but most are very credible.

I have not seen any of you posting valid counter points to the critism raised by many scientists, i.e. that solar activity correlates better with temperature fluctuations then CO2.

I have not seen you admitting that many alarmists you all find credible have been shown to fudge with the data. E.g. the propaganda that sea levels will rise by many meters when the latest IPCC report talks about 17 inches.

Again, radical changes to our wealth and social fabric are demanded based on a theory that is NOT proven.

There is a lot of evidence that scientists projections can be wrong. Remember the debate about population explosion? Remember Y2K?

This debate reminds me of what happened in the middle ages when somebody claimed the earth is not flat. All some of you are doing is to go for the man - not the ball.

This is why the whole subject stinks. The debate is being shut down and I don't like it.

Climate is a difficult question and the science is uncertain, what we need is to continue the research (with an open mind) and the debate and not blindly heading off in one direction.

I raised many questions in a previous post - I have not seen any real reply to it. So - why are GW doom sayers against nuclear power and all for solar and wind power? Why does CO2 lack behind temperature change in the ice core research, but solar activity is far better correlated?

I am not excluding human activity as a possible factor. But what I am saying is that the blind believe that the current majority theory is bullet proof might turn out to be a major mistake.

There is a good chance that we can not stop climate change (due to factors we can not influence) and that we might be better off to focus on mitigating the effects of it instead.

One thing is getting more obvious - the doomsday predictions by the church of global warming are starting to be discredited. Have a look how the IPCC has already downgraded many of the initial forecasts.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I find it interesting how again individual skeptics are attacked - never seen that with GW doomsayers. The list I used is from one of my sources and some of them might be more or less credible, but most are very credible.

I'm the one who "attacked" your "individual skeptics". I did that because I happen to know some of them are ridiculous and they make you look bad. If you want to show that skeptics aren't loonies, don't include loonies.

I didn't say anything about the science because I don't know anything (other than the popular press). But if you think nobody here is talking about the science, you must have Billvon in some Ignore Filter because that's all he does.

Pull the garbage out of your oft-forwarded-email-list-of-crapola-skeptics and the remainder might be worth talking about. But while you're tossing in the Oregon Petition, there's no credibility. That's like denying that you have imaginary friends and to prove it you point to Joe, Bill, Betty, and Mickey Mouse.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Don't watch South Park so I quit right there. I appears that in the context of the posts here, it is insulting. Did I get that part right?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

Indeed. Science is not a democracy, and basic physical processes are not amenable to alteration through popular opinion. Fortunately, the scientific process does not require a vote to come to an understanding. We now know that cigarettes are bad for you, even though the "cigarettes are bad" platform was never elected (and even though millions were spent trying to sow dissent with that position.)

Same old tired irrelavant analogy.

But UNfortunatly, the pro GWing is a man made disaster coming crowd will not tolerate open debate. So, they continually speak of the consensus of the scientific community agreeing with thier view. That is a blatant and dangerous lie. Therefore, thier position is political, not scientific.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Therefore, thier position is political, not scientific.

Hehehehe.

Hehehehehehe!!

HahhahahHAHAHAHAHAHAAH BWYAHAHAHAHA!!!!

hehehehe.....

hehe...

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[mnealtx 0]

I don't know, Narci... stop and think about it for a moment.

What is one of the first arguments put forth when a dissenting view comes up?

Yup... the "scientific consensus", and the dissenting view gets dismissed out of hand.

Bill is at least intellectually honest enough to consider the point being made and try to refute the argument with other research.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,114]

>But UNfortunatly, the pro GWing is a man made disaster coming crowd
>will not tolerate open debate.

I agree. Neither does the denier crowd. Any attempt to talk about global warming and there is an immediate counterattack. People claim the UN is funding them to lie, or that they are "global warming alarmists" who "are running out of time."

But again, I'm not talking about the politicians/activists that you have described above. If someone spends their time campaigning for or against a political position (including "it's a man made disaster coming to kill us all!" or "it's a secret conspiracy funded by the UN to destroy america") then they are politicians/activists. You don't hear much about the scientists unless you read Nature or go to the conferences where this stuff IS actually debated.

I've been to a few of those. And you know what? There's no name calling. No one gets called "a global warming activist" because no one is pushing their politics. No one gets called a denier because no one is denying the science. No one blames the UN for secret conspiracies. They talk about the parts of the science they are working on. The arguments are over gas half-lives, chemical weathering rates and insolation compensation. Not nearly as interesting, of course. But in the end a lot more illuminating.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I don't know, Narci... stop and think about it for a moment.

I have thought about it and I don't discount the idea -- just the messenger and his unjustified self-assurance.

Bill is an astounding fellow. He works hard to become qualified to have opinions about the topic. Nobody (or perhaps nearly nobody) else here is so justified.

I ruefully laugh the more people struggle to BEE-LEEEEVE that their partisan political views are in god-given agreement with the universe's objective conditions.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[mnealtx 0]

I dunno - seems like both sides have their "true believers"...but I do see your point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I dunno - seems like both sides have their "true believers"...but I do see your point.

I never argued otherwise! That might very well be true in the bigger world outside of speaker's corner.

But rushmc is definitely our most religious "true believer" in this crowd.

First Class Citizen Twice Over