iNow Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Why am I suddenly reminded of Ray Comforts banana argument?
overtone Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) What evidence do YOU have that the Earth is no longer fluctuating naturally between Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth? Everybody here agrees that the earth is always fluctuating between climate states or around a mean or something. So? What's the point? The current very rapid greenhouse gas boosting and consequent rapid (and dangerous, to people) runup in the global temperatures is obviously not natural, but that doesn't mean the natural stuff has gone away. Nobody is saying that. Edited January 7, 2015 by overtone 1
hoola Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 In the early 60's a general push became apparent that tobacco was soon to be declared a carcinogen. The skeptics of that period included specialized "tobacco doctors" who, largely at the behest of the tobacco companies, made media claims that tobacco wasn't harmful, and in small doses, healthful. One such point made was the reduction of prostate cancer evident in populations of male smokers. In this particular defense, the doctors left out the fairly obvious conclusion that smokers tended to die before reaching the age most men die from prostate cancer...another disinformation campaign is in place today, by another set of mega corporations to stall the inevitable necessary steps to switch from fossil fuels. 1
Harold Squared Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) What exactly do you mean, o.p.? Do you doubt the modest rise in global mean temperatures of late, the alleged cause of said increase, or the supposition that this phenomenon will inevitably be disastrous? These are some of the elements of the anthropogenic global warming cult, er, folly, er, hypothesis. Which would you like to know more about? Hoola, thank you for bringing up the issue of selection bias and the example. Of course, if you were to confine the examples to the topic in question, you could probably find such on both sides of the AGW question. Early on in the thread, perhaps, a colleague from Florida maintained that global warming and its alleged effect on coastlines would be more damaging overall than global cooling. Would he have given the same response had he lived in, say, Idaho? Arrhenius, an early proponent of the AGW hypothesis, predicted "more equable and better climates" as a consequence, but he was a resident of more northerly latitudes. Edited January 24, 2015 by Harold Squared
Tim the plumber Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 In the early 60's a general push became apparent that tobacco was soon to be declared a carcinogen. The skeptics of that period included specialized "tobacco doctors" who, largely at the behest of the tobacco companies, made media claims that tobacco wasn't harmful, and in small doses, healthful. One such point made was the reduction of prostate cancer evident in populations of male smokers. In this particular defense, the doctors left out the fairly obvious conclusion that smokers tended to die before reaching the age most men die from prostate cancer...another disinformation campaign is in place today, by another set of mega corporations to stall the inevitable necessary steps to switch from fossil fuels. Yep, some doctors and scientists can be influenced by money. Who would have thought it, they are just like the rest of us. So why is it that you don't apply the same skepticism to the reports from the scientists who will only get the next research grant if they go along with the consensus on AGW?
Strange Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 So why is it that you don't apply the same skepticism to the reports from the scientists who will only get the next research grant if they go along with the consensus on AGW? Why do you think that is the case? There are a lot of large companies who are able to spend large amounts of money (and maybe do) on research that would undermine the consensus. Why are so few researchers chasing those dollars? Why isn't there a significant amount of evidence coming out supporting the continued use of oil, gas and coal? Maybe, just maybe, it is because science isn't quite as corrupt as you think it is.
John Cuthber Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 Yep, some doctors and scientists can be influenced by money. Who would have thought it, they are just like the rest of us. So why is it that you don't apply the same skepticism to the reports from the scientists who will only get the next research grant if they go along with the consensus on AGW? OK, so who has more money to "bribe" scientists? Is it the environmentalist movement or the oil companies? Why would the government(s) be giving out grant money to these people if they weren't right- or, at least, backed by evidence?
Harold Squared Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) You guys are talking about CONSPIRACIES, as if they were real or something. Wow! To answer the last question first, politicians are likely to support a political agenda regardless of scientific merit, that is why they are politicians and not scientists. And who might be these saintly and impoverished donors to the environmentalist cause? People like Maurice Strong, and Kenneth Lay of Enron fame, there are two luminaries for you. Edited January 24, 2015 by Harold Squared
Strange Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 You guys are talking about CONSPIRACIES, as if they were real or something. Wow! Only Tim.
Harold Squared Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 Only Tim. Then "only Tim" has a clue. -1
John Cuthber Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 You guys are talking about CONSPIRACIES, as if they were real or something. Wow! To answer the last question first, politicians are likely to support a political agenda regardless of scientific merit, that is why they are politicians and not scientists. And who might be these saintly and impoverished donors to the environmentalist cause? People like Maurice Strong, and Kenneth Lay of Enron fame, there are two luminaries for you. OK, but why would the politicians bother to pay scientists to support either side of this issue? In particular, it makes much more sense for them to suppress worry about AGW and carry on raking in money from taxes on gas and oil. "who might be these saintly and impoverished donors to the environmentalist cause? " People like me who support organisations like Greenpeace.
Harold Squared Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 I respectfully submit that Strong's money speaks louder than yours and that his motives may differ. As to WHY politicians might have a hidden agenda, I would say increased control over the means of production by cap and trade schemes and looking as if they are doing something in the public interest while doing so, in order to court the "green" lobby and stay in office. Another reason the playing field is far from level is mass media bias. The mass media has determined that their best interest lies in scaring people with emotional appeals rather than rational arguments, e.g. "If it bleeds, it leads." Since doom and apocalypse are the stock in trade of the AGW cult, they get more ink, metaphorically speaking. Never mind how often they have cried wolf in the recent past.
John Cuthber Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 Doom and gloom can be spun from both sides of the argument, so that's not a valid reason. You can spin a yarn about the need to revert to the stone age in order to avoid the AGW apocalypse.
CharonY Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 So why is it that you don't apply the same skepticism to the reports from the scientists who will only get the next research grant if they go along with the consensus on AGW? Because that is not how science funding works. You do not get funds if you want to research something that is not new. In contrast, if your research unequivocally demonstrates that the current consensus is flawed, you are almost guaranteed to have a high ranking publication. However, your data must be extremely strong to do so. Politicians (luckily) do not influence directly funding decisions.
Harold Squared Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 You can spin a yarn about the need to revert to the stone age in order to avoid the AGW apocalypse. Yet I shall not, for that is the position of the wind/solar/AGW advocates. It is pretty much all they do. "Fire BAD!"
iNow Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) Yet I shall not, for that is the position of the wind/solar/AGW advocates. It is pretty much all they do. "Fire BAD!"Is it possible to make your case without using such obvious misrepresentations of the positions of those who accept the overwhelming scientific consensus? Edited January 24, 2015 by iNow
Harold Squared Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) Too right, it is much more complicated than that, after all. For example leading AGW advocate, mediocre science student, Nobel Laureate and Academy Award Winner, former Vice President of the USA Albert A. Gore and his buddies paid $200 million for 15% of Canadian based PetroBakken, a natural gas producing fracking company back in 2013. Asked about the transaction, Gore responded that wind and solar were inadequate and that if he did not invest in the company someone else would. He compared himself to Robin Hood. So fire is good when it puts money in AL GORE's pocket. Or some kind of hood's... Edited January 24, 2015 by Harold Squared
Strange Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 Too right, it is much more complicated than that, after all. For example leading AGW advocate, mediocre science student, Nobel Laureate and Academy Award Winner, former Vice President of the USA Albert A. Gore Why do people who don't like the science keep criticizing some almost-unknown foreign ex-politician? What's that all about? Perhaps you could focus on the science. What do you think is wrong? CO2 does't absorb infra-red? The levels aren't increasing? They are increasing but it isn't due to human activity? It is increasing due to human activity but isn't driving climate change? It is driving climate change but it doesn't matter? Or ... ? And when you have clarified that, perhaps you could show where the existing evidence is wrong and present the evidence that supports your position.
Harold Squared Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 For me he is DOMESTIC politician and fairly well known, Nobel Laureate and all that. Major supporter internationally of AGW, but zero scientific credentials. His "evidence" was presented in an error-riddled documentary which was heavily laden with alarmist propaganda and emotional sentiment. Despite scientific lack of merit of this infamous Academy Award winning film, I see no AGW cultist brave enough to repudiate it. Gore has done more to popularize the AGW cause than Arrhenius himself or any number of contemporary researchers. So you have the gall to hold me to a higher standard? John is so right. You crowd have so big a blind spot where your own errors are concerned it is amazing. Plus I was complying with your request to elaborate at the time. But but okay, I doubt that CO2 level has a significant let alone disastrous effect on world climate. Watch this space for reasons why.
iNow Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) I doubt that CO2 level has a significant let alone disastrous effect on world climate.I understand. Many people feel this way. It's clearly much easier to ignore the experts and less scary to blindly disregard what they overwhelmingly say on this topic instead of accepting their informed conclusions... Easier to dismiss the fact that only we can do anything to minimize the risk. Out of curiosity, on what basis do you feel CO2 won't do the same thing here on Earth that it's done on Venus, just on a different scale? Perhaps you have valid reasons and a logical basis for your doubt? Edited January 25, 2015 by iNow
Harold Squared Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) If you seriously think comparing Earth to Venus is valid in this regard you are hardly an expert in such matters. Earth, inhabited by people. Carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the atmosphere. Venus, not so much. Carbon dioxide, principal component of its atmosphere. Furthermore, my acerbic friend, I do not even know your real name, so that would be out of the question in any case. Expert testimony is easy to find, however, in the person of Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph. D. and thirty year veteran of the climate research business. He says politics is driving the "science" of AGW and I am inclined to believe it, based on the sorry record of the Mann hockey stick graph and numerous other exposed lies of the AGW cultists. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT seems to agree. Eminent scientists, both of them. 2014, "hottest year on record"? Hardly. Edited January 25, 2015 by Harold Squared
John Cuthber Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 If you seriously think comparing Earth to Venus is valid in this regard you are hardly an expert in such matters. Earth, inhabited by people. Carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the atmosphere. Venus, not so much. Carbon dioxide, principal component of its atmosphere. Furthermore, my acerbic friend, I do not even know your real name, so that would be out of the question in any case. Expert testimony is easy to find, however, in the person of Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph. D. and thirty year veteran of the climate research business. He says politics is driving the "science" of AGW and I am inclined to believe it, based on the sorry record of the Mann hockey stick graph and numerous other exposed lies of the AGW cultists. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT seems to agree. Eminent scientists, both of them. 2014, "hottest year on record"? Hardly. Well, according to the measurements, i.e. the facts, 2014 really was the hottest year on record. You saying "Hardly" makes no difference to the temperature so it's not clear why you bothered to do it. iNow's real name also makes no difference. It can't. Imagine that his folks had called him something else- would that have altered the climate? And your failure to understand that the fact that CO2 is a trace gas here, but the dominant gas on Venus doesn't matter- because it's the total amount of gas in the atmospheric column that matters- shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Of course, there's also the fact that Venus had a different atmosphere in the past. In any event you haven't answered the question. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas on Venus, why do you not think it's one here on Earth? Did you try to distract attention from the fact that you hadn't answered it by talking nonsense about whether it's a major, or minor, component of the atmosphere?
Strange Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 For me he is DOMESTIC politician and fairly well known, Nobel Laureate and all that. Major supporter internationally of AGW, but zero scientific credentials. So why bring him up on a science forum? So you have the gall to hold me to a higher standard? This is a science forum, not a venue for comparing the opinions of local ex-politicians.
Tim the plumber Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 Why do you think that is the case? There are a lot of large companies who are able to spend large amounts of money (and maybe do) on research that would undermine the consensus. Why are so few researchers chasing those dollars? Why isn't there a significant amount of evidence coming out supporting the continued use of oil, gas and coal? Maybe, just maybe, it is because science isn't quite as corrupt as you think it is. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do people who don't like the science keep criticizing some almost-unknown foreign ex-politician? What's that all about? Perhaps you could focus on the science. What do you think is wrong? CO2 does't absorb infra-red? The levels aren't increasing? They are increasing but it isn't due to human activity? It is increasing due to human activity but isn't driving climate change? It is driving climate change but it doesn't matter? Or ... ? And when you have clarified that, perhaps you could show where the existing evidence is wrong and present the evidence that supports your position. Or how about the idea that the level of increased heat from a doubling of CO2 in the air is very little. The Royal society gives a figure of 3.6 watts per square meter. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf That's just over a degree c. I don't think that that is any sort of trouble. I would prefer the world to be 1 degree c warmer. That would need the CO2 in the air to be about 800ppm.
John Cuthber Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I picked on of those papers at random, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3ACLIM.0000018509.74228.03 it's the first one I looked at and the first line is "The Greenland coastal temperatures have followed the early 20th century global warming trend. " So that's how well those papers oppose the idea of global warming: they take it as read that warming exists. They go on to say that the centre of Greenland doesn't seem to be warming, but that's not a problem; global warming does not require that all places warm up, there may well be some local cooling- especially in places that are affected by ocean currents like the Gulf stream. The abstract of the paper makes no reference to how the global warming occurs. I picked a second one- also pretty much at random http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282000%29013%3C1809%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2 it starts "Most global climate models simulate a weakening of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) in response to enhanced greenhouse warming." So, once again, it's tacitly assuming that warming is taking place. Edited January 25, 2015 by John Cuthber
Recommended Posts