What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Let me know when your majesty has a decree on exactly how much is too much.

Dam Hoyt usually only the ladies call me "your majesty"

lets try and keep things on a professional level though ok
something tells me your not really my style anyway, and I suspect you probably dont look the part either


cheers
B

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Now we have two of your own medicine we may apply to yourself....

Why don't you apply it, Guillermo? Cite an example where I've posted erroneous information--or deliberately lied about the facts--as opposed to simply posting an opinion you disagree with. Then show me where my facts were proven wrong, and I proceeded to post them as true again a few pages later.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

As Wiki is your source your ignorance is understandable. The project never claimed or inferred sanction from the NAS. Dr. Sietz is a past president of the NAS and is entitled to use that in his resume. That did not imply sanction except in some tortured reasoning. The type font was the same, that's hardly a nefarious conspiracy. The paper is real, and not forged, the signers, with impeccable backgrounds wrote the paper . The so called "half truths" charge is an unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more. The signatures were verified in 2007 by volunteers despite your unsubstantiated claim. The paper never claimed publication, nor did it claim affiliation with the NAS. All the complaints about the petition imply events that never occurred or were dreamed up to diminish the impact of such a large group of scientists disagreeing with the AGW college of cardinals and their followers. The NAS has a large legal staff to address any valid complaints and to date no legal challenges have been made.

Considering that your source is the same place a monkey gets his ammo, you're in no position to knock my sources. The Wikipedia article I quoted has legitimate references and links, unlike the stuff you're posting.

The Oregon Petition did more than just copy a type font. You seem to be very good at simply ignoring inconvenient truths, but I'll try this one more time: after emphasising Dr. Sietz's former NAS credentials, they copied the entire NAS format to a 'T,' including a phony date of publication and edition number. For you to claim they weren't deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking it was a peer-reviewed paper published by the NAS is complete horse apples.

The paper is not "real." It was presented as a peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable scientific journal. It isn't and it wasn't, no matter how "impeccable" you claim the authors are.

As far as the signatures go, the Petition Project itself has never explained how volunteers checked the names, or who those volunteers were. And the supposed check was done in 1997 when there were only about 17,000 signatures, but the Petition kept collecting signatures after that. By 2008 the Petition had 31,000 signatures.

I don't understand how anyone could accurately check signatures to begin with, because there's no identifying information with them: no address, no place of work or affilitated institution, no indication of where a degree came from or when it was received, etc.

Here's the really ridiculous thing about your defense of this piece of pseudo-scientific propaganda, Eddie: if it were completely legit, it wouldn't matter. Scientific theories are not proven or disproven by petitions or majority vote, especially when the people doing the voting have little or nothing to do with the scientific field under discussion.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

Troy, you haven't proved anything. You've repeated assertions made in Gaving Schmitt's rag journal RealClimate. No one has yet to show me how some Exxon Mobil contribution to the Heartland Institute and others has caused any scientist to destroy his lifes work and reputation by falsifying documents. The only absurd claim is that everyone who doesn't swallow the AGW Koolaid is in the pocket of big oil. Nor have you shown how big oil loses profits if their supply is artificially reduced by moronic government policies. Lets see here, supply and demand in a capitalist system, cut the supply and the price goes up. Less gallons per dollar profit, sounds like a winner to me.

Your ad hominem attacks prove only that you don't have a way to debate the science. Your arguments from authority show you to be lacking in basic skills for communication. You are asking everyone to subscribe to the notion that the only viable arguments to be considered are those that agree with your point of view and the handful of scientists that have hijacked the peer review process in this field of science.

Ahh...the old 'moving the target' defense. You've gone from trying to claim the oil industry isn't funding anti-AGW activity to claiming it doesn't matter whether they are or not. Then you segue through some chaff and smokescreen about capitalism, and sidestep right into character assassination.

Nice footwork; I can see why you're known as 'fast' Eddy.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

As Wiki is your source your ignorance is understandable. The project never claimed or inferred sanction from the NAS. Dr. Sietz is a past president of the NAS and is entitled to use that in his resume. That did not imply sanction except in some tortured reasoning. The type font was the same, that's hardly a nefarious conspiracy. The paper is real, and not forged, the signers, with impeccable backgrounds wrote the paper . The so called "half truths" charge is an unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more. The signatures were verified in 2007 by volunteers despite your unsubstantiated claim. The paper never claimed publication, nor did it claim affiliation with the NAS. All the complaints about the petition imply events that never occurred or were dreamed up to diminish the impact of such a large group of scientists disagreeing with the AGW college of cardinals and their followers. The NAS has a large legal staff to address any valid complaints and to date no legal challenges have been made.

Your claim that the writers of the paper had "impeccable backgrounds" needs to be addressed in more detail, I think.

The authors were biochemist Arthur Robinson, his 23-year old son Zachary; Sally L Balunius; and Willie Soon.

Although his degree and background are in biochemistry, Arthur Robinson makes his living selling home-study courses to parents who want to avoid 'socialism' in the public school system. He's also the author of how-to books on surviving nuclear war. His Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine promotes a website defending creationism; and has an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ, "for Bible & Trinity-believing, God-fearing, 'Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else' Christian families who use the Robinson Curriculum to share ideas and to get and give support."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

His son Zachary Robinson is a chemist and doctor of veterinary medicine, who's gone into the family business with his dad at the OISM.

http://www.oism.org/s32p1847.htm

Salli Balunius is an astrophysicist. She studies visible and ultraviolet spectroscopy of stars; structure, variations, and activity in cool stars; evolution of stellar angular momentum; solar variability and global change; adaptive optics; exoplanets of Sun-like stars. Climate skepticism and being a scientific advisor to the coal industry and conservative political think tanks are just profitable sidelines for her.

http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38

Willie Soon is an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory. Like Balunius, climate skepticism is just a profitable sideline for him.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon

These are your 'impeccable' authors of a forged paper on climatology and anthropogenic global warming, Eddie. Are people like this really the best you can do?

Add: saying the NAS never made any 'legal' challenges to the paper is deliberately misleading; it implies they had no problem with it. The truth is that they did take issue with it--publicly, and in unusually blunt language. Here's a copy of the news release they sent out, directly from the NAS website:

STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION

April 20, 1998

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. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change.


NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COUNCIL

And it goes on to list them all....

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...rdID=s04201998

[Boston]

this is what denial is all about Troy, you can spell it out plain as day ( did I spell Plain right ) and it wont make a bit of difference.

its as if "never admit anything" is part of the denialists credo or something

after a while you really have to wonder if some of this is serious or not, as it really does border on cognitive dissonance

who was it Miszclowski or something like that who cliamed to have written a physics based paper and yet a simple formula based on established parameters does not add up and he refuses to retract the paper so he can fix it. Wow. He must be desperate for the $10,000 the oil and gas industry is paying for that kind of thing.

[Marco1]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ever-bill.html
Now you tell me that with THAT SIZE of a birthday present politicians will become sceptics?
NEVER, they turn believers in an instant and feed the machinery that will deliver them billions to spend on whatever they want as long as it has some label somewhere with the word "PLANET" on it

Boston, keep on posting data, you are doing them a great favour....not the "planet" mind you but the politicians and the tax department of this world.

Well done, you all are their heros!

One of the best-kept secrets of British politics – although it is there for all to see on a Government website – is the cost of what is by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament. Every year between now and 2050, acccording to Ed Miliband's Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc), the Climate Change Act is to cost us all up to £18.3 billion – £760 for every household in the country – as we reduce our carbon emissions by 80 per cent.

Last Thursday – with northern Britain again under piles of global warming – another tranche of regulations came into force, as this measure begins to take effect. New road tax rules mean that to put a larger, more CO2 -emitting car on the road will now cost £950. New "feed-in" subsidies for small-scale "renewables" mean that the installers of solar panels will be paid up to eight times the going rate for their miserable amount of electricity to be fed into the grid, with the overall bill for this scheme estimated eventually to be billions a year.

Related Articles

*
How Amazongate blighted the rainforest harvest for WWF
*
MPs begin the Climategate whitewash
*
Climate Change Act: Now the world faces its biggest ever bill
*
Yet more mind-boggling figures on global warming
*
How can wind turbines generate so much lunacy?
*
A pipedream of six turbines a day until 2020

Not the least bizarre of the Government's strategies, however, is Decc's new Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) scheme, requiring up to 30,000 of our largest energy users, such as ministries, councils, universities, hospitals, supermarket chains (and even "monasteries and nunneries"), to pay to register with the Environment Agency. Some 5,000 of them, using more than "6,000 megawatt hours" of electricity each year (equivalent to the needs of 1,250 homes), will then have to carry out a cumbersome audit of their carbon footprint, using "three different metrics", in order to pay £12 for each ton of CO2 they emit – at a total initial cost estimated at £1.4 billion a year. This will eventually be contributed by all of us, either through taxes or, for instance, whenever we visit Tesco.

Even the 25,000 remaining non-participants in the scheme will still have to pay, between them, some £9.75 million to register with the Environment Agency, doubtless so they can be brought into the net at a later date. Meanwhile, as indicated by Decc's 100-page Carbon User's Guide, the "carbon efficiency" performance of the 5,000 participants will place them in an annual league table, with the worst performers having to pay cash penalties, to be given as bonuses to those at the top.

In return for the millions paid to the agency in registration and annual "subsistence" fees, it is hiring an army of officials to carry out audits, to ensure that no one is cheating. Anyone who incorrectly records emissions or fails to submit the stacks of necessary documentation in time will be fined £5,000 plus £500 a day, doubled after 40 days, with unlimited fines or up to two years in jail for more serious offences.

Recent studies show that, even though the first stage of this unbelievably complex scheme came into force on April Fools' Day, more than half the enterprises liable to sign up are not yet aware of what is required of them – so the Government could be looking forward to a huge additional income from those fines.

Once the scheme is established, of course, the idea is that, in future, the total amount of CO2 emitted will be capped, pushing the cost of each ton of CO2 even higher. All this and much more, such as the £100 billion the Government wants to see spent on useless wind farms, is designed to reduce Britain's CO2 emissions within 40 years to where they were in the early 19th century.

Since we contribute less than 2 per cent of global emissions, while China continues to build a new coal-fired power station every week, these empty getures will do nothing to reduce the world's overall "carbon footprint". Not that this makes any difference to global warming anyway – but at least it will give the Government billions more pounds of our money, while we still have any of it left.

TelegraphNews

Christopher Booker

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

...keep things on a professional level...

Your total lack of sense of shame is absolutely ridiculous.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Why don't you apply it, Guillermo? Cite an example where I've posted erroneous information--or deliberately lied about the facts--as opposed to simply posting an opinion you disagree with. Then show me where my facts were proven wrong, and I proceeded to post them as true again a few pages later.

You are entitled to your own opinion, of course. But I'm not critizising that. I'm critizising your attitude.

Your signature: "Never argue with an idiot...." and similar expresions are the proof of an excesive ego and a sad sample of what we can expect from you and your colaborations in these forums. Do tou think you are of a superior kind? What makes you believe the rest of humankind just do not consider you an idiot?

[Marco1]

after a while you really have to wonder if some of this is serious or not, as it really does border on cognitive dissonance

Cognitive Dissonance (L. Festinger)

Overview:

According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior.

Two factors affect the strength of the dissonance: the number of dissonant beliefs, and the importance attached to each belief. There are three ways to eliminate dissonance: (1) reduce the importance of the dissonant beliefs, (2) add more consonant beliefs that outweigh the dissonant beliefs, or (3) change the dissonant beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent.

Dissonance occurs most often in situations where an individual must choose between two incompatible beliefs or actions. The greatest dissonance is created when the two alternatives are equally attractive. Furthermore, attitude change is more likely in the direction of less incentive since this results in lower dissonance. In this respect, dissonance theory is contradictory to most behavioral theories which would predict greater attitude change with increased incentive (i.e., reinforcement).

Scope/Application:

Dissonance theory applies to all situations involving attitude formation and change. It is especially relevant to decision-making and problem-solving.

Example:

Consider someone who buys an expensive car but discovers that it is not comfortable on long drives. Dissonance exists between their beliefs that they have bought a good car and that a good car should be comfortable. Dissonance could be eliminated by deciding that it does not matter since the car is mainly used for short trips (reducing the importance of the dissonant belief) or focusing on the cars strengths such as safety, appearance, handling (thereby adding more consonant beliefs). The dissonance could also be eliminated by getting rid of the car, but this behavior is a lot harder to achieve than changing beliefs.

Principles:

1. Dissonance results when an individual must choose between attitudes and behaviors that are contradictory.

2. Dissonance can be eliminated by reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs, acquiring new beliefs that change the balance, or removing the conflicting attitude or behavior.

The earth is WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!
Ooops it is not...let's change it into
The "climate" is changing!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oops it always does...hum....I know!
The Climate is Changing RAPIDLY!!!!!!!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

You are entitled to your own opinion, of course. But I'm not critizising that. I'm critizising your attitude.

Your signature: "Never argue with an idiot...." and similar expresions are the proof of an excesive ego and a sad sample of what we can expect from you and your colaborations in these forums. Do tou think you are of a superior kind? What makes you believe the rest of humankind just do not consider you an idiot?

Here's my original statement, which you said I should apply to myself:

"That seems to be a common theme here: people make some absurd claim; they're proven wrong; a few pages later they're right back saying it again--and demanding someone prove them wrong all over again."

That has nothing to do with idiots or attitude. That's a comment about a debating tactic I've seen used repeatedly in this thread. I didn't say everyone I disagree with uses it. Nor is it necessarily an idiotic tactic, because sometimes it works. It's just a dishonest one.

I've never claimed the rest of mankind are all idiots, or that I'm superior to everyone else. And I don't understand how you came up with that from my signature line. It doesn't say, "I'm never going to argue with anyone, because they're all idiots." However, there are definitely some folks here that it's a waste of time to argue with....

If you want to go after people for arrogant, condescending posts, maybe you should be responding to stuff like this:

Your ad hominem attacks prove only that you don't have a way to debate the science. Your arguments from authority show you to be lacking in basic skills for communication. You are asking everyone to subscribe to the notion that the only viable arguments to be considered are those that agree with your point of view and the handful of scientists that have hijacked the peer review process in this field of science.

[Marco1]

Education is a crutch with which the foolish attack the wise to prove that they are not idiots.
Karl Kraus

PS

"education" includes Google information

"home-study courses to parents who want to avoid 'socialism' in the public school system" - You have a good source for this material, then? Thanks in advance!

[Marco1]

Some things give you a feeling of aaaaahh, like a cold beer after a hot day. Satisfaction guaranteed.


Heliogenic Climate Change

The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
Harper derails the gravy train

without comments

“Last week, a climate research centre at the University of Montreal, known by the acronym ESCER, warned that such groups are being forced to close across the country.

A lack of federal funds for climate and atmospheric science has “sounded the death knell for research groups working in this field in Canada,” Rene Laprise, ESCER’s director, wrote in a statement.

His centre has lost two staff, who found government jobs after learning that their salaries would not be guaranteed past September 2010, Laprise told CTV.ca by email. Five others are expected to leave “any time,” he wrote.

Climate scientists across the country say they’re in a similar situation — with dwindling funds and poor prospects to secure more money, they’re preparing to shut down major projects while their staff seeks jobs abroad.

Laprise and other scientists in his field are frustrated that the 2010 federal budget, made public last month, set aside no new money for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the main source of federal funding for climate-related research.

CFCAS was founded in 2000 and has doled out $116 million on 198 research grants at universities from Victoria to Halifax.

Canadian scientists who have contributed to international initiatives such as the World Climate Programme and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rely on the foundation for a large part of their research money.” “Climate-change research in Canada waning: scientists“ h/t Icecap April 3

Written by jblethen

[Marco1]

Circling the Bandwagons:
My Adventures Correcting the IPCC
by Ross McKitrick
Professor of Economics
University of Guelph
March 2010
Introduction
This is the story of how I spent 2 years trying to publish a paper that refutes an important claim in the
2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The claim in question is not just
wrong, but based on fabricated evidence. Showing that the claim is fabricated is easy: it suffices merely
to quote the section of the report, since no supporting evidence is given. But unsupported guesses may
turn out to be true. Showing the IPCC claim is also false took some mundane statistical work, but the
results were clear. Once the numbers were crunched and the paper was written up, I began sending it to
science journals. That is when the runaround began. Having published several against-the-flow papers in
climatology journals I did not expect a smooth ride, but the process eventually became surreal.
In the end the paper was accepted for publication, but not in a climatology journal. From my perspective
the episode has some comic value, but I can afford to laugh about it since I am an economist, not a
climatologist, and my career doesn’t depend on getting published in climatology journals. If I was a
young climatologist I would have learned that my career prospects would be much better if I never write
papers that question the IPCC.
I am taking this story public because of what it reveals about the journal peer review process in the field
of climatology. Whether climatologists like it or not, the general public has taken a large and legitimate
interest in how the peer review process for climatology journals works, because they have been told for
years that they will have to face lots of new taxes and charges and fees and regulations because of what
has been printed in climatology journals. Because of the policy stakes, a bent peer review process is no
longer a private matter to be sorted out among academic specialists. And to the extent the specialists are
unable or unwilling to fix the process, they cannot complain that the public credibility of their discipline
suffers.