What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by wardd

and much more distorted by the anti side

The usual unsubstantiated crap, Congrats, Wardd! You never disappoint!

Jimbo

[wardd]

it,s substantiated almost every time the antis say something about the science

The idiot that has nothing constructive to add but trolls for opportunities to...well, troll has popped up again. Marco, please don't incite him or he'll start on everything from the size of your crank to how Chile could win a fight with Girl Scouts. I'm afraid I'm going to need Troy's Whack-a-Mole mallet here...

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by wardd

it,s substantiated almost every time the antis say something about the science

The Oregon Petition is a lovely example: bought and paid for by Exxon, and misrepresented as an impartial survey of scientists.

[wardd]

i think mark has a very interesting set of numbers, 775

see mark if you try you can say something nice about just anybody

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

The difference is that whether you believe it or not, the results of government-funded research are not preordained. Scientists are not told what results to come up with. That isn't to say there's no bias; governments and science labs are run by humans. But there's no particular advantage to a government in trying to prove global warming exists if it doesn't. Life would be simpler and cheaper if it didn't, and the politicians could go right on collecting their corporate donations with a clear conscience.

On the other hand, the money spent by the oil companies (and specifically by Exxon) is quite deliberately and narrowly focused on advertising a viewpoint, rather than on research and collection of data.

The people who created the Oregon Petition did so to get paid by Exxon, not to advance science. There isn't a lick of research or data in it. Their previous client was RJ Reynolds, where they spent years trying to discredit medical research that showed smoking is bad for you.... I don't see how you can possibly equate that sort of blatant whoring with the funding of legitimate scientists.

The people involved in research on these subjects would beg to differ with you and have been complaining that the RFGP system has been rigged toward the climate alarm side for decades, now. Already covered, ad nauseum.

On the Oregon Petition, I guess you never even bothered to look at the "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature" page, now did you? How else could you have made such a ridiculous statement as " There isn't a lick of research or data in it. ", which is completely and demonstrably false.

If you don't even bother to look at the solid scientific arguments which are supported by tons of peer-reviewed data that refute the AGW orthodoxy, how can you claim to be an informed supported of the AGW position?

It's OK to be that way; it's OK to be convinced of something. But I would hope that anyone who is so convinced possesses that conviction on the basis of considering all sides of the discussion, which is clearly not the case with you. Also, please don't pretend that you have an 'open mind' on this subject when it's clear you do not.

I can articulate the entire AGW case for you, better by far than you can articulate it for me. I've schooled at least three different AGW alarmists on this very thread who believed in some very ridiculous crap, things that the AGW side does not even believe, because they don't even know the technical details of their own argument. For example they thought that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas by itself, which no pro AGW scientist says. Another very ardent "Firm Believer" thought the mechanism of 'greenhose' warming was just like that of an actual man-made greenhouse, which is absolutely ridiculous! The reason I can do that is because I've studied both sides to a considerable depth, and as a result I can make an informed choice of which side has a more convincing argument.

You can't do that right now because you simply aren't knowledgeable enough about what your own side is saying, let alone what the skeptics are saying. That page I linked on the OISM site is a very good place to start.

Some people don't look at contrary evidence because they are afraid that they might see something that will change their mind, and maybe even their whole outlook as a consequence, which can be scary. Been there, done that.

Don't be afraid to come to the dark side, we have cookies

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by wardd

it,s substantiated almost every time the antis say something about the science

Give us an example. That should be easy. There must be many.

Jimbo

ward, what is interesting about 775, if I may inquire?

[wardd]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Give us an example. That should be easy. There must be many.

Jimbo

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

What the science says...Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what is most interesting is response rates compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively published research on climate change responded yes.

It's just a natural cycle

The skeptic argument...
"Climate records of the past show a roughly 1,500-year cycle. It was first discovered in ice cores in Greenland. Then it was seen in ocean sediments in the Atlantic. And now it's found everywhere including stalagmites in caves. It shows warming and cooling that could well account for the current warming." (Fred Singer)

What the science shows......

The 1500 year cycles, known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events, are localized to the northern hemisphere and accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere. In contrast, current global warming is occuring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world's oceans, indicating a significant energy imbalance.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The people involved in research on these subjects would beg to differ with you and have been complaining that the RFGP system has been rigged toward the climate alarm side for decades, now. Already covered, ad nauseum.

No, "the people involved in research on these subjects" have not been complaining for decades. The people involved in research overwhelmingly support the conclusion that global warming is real and has a human cause. A relatively small group dispute the results of the research, and the ones who normally get quoted are mostly paid shills instead of legitimate scientists.

On the Oregon Petition, I guess you never even bothered to look at the "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature" page, now did you? How else could you have made such a ridiculous statement as " There isn't a lick of research or data in it. ", which is completely and demonstrably false.

You like to be precise. So let's be precise about the Oregon Petition: not a dime was spent on research or collection of data. The so-called "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature" you're so impressed with is just that. It's a summary of papers on the subject published by others, and is neither complete nor accurate.

It was worded and formatted to look like an official statement from the national National Academy of Sciences. In response, the National Academy of Sciences released the following statement:

"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The claim on their website that "Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals" is a flat lie, unless they're somehow trying to claim that changing its name turns it into a new project.

The reality is that the Oregon Petition was funded by Exxon Mobil, through the George C Marshall Institute. It's amusing that while you're rejecting legitimate scientific research and conclusions left and right, you're apparently swallowing their little piece of propaganda hook, line and sinker.

If you don't even bother to look at the solid scientific arguments which are supported by tons of peer-reviewed data that refute the AGW orthodoxy, how can you claim to be an informed supported of the AGW position?

It's OK to be that way; it's OK to be convinced of something. But I would hope that anyone who is so convinced possesses that conviction on the basis of considering all sides of the discussion, which is clearly not the case with you. Also, please don't pretend that you have an 'open mind' on this subject when it's clear you do not.

I can articulate the entire AGW case for you, better by far than you can articulate it for me. I've schooled at least three different AGW alarmists on this very thread who believed in some very ridiculous crap, things that the AGW side does not even believe, because they don't even know the technical details of their own argument. For example they thought that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas by itself, which no pro AGW scientist says. Another very ardent "Firm Believer" thought the mechanism of 'greenhose' warming was just like that of an actual man-made greenhouse, which is absolutely ridiculous! The reason I can do that is because I've studied both sides to a considerable depth, and as a result I can make an informed choice of which side has a more convincing argument.

You can't do that right now because you simply aren't knowledgeable enough about what your own side is saying, let alone what the skeptics are saying. That page I linked on the OISM site is a very good place to start.

Some people don't look at contrary evidence because they are afraid that they might see something that will change their mind, and maybe even their whole outlook as a consequence, which can be scary. Been there, done that.

Don't be afraid to come to the dark side, we have cookies

Jimbo

If you were as knowledgable as you think you are, you wouldn't even be trying to defend the Oregon Petition. So why don't you give it a rest, and stop telling me how ignorant I am? Instead, answer this question: Why would governments all over the world push a false climate change theory for decades? What good does it do them? What is their objective in doing so?

Please don't answer with something inane like "power simply for the sake of power"....we're talking about governments that can't work together on the simplest of trade agreements most of the time. Yet people believe they're somehow engaged in a worldwide scientific conspiracy?

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by wardd

In contrast, current global warming is occuring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world's oceans, indicating a significant energy imbalance.

I won't answer any more childish "Argument by Authority"
challenges, which is what your appeal to consensus really is.

On your other point, it IS NOT an uncontested fact that we have been warming in both hemi's, meaning globally:


Look at the satellite temp data graphs of the two hemispheres here. The satellite temperatures show that the northern hemisphere has warmed by a mere 0.147C degree per decade since satellite temperature recording began in early 1979, well below the lower limit of IPCC expectations.



But the southern hemisphere has only warmed an insignificant +0.013C over the same period, completely contradicting IPCC expectations.

On the broader point that Fred Singer was making, all the observed warming is well within the range of natural climate variability. Shall we revisit the absolutely overwhelming evidence of a global Medieval Warm Period? I'll remind you that virtually the only evidence in refutation of a global MWP is found in the works of Mann, Briffa, Hansen and Jones, and they (works and men) are under a cloud lately. In September 2009, Briffa finally (after 12 years of legal wrangling) released the Yamal data and it was fairly damning to the bold assertions in MBH-98 WRT the MWP since they basically threw out all the data that disagreed with their assertions using a "careful selection process" though what that process consisted of was never revealed(of course).


Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

No, "the people involved in research on these subjects" have not been complaining for decades. The people involved in research overwhelmingly support the conclusion that global warming is real and has a human cause. A relatively small group dispute the results of the research, and the ones who normally get quoted are mostly paid shills instead of legitimate scientists.You like to be precise. So let's be precise about the Oregon Petition: not a dime was spent on research or collection of data. The so-called "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature" you're so impressed with is just that. It's a summary of papers on the subject published by others, and is neither complete nor accurate.

It was worded and formatted to look like an official statement from the national National Academy of Sciences. In response, the National Academy of Sciences released the following statement:

"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The claim on their website that "Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals" is a flat lie, unless they're somehow trying to claim that changing its name turns it into a new project.

The reality is that the Oregon Petition was funded by Exxon Mobil, through the George C Marshall Institute. It's amusing that while you're rejecting legitimate scientific research and conclusions left and right, you're apparently swallowing their little piece of propaganda hook, line and sinker.

If you were as knowledgable as you think you are, you wouldn't even be trying to defend the Oregon Petition. So why don't you give it a rest, and stop telling me how ignorant I am? Instead, answer this question: Why would governments all over the world push a false climate change theory for decades? What good does it do them? What is their objective in doing so?

Please don't answer with something inane like "power simply for the sake of power"....we're talking about governments that can't work together on the simplest of trade agreements most of the time. Yet people believe they're somehow engaged in a worldwide scientific conspiracy?

The AGW scare fits an agenda, simple as that. The agenda is to bring the world into a global 'socialism for profit' sort of governance and economy which will PERMANENTLY benefit the big financial interests who pull the strings behind the scene with every major government on earth and also at the UN. In fact these interest created the UN in the first place. Why do you think every major political figure in the last 50 years has belonged to certain 'secret societies'? Every single president, Democrat or Republican. Most Sec's of State (including the current one). Even freakin Jimmy Carter!!


At the very top, there really is no political Right or Left; in the end they are all after the same thing; money and power. A small group of unelected people around the world run the whole show, and this is (the latest iteration of) their vision.

On the Oregon Petition, If you won't check out the "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature" then the issue is settled. I'll just continue to use their excellent compilation of cited papers and bibliography in my replies (there are HUNDREDS cited there) to smash all the AGW 'scientific' arguments to pieces anyway, and you'll be none the wiser.

I personally did not get any money from Exxon-Mobil. and neither did any of the publishers of the papers, so the same information presented by me instead of OISM should be OK, right? After all, OISM simply presents a review of the published literature, the proven science.

Jimbo

" Why would governments all over the world push a false climate change theory for decades?" - I'll take that one!

*Number one - Power. If elected officials are needed to clean up some
percieved mess, they will be voted in again! Who are you gonna hire to take
care of the horrible situation the big, mean, businesses caused but compassionate, earth-loving, open-minded, Pelosis?
*Number two, but WAAY beneath number one - Fear. Fear that the legacy they leave is one of not caring if something anthropogenic does happen to the environment.
*Number three - Ignorance. "Everbody else is doing it". This is caused by one of the major fallacies I have demonstrated guides you.
*Number four - Power, but from a different angle. Third-world dictators and warlords would like more bling, please - "send money because anything wrong with our Eden is the West's fault".
*Number five - Money. GE's CEO (not one that actually built the company), for example, is giving expert testimony to a ravenous audience that we better use his tech to save the world. Al Gore is now a billionaire (yes, that is a "B") due to AGWBS. Everywhere one looks (every rock one turns over) there is another upstart poised to cash in on the green revolution. (The irony is that green it will be right up to the point that without benevolent Uberpower, a void will be filled. Let's see, Iran? China? Stateless Muslim extremists? WHO DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO BOW TO?)
Number six - Guilt. Did we make that south-Pacific atoll sink? ****, send 'em money. Oh, the polar bears - don't ya jus' wanna hug 'em?

Obama, Jimbo's fast - he got two posts in in the time it took me to write that...

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The AGW scare fits an agenda, simple as that. The agenda is to bring the world into a global 'socialism for profit' sort of governance and economy which will PERMANENTLY benefit the big financial interests who pull the strings behind the scene with every major government on earth and also at the UN. In fact these interest created the UN in the first place. Why do you think every major political figure in the last 50 years has belonged to certain 'secret societies'? Every single president, Democrat or Republican. Most Sec's of State (including the current one). Even freakin Jimmy Carter!!


At the very top, there really is no political Right or Left; in the end they are all after the same thing; money and power. A small group of unelected people around the world run the whole show, and this is (the latest iteration of) their vision.

On the Oregon Petition, If you won't check out the "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature" then the issue is settled. I'll just continue to use their excellent compilation of cited papers and bibliography in my replies (there are HUNDREDS cited there) to smash all the AGW 'scientific' arguments to pieces anyway, and you'll be none the wiser.

I personally did not get any money from Exxon-Mobil. and neither did any of the publishers of the papers, so the same information presented by me instead of OISM should be OK, right? After all, OISM simply presents a review of the published literature, the proven science.

Jimbo

Yep; no surprise here at all. Scratch a climate change denier, find a PCT (paranoid conspiracy theorist). Happens all too often.

Tell me, Jimbo, what do you like to call this shadowy group that's secretly pulling the strings of business, education, science, media, and government all over the world? The Illuminati? the Bilderbergers? The Freemasons? The New World Order? Or are you a classic purist, who sticks with The Elders of Zion?