What Do We Think About Climate Change

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by spearaddict

And listen to his background:
Bob Carter- member of the Institute of Public Affairs. They are a right-wing conservative think-tank largely funded by the following:

Gotta love the internet.

I don't care if he was associated with the Nazi party. It doesn't change the veracity of what he says. What you did is referred to as an ad hominen attack. That is to use an irrelevency to dispute the facts of an argument by smearing one individuals background. Ad hominems attacks are usually used by children on the playground. You did nothing to dispute any of the scientific claims he made or any of factual statements he made. You are asking everyone to assume that everything he says is a lie because he is associatied with an organization that takes some funding from profit making corporations. You have no posted no evidence that he has lied, simply an underhanded and childish attack on his character with nothing to back it up.

You previously disputed the accuracy of some other names I posted, again with no evidence to back up your charges of fraud. Simply saying everyone knows is not evidence, rather the signature of someone immature, or someone who is too lazy back up his or her statements.


You see, unlike some, I don't have an immediate distrust of companies that make a profit, nor do I see profit as bad. Profit is what makes capitalism and free enterprise work and allows folks to earn money to pay taxes to support all the freeloaders living off government handouts in the various entitlement programs. If you kill profit, all the peoples whose votes are being bought by the liberals will have to work for a living. Think about that before you dump on folks who know how to earn money, rather than just waste the money they steal from everyone else like the "progressives" do.

[spearaddict]

You see, you are claiming the same thing about CRU. I think it is public knowledge that Oil and Gas companies have an anti-environmental agenda. You keep saying that AGW people have an agenda that we want to force on everyone. I guess if it works for you its good, if it hurts you its bad. Typical mindset of a regressive thinker. By showing people who these scientists are being paid by, they get a better overall picture of the situation. It is one thing for a NOAA or GISS scientist, not paid particularly well, to come out with claims that are anti-AGW, but it is something else if a scientist paid by oil and gas companies comes out and says it. You are accusing AGW people of having invested in green technologies and then trying to protect their investments, well it is the same, if not much worse, on your side of the camp.
You can call them attacks, but I bet the majority of people reading this would like to know the background of these scientists making these claims, both for and against. I chose to highlight the anti-AGW scientists, since there are fewer of them and they are a rarity. You can do the same with pro-AGW scientists.

[spearaddict]

I bet next you'll say how it was wrong of us to regulate smoking because there is no evidence it is bad for your lungs. And then you will provide evidence produced by scientists paid by tobacco companies.

Free market works, but with regulation. Lets remember how we got into the Great Depression. There were no regulations on anything, banks could do what they want, they didn't have to back up your money with the federal government. What happens when they crash, everyones money goes away.
Fast Forward 78 years. We have little regulation, the way you conservatives like it. People start breaking rules and spending money they don't have. Then it all falls apart. Their excuse: We didn't know prices would eventually come down.
If you want no regulation or government oversight, I hear Somalia and the Black Market are doing really well right now, might want to give that place a good look.

[Boston]

hey Brian sorry I ran out or time earlier

your points were generally well formulated and as such deserved some detailed answers

There’s lots of data around, but even digging for the stuff I’m showing takes a fair bit of time. I’m going to take a bit of time offline to do some reading – have to order some books. I’ll come back in a while – I’d like to see a few other reactions to the extended time scales I’ve been endeavouring to inject into the thread.

fare enough
and I hope a few others take the time to comment on those time frames as well as I, for me I see them as being of insufficient resolution to show the scale of the present issue

PS. I almost forgot – your graph of the last 450,000 years. I could stir the pot and say
‘thank god for the anthropogenic carbon, we might have been freezing our butts off. Quick, lets double it – we’re not out of danger yet!’ There are some who believe this, like the guy who wants to plough up dirt all over Siberia to increase heat retention.

interesting point
there is a theory called Total Crustal Shift that was proposed by a guy named Hapgood and corroborated by a guy named Einstein; according to it we can thank our lucky stars for the present warming trend to a point, but beyond that point we need to be carefull, and we are well beyond that point.

But I recall that an average for interglacials is 20,000 years and that we are only 18,000 years into ours so far. So we don’t have to worry for another 2000 years. Although that average for interglacials might come from about 5my interval (not really sure), not the 0.45my in your chart, it might vary and the ‘error bars’ could be a large anyway. Bottom line is humans came along at a time when conditions were just about ideal for us, and we’ve filled the niche (and some!) rapidly. But every era had its dominant species that impacted on the others.

I posted a chart that denotes major interglacial periods of about every 100,000 and lesser events of about every 20,000 so your assesment is basically correct except that the last 2000 years or so have been very unusual in that they have waffled at the top of the temp range and instead of heading down as in previous times we are now because of the alterations in atmospheric chemistry heading upwards again and fast
a rise of more than ~1.5 degrees more and we are in uncharted territory going back well beyond the age of the human race

best of luck with that reading
I will await your post with anticipation
B

[fasteddy106]

Some of the folks at the East Anglia CRU at the focus of the email scandal have proven themselves to be liars and to use deceptive and fraudulent data to back up their junk science. That is not to say anyone associated with the CRU is a fraud.

You are implying that Carter, by association, is a liar or a fraud, there is the difference.


You have not refuted any of the data that Carter uses, you only throw stones at the funding of his research group.

If Bin Laden and the Pope both say it is 2pm, and it is actually 3pm, they are both liars, regardless of their associations. Of course the inverse is also true.

It is amazing how myopia has become endemic among alarmists.

[fasteddy106]

As far as the rarity of skepitcal scientists, take a few minutes to read the list of signers in your own state of the Petition Project. Btw, the signatures were all verified in 2007, removing the bogus names placed there by AGW vandals, so don't bother posting any attacks against the project prior to 2007.

The relevence of the numbers is actually meaningless, as it only takes one scientist, or village idiot for that matter, to prove a theory wrong. But seeing as how the AGW community likes to use meaningless data, I thought it would be easier to understand if I used a similiar tactic.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by spearaddict

I bet next you'll say how it was wrong of us to regulate smoking because there is no evidence it is bad for your lungs. And then you will provide evidence produced by scientists paid by tobacco companies.

Free market works, but with regulation. Lets remember how we got into the Great Depression. There were no regulations on anything, banks could do what they want, they didn't have to back up your money with the federal government. What happens when they crash, everyones money goes away.
Fast Forward 78 years. We have little regulation, the way you conservatives like it. People start breaking rules and spending money they don't have. Then it all falls apart. Their excuse: We didn't know prices would eventually come down.
If you want no regulation or government oversight, I hear Somalia and the Black Market are doing really well right now, might want to give that place a good look.

Our current economic mess is the direct result of another social engineering moronic idea. The Community Re-Investment Act was essentially a government directive to loan mortgage money to people who had no abiltiy to repay it. Congress used it power to force banks to take greater risks than traditionally accepted. To do so the banks needed to create new financial products to accomplish the Congressional mandate, interstate banking, mortgage brokers, sub-prime lenders and products, mortgage backed securities, debit-swaps, and insurance for the products were all a result of a bad data base from a Boston bank study designed to force banks to loan money in minority neighborhooods to folks who had no chance of repaying the money.

The AGW KoolAid Club is using similiar tactics of class warfare to promote its agenda. Fortunately more people are awake now and are resisting this latest effort in futility to mitigate a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

[Boston]

Some of the folks at the East Anglia CRU at the focus of the email scandal have proven themselves to be liars and to use deceptive and fraudulent data to back up their junk science.

you must be referring to the thieves who broke into private data files and stole intellectual property any you would be right
those thieves have proven themselves to be liars and use deceptive and illegal tactics to defraud the scientists at East Anglia
thats one reason I cant imagine why anyone would even consider then taking there word for the authenticity of what they found

specially long before any official determination of fact is yet to be determined

You are implying that Carter, by association, is a liar or a fraud, there is the difference.

You have not refuted any of the data that Carter uses, you only throw stones at the funding of his research group.

wrong
actually the data presented over and over again throughout this conversation is often in direct opposition to his position views

If Bin Laden and the Pope both say it is 2pm, and it is actually 3pm, they are both liars, regardless of their associations. Of course the inverse is also true.

no they would simply both be wrong
as either could have simply made an honest mistake
however
if one of these fine upstanding citizens had been paid by say an organization who had a vested interest in it being 2pm then it might be fair to say that person had lied or been influenced to produce falsified data



these arguments simply do not hold any strength when held up to reasonable scrutiny

another good example of this difference between an honest mistake and a dishonest one is most easily seen in the following example provided by one of our illustrious contributors

lets read this in the light of the fact that numerous polls by disinterested and neutral third parties have concluded that approximately 97% of climate scientists agree that Rapid Global Climate Change is real, that it is most likely the direct result of mans interaction with the atmosphere and that it has significant consequences for our immediate future

As far as the rarity of skepitcal scientists, take a few minutes to read the list of signers in your own state of the Petition Project. Btw, the signatures were all verified in 2007, removing the bogus names placed there by AGW vandals, so don't bother posting any attacks against the project prior to 2007.

The relevence of the numbers is actually meaningless, as it only takes one scientist, or village idiot for that matter, to prove a theory wrong. But seeing as how the AGW community likes to use meaningless data, I thought it would be easier to understand if I used a similiar tactic.

lets examine this petition and its tactics

The 2007 petition had a covering letter from Frederick Seitz, and made reference to his former position as president of the US National Academy of Sciences, accompanied by an attached article supporting the petition. The current version of Seitz's letter describes the article as "a twelve page review of information on the subject of 'global warming'."[9] The article is titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon.[10][11][12]. (One of these earlier petitions and presentation was discussed by Lahsen (2005).[13]

both the article and the petition were for some reason identical in format to ones presented by the National Academy used in past mailings to its members. The Oregon petition has been criticized for this misrepresentation

a response letter by the National Accadamy reads in part as follows

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 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.

In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses.

a critique of this attempt by the authors of the Oregon Petition reads as follows

The 1997 as well as the 2007 version of the article states that "over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly" and says that this was based on comparison of satellite data (for 1979–1997) and balloon data from 1979-96. At the time the petition was written, this was unclear. Since then intensive study has been given to the satellite record, which shows significant warming. (See historical temperature record and satellite temperature measurements.)

The article followed the identical style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[6] even including a date of publication ("October 26") and volume number ("Vol. 13: 149-164 1999"), but was not actually a publication of the National Academy. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that the article was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article...is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of "half-truths".[14] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[14]

it is also important to note that although the accompanying article to the Oregon petition was presented with a publication date implying that it had been published in this prestigious magazine and therefor a peer reviewed work it was in fact neither a published or a peer reviewed work but instead a simple op ed piece appearing in a local newspaper.

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "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."[15] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[15]

so once again it becomes clear that deceptive and decidedly unscientific tactics are being used in conjunction with the PR campaign to discredit the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change

lets look at some of tactics used in defining the number of signatories

In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23] ”

Updated campaign

In October 2007 a number of individuals reported receiving a package of materials closely similar to the original Oregon Petition mailing.[24] As with the earlier version, it contained a six-paragraph covering note from Frederick Seitz along with a reply card and the supporting article. The text of the position, which as before is on the reply card, is identical to the previous petition. (which has been proven founded on an incorrect premise) Below the text is a signature line, a set of tick boxes for the signatory to state their academic degree (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.) and field, and another tick box stating "Please send more petition cards for me to distribute." This renewed distribution has continued until at least February 2008.

the National Academy has again responded with a letter of protest at the Oregon petitions uncanny resemblance to its own mailers and has issued numerous statements to its members that they have absolutely no association with the petition and that the article it quotes was in fact never published by the National Academy or by any other peer reviewed journal


obviously these claims in opposition to the consensus view are yet another sad attempt to discredit honest science using any tactic available including theft and deception

in the light of this obviously dishonest and deceptive approach I would ask the readers to take special care when considering the information presented by Deniers both here and in other locations on the net

[spearaddict]

I took a look at that "Petition Project". If only life were so simple. Do you really expect people to take that list seriously? All you have to do is request cards and sign them with different names and put a check next to what degree you think you should have. Talk about unprofessional.

[Boston]

ya Im surprised it was even mentioned but thats agnotology for you
the tactic is specifically designed to inundate the public with as much conflicting or confounded half truths as possible in order to create the illusion of scientific uncertainty

I particularly like how the authors of the oregon petition even pretended that the op ed piece they included in the petition was a published article even offering a phony publication number

not very honest but thats capitalism for you
anything to make a buck

[fasteddy106]

Once again the religious fanatics of the AGW cult misunderstand and misrepresent positions in order to prop up their feeble science. An ad hominem attack is just an attempt to divert attention and does not address the issues. As far as the petition project goes, there is no dispute among the 31,000 plus signatories nor misrepresentation about what they are signing and what they believe to be the truth. Boston has once again shown himself to be incapable of maintaining a discussion without posting tons of irrelevent nonsense in an attempt to hide the inadequacy of his position.

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by spearaddict

I took a look at that "Petition Project". If only life were so simple. Do you really expect people to take that list seriously? All you have to do is request cards and sign them with different names and put a check next to what degree you think you should have. Talk about unprofessional.

All of the signatories have been verfied. Name 10 frauds and you might have a point.

[spearaddict]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

Once again the religious fanatics of the AGW cult misunderstand and misrepresent positions in order to prop up their feeble science. An ad hominem attack is just an attempt to divert attention and does not address the issues. As far as the petition project goes, there is no dispute among the 31,000 plus signatories nor misrepresentation about what they are signing and what they believe to be the truth. Boston has once again shown himself to be incapable of maintaining a discussion without posting tons of irrelevent nonsense in an attempt to hide the inadequacy of his position.

You have an interesting way of looking at things. A few years ago The Man Show went around and got 50,000 people to sign a petition banning Dihydrogen Oxide (H20). They also got 500,000 people to sign a petition to end women's suffrage. Now your showing a group that got 31,000 people to say they don't believe in Global Warming AND they are scientists in the field, even with PhDs? Show me the proof that these people are who they say they are. All I saw was a very disorganized list of names that are intended to confuse anyone looking at it to pick out fake names. Classic conspiracy style.

[spearaddict]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

All of the signatories have been verfied. Name 10 frauds and you might have a point.

Show me that they have been verified. I can't take your word for it just as you can't take mine about climate change.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

Once again the religious fanatics of the AGW cult misunderstand and misrepresent positions in order to prop up their feeble science. An ad hominem attack is just an attempt to divert attention and does not address the issues. As far as the petition project goes, there is no dispute among the 31,000 plus signatories nor misrepresentation about what they are signing and what they believe to be the truth. Boston has once again shown himself to be incapable of maintaining a discussion without posting tons of irrelevent nonsense in an attempt to hide the inadequacy of his position.

its pretty obvious who is ignoring the facts here

The Oregon petition authors fraudulently presented there cover article with publication information knowing it was in fact not published

and they fraudulently copied the format of there information with that of the national academy of sciences
leading the NAS to have to publish numerous letters denying they have any involvement

and you want to believe them on either the number of signatories or the qualifications of those signatories to make an informed determination

please

obviously this is just another scam by the industry PR arm

its funny I took your posts off the ignore list for what one day and this is the best you can dream up

a completely phony list of supporters for a half baked statement that has been proven laughably incorrect

sorry
you just landed on the ignore list again

I'll save my time for the more serious posters