What Do We Think About Climate Change

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.

 

I was thinking more of people who refer to all skeptics as part of a pr effort by oil and gas interests. Or folks who constantly trot out a mythical 97% consensus figure. Or folks that alter and edit the works of others in order to falsify or mislead. Or folks that use irrelevent minutae when they can't find anything else to rebut arguments.

 

to much or to little is not good
at least not without a few million years to adapt to the changes

thing is we are altering the chemistry of the atmosphere so fast the evolutionary process has no time to allow for adaptations

 

oh Im sure not all are directly part of the oil and gas industries Pr campaign but I am sure that a huge majority of the disinformation being regurgitated by the deniers has its origins in that PR campaign

mythical 97% ?
sorta proves Troys point doesn't it
you have been shown the polls over and over

alter or edit
you meant like use detrended graphs in order to pretend data says one thing and not another or do you mean like when a paper is presented as if it represents global climate characteristics rather than specifically local ones in order to confuse the issue

Im also curious about what is considered minutia
do you mean like when an equation in a paper is found to be completely wrong and the paper defines the equation as being of huge importance to the work but deniers want to ignore that bit of minutia

cause most of the time that kind of thing is considered key

just saying

love
B

 

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

 

here'e the real outcome of global warming.....to raise tax

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ate-Change-Act-has-the-biggest-ever-bill.html

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_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/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

 

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.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ate-Change-Act-has-the-biggest-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!

 

Your total lack of sense of shame is absolutely ridiculous.

 

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?