What Do We Think About Climate Change

Troy,

Go to the Wikipedia page on eugenics. It's very honest and supports what I've been saying; that belief in the validity of Eugenics was widespread. Many prominent people both in and outside of the sciences were believers. Colleges and universities taught courses in it, and they generally only do that with what is considered 'settled science'.

Jimbo

 

I'm not disputing the fact that belief in the validity of eugenics was widespread. But that's a far cry from belief in it being the norm in scientific circles: a scientific consensus, as you claim.

If all those records have been expunged and no one will own up to anything, tell me: where are you getting your information, when you tell me that 'all the great scientific academies and sanctioning bodies' issued official statements endorsing eugenics?

 

Look for key quote; " No matter what you're doing to improve life on planet Earth, I think you'll find that phasing out the human race will increase your chance of success."
http://www.albatrus.org/english/lie...rnment/eugenics_racism_population_control.htm

 

From the Wiki page:

"In the USA, eugenic supporters included Theodore Roosevelt[77] , pre-1960's Democratic Party, the National Academy of Sciences[78] and the National Research Council[79]"

Go read the page for yourself and THEN come back and tell me it's all a 'wild exaggeration'. Seriously; go read it.

Jimbo

 

Key quote; "Elite universities provided the “science” of eugenics"
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/greenleft.org.au/index.html
George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells were eugenicists. Yes, the elite had consensus. The elite universities had consensus.

 

Jimbo, I've already been there. I'm not an internet illiterate, you know.

In the first place, support by a President or a political party is hardly proof of a scientific consensus. A scientific consensus is a consensus among...you know...scientists.

There's also the problem of defining eugenics to begin with. What's your definition of it? In Nazi Germany, belief in eugenics meant that Jews and Gypsies should be exterminated. In the South, it meant that blacks shouldn't intermarry with whites. In California, it meant that 'mentally defective' people in mental institutions should be sterilized.

Where do you draw the line? If two people with the Tay-Sach's gene marry, there's a one in four chance their children will be born with the disease. They'll become blind, deaf and unable to swallow, and probably die before their fifth birthday. So it's common to recommend that couples from populations at risk for Tay-Sach's -- including Ashkenazi Jews and Louisiana Cajuns -- be genetically tested before getting married, and avoid having children if both prospective parents carry the gene.

Is that eugenics, Jimbo?

 

I guess you missed the part about the NAS and NRC supporting it

It's OK Troy; you can have your precious consensus. It would be really cruel of me to take it away from you when IT"S ALL YOU HAVE. You can't defend any of the big holes (I'm not quite sure you understand them or just how important they are) in the narrative so you cling to you consensus like a lab monkey to his artificial momma.

Just don't keep saying that there's a scientific basis for you belief in AGW because a belief in a consensus of men whom YOU BELIEVE have studied the issue and that YOU BELIEVE have come to their conclusion based on a correct interpretation of the data DOES NOT constitute a scientific basis for belief. Instead, it's just credulity.

Jimbo

 

New Presentation by Roy Spencer

From an interview he did promoting his new book on April 26, 2010

On You Tube:

 

So where are the official statements you were carrying on about? I still haven't seen any....

You can't take away the scientific consensus, Jimbo; it isn't yours to take or bestow. It's just a fact that drives you crazy, because it completely undermines your belief that global warming is some kind of a conspiracy.

I've never claimed I have any deep scientific basis for my belief in AGW. Matter of fact, I don't necessarily believe it that deeply. What I do believe is that most of the opposition I've seen to it is irrational. And I certainly believe the vast majority of scientists have a scientific basis for their beliefs, or honestly think they do....and I'm convinced you don't.

When all is said and done, Jimbo, all you have is an internet conspiracy. Tell me: what other conspiracy theories do you cling to? Maybe you're into the classics. Do you believe there were two shooters in Dallas? That Roosevelt deliberately allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor? Or are you into the modern soft-edged stuff, like believing Princess Diana was murdered?

Maybe you're a real connoisseur. Maybe you believe the Bilderbergers ordered Bush to set up 9/11, because they've been infiltrated by reptilians from Alpha Draconis.

Credulity, my dear boy, would be believing you instead of the scientists.

 

I got a kick out of that one figure in this video that says something like:

"Global Warming 101
Global warming theory assumes the earth is in a natural state of "Global Energy Balance" (absorbed sunlight=emitted infrared)"

Actually, that is just the opposite of what global warming assumes. A more correct statement would be something like this:
absorbed sunlight > emitted infrared => warming
absorbed sunlight < emitted infrared => cooling
absorbed sunlight = emitted infrared => temperature stays the same.

Actually, if you make a few simplifying assumptions, such as no net accumulation of non-heat energy (an example of net accumulation wouldd be if if photosynthesis is not balanced by other processes such as fire, decay, and metabolism of energy store by organisms) and a few other minor points, the statement above is simply a consequence of fundamental thermodynamics, regardless of what one believes about the reality of global warming or the causes of global warming.

 

You seem to have a tough time grasping some simple concepts,(for such an intelligent guy) or maybe it's just that you are eager to find fault with anyone who is a 'skeptic' of AGW. SO I'll explain it in the simplest written terms, acknowledging that to make such an explanation in person with the spoken language is a completely different task and skill set.
Here goes:

AGW theory assumes that the earth is normally in a state of energy balance and that man's CO2 emissions have altered this balance.

Now It's pretty obvious to me that this is what he meant; I guess you just need it spelled out more explicitly

Now you could have just assumed that Roy Spencer understands the basics of radiative energy fluxes with respect to the atmosphere and climate, being he is a PhD in meteorology, worked as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and having developed the technologies needed to get accurate temperature data from satellites.

But no, the eminent "Alan Rockwood" assumes that Dr Spencer has his head up his ***, and can't even understand basic energy balance concepts.

Maybe you should email him your findings, Alan.

Jimbo

 

No, what we have is a set of observed realities that clash with the predictions of the AGW narrative over and over, and a bunch of credulous fools who keep on believing because their new clergy tells them not to question. There is no "internet conspiracy" to create these contradictions, though the internet makes it possible for anyone that wishes to study and understand them if they choose to do so.

• There was nothing anomalous about recent climate
  
• CO2 has a Short residence time
  
• The predicted hot spot is missing, indicating the warming is not greenhouse warming.
  
• The isotopic signature of fossil carbon is largely missing in the present atmosphere.
  
• AGW narrative predicts we should be at 800 ppm, we have yet to reach 400 ppm.
  
• CO2 levels always rise AFTER temperature rises first in any timescale.
  
• The observed water vapor feedback is negative instead of positive
  
• CO2 is at practical spectral saturation above ~150ppm

Jimbo

 

Oh wait, Alan,

Don't send Roy that email yet. I just found this statement on one of his web pages:

"Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell

Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter."

So I think he really does understand the whole radiative energy balance thingy; no need to enlighten him.

Jimbo

 

Sure, Jimbo. Thousands of scientists who believe their own data and research, and that presented in peer-reviewed publications, are credulous fools -- because they won't swallow your simpleminded, prepackaged talking points instead.

You're essentially asking them, "who you gonna believe? Me, or your lyin' eyes?"

You can't back up even your simplest assertions. For example, look at your proof that "all the great scientific academies and sanctioning bodies" issued official statements endorsing eugenics: one single sentence from Wikipedia, stating that "In the USA, eugenic supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, pre-1960's Democratic Party, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council."

I wouldn't take your word for it that it's raining, unless I went outside and got wet. And even then I'd double check to make sure it wasn't just you with a garden hose....

 

What is "simple-minded" about the above. Please clarify. If someone (anyone, including one of your esteemed scientists that can't possibly all be wrong) makes a prediction, and it turns out NOT to be true, why is it "simple-minded" to point this out? If the predictions are wrong over and over and over and over, how is it "simple-mined" to dis-believe further predictions from the same parties?

The lyin' eyes thing I don't get; are you saying the points I mentioned that clash with the AGW narrative are lies? Really? Care to substantiate that with some facts, or is this just more throwing of pebbles at windows?

Wait, Don't tell me: You've found the missing hot spot! You sly devil, you! When were you going to tell us? Give us a clue, where was it hiding all this time? I mean it's so BIG and all, I just always wondered. Can I be there when you send the email to the IPCC?

Remember that all of the above 'clashes with reality' were PREDICTED to be a certain way by your AGW cult, but reality eventually proved otherwise on each of these points.

I think it's "simple-minded" to continue believing, but hey, that's just me