General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2255549

    Global Warming Heresy

    Locked

    by maxwell edison ·

    Reprinted article from TownHall.com

    By Walter E. Williams
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007

    Most climatologists agree that the earth’s temperature has increased about a degree over the last century. The debate is how much of it is due to mankind’s activity. Britain’s Channel 4 television has just produced “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” a documentary that devastates most of the claims made by the environmentalist movement. The scientists interviewed include top climatologists from MIT and other prestigious universities around the world. The documentary hasn’t aired in the U.S., but it’s available on the Internet.

    Among the many findings that dispute environmentalists’ claims are: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind’s activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. Contrary to environmentalists’ claims, the higher the Earth’s temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change. Some of the documentary’s scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth’s temperature is our sun’s sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we’ve been told by environmentalists is pure bunk.

    Throughout the Earth’s billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth’s climate was much warmer than it is now. Most of this century’s warming occurred before 1940. For several decades after WWII, when there was massive worldwide industrialization, there was cooling.

    There’s a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That’s the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London’s Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges.” Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

    Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

    Today’s version of yesteryear’s inquisitors include people like the Weather Channel’s Dr. Heidi Cullen, who advocates that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Columnist Dave Roberts, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

    There are literally billions of taxpayer dollars being handed out to global warming alarmists, not to mention their dream of controlling our lives. Their agenda is threatened by dissent. They have the politician’s ear; not we, who will suffer if they have their way.

    End

    Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/03/28/global_warming_heresy

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2538049

      For pity’s sake stop posting this bollocks!

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to Global Warming Heresy

      The Channel Dour documentary was every bit as biased as the most pro Warming publications. I welcomed it because I hoped it might spark a debate to a small extent. Unfortunately, those who are already anti tend to use the documentary as an argument-stopper whether they watched it or notand whether they understood it or not.

      A little more delving and we find – for starters:

      Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ?grossly distorted? and ?as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two?.

      He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. ?I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,? he said. ?This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.? He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

      There are others who appeared in the film who have similar complaints.

      I’ll deal wiith some of the scientific misrepresentation another day.

      Neil 😀

      “Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow…”

      • #2538044

        Some “equal opportunity” bollocks!

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to For pity’s sake stop posting this bollocks!

        • #2595326

          Don’t MAKE me go British on your arse!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Some “equal opportunity” bollocks!

          But do let me know when you decide on acceptable terms for a knock-down, drag-out, winner-takes-all-the-imaginary-marbles-type argument, OK?

      • #2538042

        Neil, by the way. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to For pity’s sake stop posting this bollocks!

        “Let the sun shine. Let the sun shine in…..”

      • #2537997

        Not so fast.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to For pity’s sake stop posting this bollocks!

        “According to a March 11 article in London’s Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change.”

        Under such circumstances I’m not willing to assume that Munsch, or any other skeptics who wish to disavow their doubt, are doing so truly freely. I’ll need a lot more information than that to persuade me that the film was substantially exaggerated. Considering only the information you provided about Munsch, and what Maxwell has posted about the tyranny of the environmentalist movement, I’m more inclined to believe that Maxwell is telling the truth, and Munsch’s retraction is largely inspired by a desire for self-preservation, and that what he fears is getting murdered, not a warming planet.

        • #2537939

          Conspiracy theory

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Not so fast.

          Wunsch is not English and the documentary was made for English television. Have death threats been made against Wunsch? I think not. The fact that you imply some form of transatlantic coercion really does confirm you’ve switched sides with a vengeance. Watch out for new variant CTD (Conspiracy Theory Disease), some early symptoms here.

          All Maxwell’s link points to is the fact that you, perhaps, have more nutters than we have but I suspected that all along… OK, maybe the word “extremists” is better but who’s counting?

          I’m sorry, but dumping on this documentary is so easy as it was really not very good. It was exactly the equivalent of Al Gore’s tosh. again, I only welcomed it for a bit of balance. both sides need a point to start from to move to rational agreement.

          Some science: The documentary’s central idea was that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the Sun.

          This idea started with the 1991 discovery by Danish climatologist Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on Earth are in “almost complete agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots ? the shorter they are, the higher the temperature. Actually, he discovered nothing of the kind. Subsequent papers in 2004 by other authors examining his findings showed that “agreement” was the result of “incorrect handling of the physical data”. The real data for recent years show the opposite in that temperatures have continued to rise as the length of the sunspot cycle has increased.

          When he got kicked by these publications, Friis-Christensen published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results but in this paper they made an error in their arithmetic that was very quickly pointed out.

          Not to be put off by this Friis-Christensen developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a “remarkable agreement” between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the C4 documentary proposed for global warming.

          But, yet again, the method has been exposed as faulty. He had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper by other authors clearly shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.

          So the hypothesis then changed again! Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, one of Friis-Christensen’s co-authors declared that there was in fact a correlation ? not with total cloud cover but with “low cloud cover”. This too turned out to be incorrect.

          Then, last year, we had the publication of a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying it was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays.

          Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA has shown on that five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. None of this seems to have troubled C4, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.

          I could go on but you’d probably come back on the political angle and – to be honest – I’m not really sure that I can be bothered to answer that one.

          Neil 😀

          Don’t know why there’s no sun up in the sky – stormy weather.

        • #2538496

          dumping is [i]always[/i] easy

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Conspiracy theory

          Supporting your claims is more time-consuming. I’ll be Googling this “Friis-Christensen” name, and reply afterwards on his data. For now, I only note that you have that other researchers’ work “clearly shows that when [b]the right data[/b] are used, a correlation is not found” and that “[b]real data[/b] for recent years show the opposite in that temperatures have continued to rise”, but that you have not been forthcoming about what makes the data that you [b]prefer[/b] more right or more real. I have not “switched sides with a vengeance”, I have adopted a more Skeptical posture toward [b]both[/b] sides.

          😀

        • #2538481

          Prove MY claims?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to dumping is [i]always[/i] easy

          You forget the fact that this thread was started by Maxwell specifically to spotlight the Channel Four documentary.

          It was to assess the claims made in the documentary – which I have watched twice – that I followed the trail through the claims of Friis-Christensen and his co-workers and the counter-claims. You may follow my paper trail or you may find your own.

          Enjoy.

          I’m still working on some of the other claims in the documentary for my own satisfaction and so that those who use the documentary – those that haven’t watched it – get it flung straight back at them.

          I’m not sure it’s a good idea for an American to start a thread on a British-made-for-British-TV documentary. We don’t quite get the same starting point for the discussion.

          Neil 😀

          Here comes the sun, here comes the sun
          and I say it’s all right

        • #2538467

          You assume too much.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Prove MY claims?

          [i]You forget the fact that this thread was started by Maxwell specifically to spotlight the Channel Four documentary.[/i]

          I haven’t gotten around to the fact-checking of maxwell edison’s post that you obviously have already begun. But, the information you have posted is not enough to convince me that [b]the entire program[/b] was a fraud, just because one guy is upset about how his comments were portrayed. You might be right, but from what you’ve posted so far, you still might be wrong.

        • #2538435

          I haven’t posted everything that I’ve found

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to You assume too much.

          nor will I. It does strike me that it’s not really of any use to me – or to you – to post a rebuttal of the contents of a program that you have not seen.

          What I’ve actually posted so far (and probably all that I’m likely to post for the moment) was the subsequent objections [b]of the one climate scientist who appeared in the programme[/b] and a critical comment on the scientific paper used as the basis of one of the main programme points made.

          There’s a lot more that I could say but I refer you to the first paragraph above. I never said that the program was a complete fraud but I did say that it was the anti-GW equivalent of Al Gore’s stuff in every way and thereby in part or wholly worthless or worse than worthless.

          Neil

          Now i, I wish it would rain down, down on me
          Yes I wish it would rain, rain down on me now

        • #2538425

          “the greenhouse theory has been refuted”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Prove MY claims?

          [i]However, the statement “the greenhouse theory has been refuted” is premature.[/i]

          http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/solspot.html

          The meaning of an excerpt can be greatly distorted, if enough of the context is omitted.

          LOL!

        • #2539753

          “I could go on but you’d probably come back on the political angle and – “

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Conspiracy theory

          I did come back on the political angle, and on the scientific angle, and you responded by forfeiting both.

        • #2538577

          I think what he fears most

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Not so fast.

          is having his funding cut 🙂

        • #2538471

          I don’t.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I think what he fears most

          I don’t think anything at all about what he might [i]fear[/i]. I just know that he hasn’t convinced me of his claims.

      • #2538639

        Being ” biased”

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to For pity’s sake stop posting this bollocks!

        OF COURSE, it’s “biased”. BUT WHY IS BEING BIASED necessarily A BAD THING? It set out to take a position, and it did. Why would a documentary that intended to dismiss the silly notion of man-caused global warming present the other side of the argument? The problem with BIASED is when people don’t admit their own. The people on the opposite side of the argument do the same damned thing — and THEY seem to be accepted!

        Besides, Neil, YOU, TOO, took Carl Wunsch’s comments out of context. Quit being so damned biased!

        Let me take more of his words “out of context”.

        [i]”I am distrustful of prediction scenarios for details of the ocean circulation that rely on extremely complicated coupled models that run out for decades to thousands of years. The science is not sufficiently mature to say which of the many complex elements of such forecasts are skillful.”[/i]
        — Carl Wunsch

        But at least I will provide the context:

        Swindled: Carl Wunsch responds

        Mt bottom line: Over all the things in the world to worry about and/or try to do something about, “global warming” isn’t even on the list. And the people who DO want it on their list, do so for reasons that are more in-line with advancing their political agenda of structuring society in their preferred likeness, and less to “protect the environment”. These people, the “global warming” advocates, need to be dismissed, and discredited, and made irrelevant.

        I would also be willing to wager that the vast majority of scientists who do believe that it’s possible human activity might be having some affect on the climate, probably wish their studies had not been hijacked by political activists, and/or don’t advocate major changes in society, and/or don’t really subscribe to all the dire doom-and-gloom scenarios, and/or might consider the trade-off (what such technology has provided for mankind) acceptable, and/or don’t agree with most (or all) of the silly and stupid “cures”, such as carbon credits, restriction of liberties, and all that crap. It might be their “science”, but the “therefore what” is not. (At least that would be my wager if it could be proved.)

        And Neil, you said, [i]”Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ?grossly distorted? and ?as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two?.”[/i]

        Please provide the context for that comment, would you please? I’d like to read all of what he said surrounding that statement. (I found sources where people said he said that, but I can’t find one of him actually saying those exact words.)

        • #2538531

          One thing of which you may not be aware

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Being ” biased”

          is that I work for the organisation that is responsible for acting on complaints about UK TV programmes (not the BBC but everyone else).

          I didn’t need to go delving into our database for Wunsch and I’m not even sure if he complained to us personally – although quite a few people did! Read his own words. http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response

          What I would quite like is an unpolitical reponse to the scientific stuff I posted re: Friis-Christensen. The references in the order that I mentioned them in my post, should you care to go back to source. A couple of them are easily accessible.

          Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, 1991. Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science, Vol 254, 698-700.

          Paul Damon and Peter Laut, 2004. Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data. Eos, Vol. 85, No. 39.

          Knud Lassen and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 2000. Reply to ?Solar cycle lengths and climate: A reference revisited? by P. Laut and J.Gundermann. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 105, No 27, 493-495.

          Paul Damon and Peter Laut, ibid.

          Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 1997. Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: A missing link in solar-climate relationships. The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 59, 1225-1232.

          Peter Laut, 2003. Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Vol 65, 801-812.

          Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, 2000. Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays. Physical Review Letters Vol 85, no 23. 5004-5007.

          Paul Damon and Peter Laut, ibid.

          Henrik Svensmark et al, 2007. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society Volume 463, Number 2078, 1364-5021.

          Danish National Space centre, October 2006. Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate.

          http://spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connection-to-climate

          Gavin Schmidt, 16th October 2006. Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin.

          Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin

          Enjoy…

          Neil 😀

          “I’m walking on sunshine , wooah”

        • #2538523

          That’s the same article (letter) I posted!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to One thing of which you may not be aware

          And the quote you attributed to him ([i]biggest propaganda since World War Two[/i]), was not part of it.

          So again, please post the full context of that particular quote.

          “And I wonder, Still I wonder, Who’ll stop the rain”

        • #2538518

          I don’t have it directly attributed to Wunsch

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to That’s the same article (letter) I posted!

          The quote came from a Guardian article about Channel Four which quoted Wunsch. http://www.guardian.co.uk/pda/story/0,,2039587-TV+and+Radio,00.html
          http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
          and a few other places as well.

          It’s really not the main issue, anyway, although it is worth taking on board that Wunsch was the only reputable climate scientists on the program and, “propaganda” or not, he’s pissed. Let’s not get bogged down in quotes when an examination of the science in the program – surely the most important issue – demonstrates completely WHY Wunsch wishes to be disassociated with the programme.

          Neil 😀

          The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
          The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

        • #2538452

          But is WAS a “qoute”. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t have it directly attributed to Wunsch

          …..so EVERYBODY is using him, misquoting him, taking him out of context, etc.

          We take a walk, the sun is shining down
          Burns my feet as they touch the ground
          Good Day Sunshine, Good Day Sunshine, Good Day Sunshine

        • #2538428

          Poor sod just wants to go about his business

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to But is WAS a “qoute”. . . . .

          watching clouds…

          All the leaves are brown (leaves are brown)
          And the sky is grey (sky is grey)

      • #2538596

        The notion than mankind is causing it. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to For pity’s sake stop posting this bollocks!

        ….is what I simply cannot buy into.

        The climate is changing, they say? Well, what else is new? It’s always been changing. The ocean levels are rising, they say? Well, again, what else is new? They’ve been rising for thousands of years. They’re rising at a higher rate, people might retort? Oh really? Relatively speaking, I doubt it; or I doubt it can be measured accurately enough to tell. But the oceans are getting warmer and the polar ice is melting, they say. And the cycles continue.

        It must all be caused by mankind’s activities, they say. Sorry, I don’t believe that the power of man even measures up to an iota compared to the power of the earth and the sun. The sun is amazing. The heat and the energy it generates can be felt for hundreds of millions of miles. It can sustain life. It can kill life. And it’s extremely dynamic, with explosions and flares that would engulf hundreds of earth-sized planets. It’s a good thing for us it’s so far away; but it’s also a good thing for us it’s as close as it is. It’s all relative, isn’t it? And the notion that the sun’s activities could alter Earth’s temperatures a mere degree or two are much more plausible than suggesting it’s being caused by man.

        Have you ever been to Yellowstone National Park? When civilized man first reported of the steam shooting up from the ground, and pools of bubbling mud, and ponds of water so hot it that would boil a man to death, they were thought to be delusional. But those things are real, and they’re generated from the enormous power contained inside the Earth. They say that Yellowstone is a massive volcanic explosion waiting to happen — one that would change the landscape of the entire North American Continent. It’s not a matter of if, they say, but when. They even estimate that it’ll happen somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years from now. (Make your travel plans accordingly!)

        Did you know that the temperatures inside the Earth are as hot as those on the surface of the sun? Some of it obviously leaks out into Yellowstone, causing all those things I just described. And it’s not just in Yellowstone, but all over the globe we can find examples of the power of the Earth — hot pools and geysers, cracks, crevices, and earthquakes — scores of examples of a powerful and dynamic Earth. Maybe some of it’s leaking under Greenland causing the surface to react in certain ways, perhaps causing some of the ice to melt. Maybe some of it’s leaking at the deepest depths of the oceans — the yet unexplored oceans. That seems much more plausible than a changing earth being caused by people driving their automobiles.

        The universe, our solar system, our sun, and our earth — nature, as we often call it, or the environment, it’s not so “fragile”, as is often claimed. It’s a source of energy so great and powerful it’s actually difficult to imagine. And it’s so massive that anything we can produce is insignificant by comparison. Come on, Neil. You don’t really think that [i]little ol’ us[/i] is powerful enough to change the dynamics of nature, do you? In reality, my friend, it’s the other way around.

      • #2538581

        as opposed to …

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to For pity’s sake stop posting this bollocks!

        [i]’This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.?[/i]

        … those on that other side, who are attempting to exploit everyone else on the planet!

        Seems some can dish it out but they can’t take it.

        • #2538338

          Nice catch!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to as opposed to …

          “Ewww, yuk, my own medicine doesn’t taste good! Waaaaa!

          🙁

        • #2538327

          Interesting little exchange [edited]

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Nice catch!

          TonytheTabby was quoting Wunsch who, I think, is entitled to say that he thinks he was used by Martin Durkin the documentary’s director. TTT’s post is a simple ad hominem. I’ll respond to TTT directly when his contribution is more than snide one-liners.

          Neil

          You,now. You’re a cat of a different stripe. Have you watched the documentary yet? It’s out on the Web, I believe, though I’ve not looked for it.

          [Edit]

          I was musing on my morning stroll as to what has made you shift your stance in a skeptic-ward direction. We on the “GW is real” side can offer you the published opinion of most of the world’s scientists (yes, ‘most’, whatever anyone might say on t’other side to attack their motives.) I would have thought that it might have been enough.

          So, I mused on a little, what hold has Maxwell got on you? But it’s obvious, really. It occurred to me then the mitigation of the effects of climate change – which is really happening whether you believe that we humans are contributing or not – will require money. Lots of money. The politicians will want to take it from YOU and give it to someone else. However noble the reason, you can’t face that.

          Even worse, if there is a link proven to everyones satisfaction between CO2 production and climate change, other countries will be looking to the greatest contributor of CO2 for some serious action or, God forbid, for some of that money. Now who could that be?

          I understand now.

          En garde…

        • #2538311

          You’re right, it’s because you’re after my $

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Interesting little exchange [edited]

          If after reviewing the research on the solar activity hypothesis, I am once again convinced that “GW is real”, so be it. But, knowing that that conclusion will mean more taxes (regardless of my personal agreement) I’m interested in being certain that my position on this topic is an informed one. What noble reason do you believe I can’t face?

          [i]It occurred to me then the mitigation of the effects of climate change – which is really happening whether you believe that we humans are contributing or not – will require money. Lots of money. The politicians will want to take it from YOU and give it to someone else. However noble the reason, you can’t face that.[/i]

          Have not yet watched the Channel Four documentary, but just about to search the web for it.

          [i]Have you watched the documentary yet? It’s out on the Web, I believe, though I’ve not looked for it.[/i]

        • #2540367

          If it were free & easy, there would be no reason to argue.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You’re right, it’s because you’re after my $

          If there were an artificial sweetener that [b]really[/b] tasted as good as sugar, I’d use it. If there were an equally convenient alternative to my automobile, I’d use that. In both cases, there is not an equally good option, and in the case of climate change, I’ll have to be convinced that the magnitude of the trade-off is sufficient to warrant [b]any[/b] additional effort, expense or inconvenience on my part. As of now, I’m less convinced than I was 10 years ago. Like maxwell edison, I’ll keep an open mind, until I’m Absolutely Convinced one way or the other. But if you’re trying to convince me to take global warming seriously, you’ve lost ground since I started paying taxes, and you’re losing much more ground every time you present an argument based in any part on fear. I consider reasoning based in facts I can verify, and nothing else.

        • #2540359

          One assumption which is in error

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to If it were free & easy, there would be no reason to argue.

          I have no real wish to convince you. I have no “ground” to lose.

          Given the magnitude of the perceived problem and its potential for huge destruction of social and economic stability, I do invite you to put sufficient effort into this find out for yourself.

          😀

        • #2540343

          “No ground to lose”? Are you sure?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to If it were free & easy, there would be no reason to argue.

          Well, then, London is NOT going to be devastated by rising water levels from melting glaciers. You heard it here first, no ground to lose.

        • #2540208

          Envirofascism rears its ugly head, again

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to If it were free & easy, there would be no reason to argue.

          neil wrote, “Certainties and Liberty
          Only children deal in certainty.”

          And would-be-tyrants exploit fear.

          “There is so Global Warming!
          There is not global Warming!

          And use lies. Let us take this example. I personally have written at least a dozen times on this board that we have had a record of global warming for 13,000 years. The last ice age began to end because of warming. That trend has continued up to the present. So claiming that I am saying there is no global warming is a bold lie. Why do you lie?

          “What adults do is weigh the evidence and assess the probability of the outcome being one thing or the other.”

          I am very familiar with risk management. It is one of my additional duties in addition to being an engineering manager.

          “The probability of the outcome is then set against the scope and magnitude of that outcome and the effectiveness of a potential cure or mitigation and the effect of that and so on.”

          As a risk manager I would never suggest that our risk mitigation plan include enslaving all of our customers.

          There is always a time component to risk. When do we expect this risk to manifest itself, in what ways and to what effect? Will it cost more to mitigate the risk than it would cost to fix whatever problems actually occur?

          “We are all IT professionals and we have all done risk assessment (I hope) and we should all be able to scale this up to a larger outcome.”

          Risks deal with uncertainties. In the case of man-caused global warming the cause and the outcome are both uncertain. I personally prefer the warmth over the ice age.

          “On this basis, given the number of people that GW might adversely affect, you, Abs and sn3, may take your Liberty and your Rights and shove them where the Sun Don’t Shine.”

          And thus we are lead to tyranny. It is so obvious. And it comes right out of the writings of the envirofascists. Like all other tyrants they tell us in advance what they intend.

        • #2540206

          Double post

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to If it were free & easy, there would be no reason to argue.

          Double post

        • #2540318

          The seriousness of the charge

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to You’re right, it’s because you’re after my $

          neil wrote, “Given the magnitude of the perceived problem and its potential for huge destruction of social and economic stability,”

          You know, the Democrats used to say that the seriousness of the charge was sufficient reason for an investigation. Now you are saying it.

          The man-caused global warming tyrants say we are doomed once or twice a week so we must have more power concentrated in a central body (which I am sure they will graciously consent to run) plus the ability to punish with huge penalties and a host of new taxes. And you say, roll over.

          I will begin to take them more seriously when their answer to this perceived problem is more freedom, more liberty, less control by centralized, soviet style bureaucracies, and less taxes. But that is not likely to happen. Is it?

        • #2540270

          The seriousness of making the charge falsely.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The seriousness of the charge

          [i]neil wrote, “Given the magnitude of the perceived problem and its potential for huge destruction of social and economic stability,”[/i]

          Well, neil, 2 sides can play at that little game. Either side of this argument can appeal to “the seriousness of the charge”. Libertarians can equally appeal to the seriousness of the ramifications of loss of liberty. We have some extremely poignant examples in very recent history. We need not refer back more than 100 years to show how uncritical compliance with cultural norms and other arbitrary preferences have resulted in losses of lives on the order of [b]tens of millions[/b] per nation where collectivism has taken hold. So, neilb, you had better by Absolutely Certain before you infringe one iota on my rights.

          What freedom-loving people need to do, sn53, is make our arguments in those terms more often. Stupid ideas only take hold through repetition, and the hesitancy of people with good ideas to be equally redundant. But, as long as the voters are susceptible to proof by repetition, our duty to remain vigilant in defense of our freedom includes repeating the seriousness of our charge, every time we make our charge.

        • #2540210

          Certainties and Liberty

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to The seriousness of the charge

          Only children deal in certainty.

          There is so Global Warming!
          There is not global Warming!

          What adults do is weigh the evidence and assess the probability of the outcome being one thing or the other. The probability of the outcome is then set against the scope and magnitude of that outcome and the effectiveness of a potential cure or mitigation and the effect of that and so on. We are all IT professionals and we have all done risk assessment (I hope) and we should all be able to scale this up to a larger outcome.

          On this basis, given the number of people that GW might adversely affect, you, Abs and sn3, may take your Liberty and your Rights and shove them where the Sun Don’t Shine.

          No offence meant…

          🙂

        • #2540194

          Is [i]THAT[/i] what you think adults do?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The seriousness of the charge

          [i]Only children deal in certainty.

          There is so Global Warming!
          There is not global Warming!

          What adults do is weigh the evidence and assess the probability of the outcome … blah, blah, lots of pretentious pseudo-intellectual overuse of long words that only mean that if you invent a scary enough fairy tale, you will feel [b]at liberty[/b] to dispense with the rights of anybody who doesn’t wish to worship at your altar. Blah, blah, blah. I’ve heard it all before, and I’m still neither impressed, nor convinced.

          On this basis, given the number of people that GW might adversely affect, you, Abs and sn3, may take your Liberty and your Rights and shove them where the Sun Don’t Shine.[/i]

          Quite ironic that you began by lecturing us about adult behavioral norms.

          Back to the main topic, it’s interesting how quickly and how drastically your tone changes when I mention the abuses that have occurred in the past century in the name of compulsory allegiance to various stupid ideas. You do still hold Nazism, Communism and Fascism to be stupid ideas, I hope.

          I’m not questioning your good intentions. I’m just Skeptical of your paving skills.

        • #2540187

          Global Warming

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to The seriousness of the charge

          I thought that this dicussion was about global warming and specifically about a Channel Four programme. This is a programme, by the way, that laid the blame for the upsurge of the environmentalist movement on Margaret Thatcher.

          It is – was – what I have been trying to discuss but every time you, Maxwell or sn3 takes it into a political tangent, I get a little more fed up and a little more reluctant to reply. I don’t WANT to talk about Naziism, Communism or Fascism and “compulsory allegiance” and get drawn into discussing the very obvious comparisons that you want to make with the environmentalist movement. Although it’s worth remembering that not all allegience to those ideas was compulsory (far from it) and certainly not all of the time. If this is where you want to take this discussion – and it surely where Max and sn3 have gone – then you do it without me.

          It’s just so f*cking painful to have a discussion with you all and I just can’t be bothered to try any more. What can I do with “global warming tyrants”, “more freedom, more liberty, less control by centralized, soviet style bureaucracies”, “envirofascism”, “enslaving”…The damn thread is called “Heresy”.

          Neil

          p.s. No. I don’t think that’s what adults do. That much is painfully obvious just by looking around. I think that it’s what they SHOULD do.

          p.p.s. “Would neilb agree to including those in a political debate on global warming, or would he insist that the data regarding humans’ direct impact on one another is somehow “out of scope”?”

          Neilb, alas, is not going to give you the time of day on this subject lest you accuse me of forcing GMT onto you. Neilb does not subscribe to and is not a part of your political system for good or evil.

        • #2540175

          neilb’s dislike of politics: I also replied re. Friis-Christensen

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The seriousness of the charge

          [b]You[/b] have so far chosen to respond only to the political messages, and only with complaints about the very existence of messages regarding the political context of the environmentalist movement.

          I, when challenged to do so, addressed the scientific research you posted. Was my dismantling of your research too devastating, or will you eventually get around to posting some verifiable evidence of Friis-Christensen’s alleged “trivial arithmetic errors”?

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=217739&messageID=2208160

        • #2540157

          It was devastating

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to The seriousness of the charge

          I’m off to get a life.

        • #2540151

          Awww, don’t go away [i]MAD[/i]…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The seriousness of the charge

          Just, go away until you can discuss the science objectively, without including a pile of scare tactics in every post.

          😀

          My devastating dismantling of the critique neilb posted of the hypothesis that it might just be the sun can be found here:

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=217739&messageID=2208160

          Have fun getting a life, Neil. It is Absoolutely Necessary to be alive in order to type real messages on real keyboards, so by all means, come on back once you become alive, or “get” whatever the hell you’re really talking about getting.

          😀

        • #2538307

          It’s because it’s not true – I cite Dr. Wlliam Gray

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Interesting little exchange [edited]

          I’ve been citing Dr. Gray for years, but this story just appeared. (Okay, Neil, go ahead and discredit him as well. Why is it, by the way, that all the dissenters are worthy of being discredited, thereby simply dismissing their argument, but the alarmists are not?)

          http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

          NEW ORLEANS (AP) – A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore “a gross alarmist” Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

          “He’s one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he’s doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

          A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray’s comments.

          Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

          Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America’s most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

          Gray’s statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

          Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

          Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” has helped fuel media attention on global warming.

          Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly “dug (his) heels in” even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.

        • #2540427

          Gore’s Documentary and Channel Four’s documentary

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to It’s because it’s not true – I cite Dr. Wlliam Gray

          Are simply opposite sides of the same coin.

          Had you started a thread on why Gore’s film was a piece of ill-researched, misleading propaganda, you’d have found me cheering you on! The Channel Four documentary was similarly ill-researched, misleading propaganda. If we’re going to have a dialogue then lets use good science and common sense.

          As for William Grey, I think we’ve discussed him before. I’ve seen some of what he’s written but I’m not sure how I can offer alternative viewpoints on his work without you crying foul and accusing me of “discrediting” him.

          Interesting tactic…

          Neil 😀

          Though spring is here to me it is still September
          That September in the rain

        • #2540410

          On discrediting

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Gore’s Documentary and Channel Four’s documentary

          Because that’s what you’ve (you collectively — the global warming crowd) continually done in the past. I post support for my argument, and the source is either discredited (or a lame attempt to discredit and dismiss) or simply not commented on. NONE OF YOU have ever said something like, [i]That’s an interesting observation. I’ve never looked at it that way. And he seems qualified enough to express a valid opinion. I wonder why the difference in opinions?[/i]

          You will maintain that man-caused global warming/climate change is an undeniable fact until I (or other dissenters) can prove otherwise. I, on the other hand, will continue to be a skeptic until you (and other global warming advocates) can prove it beyond any doubt whatsoever. Unfortunately, I can’t really prove a negative. But YOUR side has proved absolutely nothing, AND you behave as though you have. Moreover, contrary to claims made by you and others, there is not a majority consensus among expert and qualified scientists and climatologists that suggest, one: man-caused global warming/climate change is happening, or two: if it is happening, it’s something we can and/or should do anything about, or three: if it is happening, it’s necessarily a bad thing, or four: that all possible variables and factors have been considered, or five:…… In short, between the claim and the “therefore what”, at best, it might be split down the middle among “qualified” opinions. But go ahead, try to get an ACCURATE and SUPPORTABLE number of pros and cons. I’d love to see it.

          Unfortunately, we’ve being inundated with lies and scare tactics by you people for so long, that now your “theory” has turned into a proven fact in the minds of many. (London is gonna’ flood by the rising ocean levels!) As it’s been said, a lie will travel ten thousand miles before the truth puts its shoes on. Look at all the people who buy into Al Gore’s bogus movie, and compare them to the ones who laugh at it. We’re outnumbered probably ten to one, and he won a friggin’ Academy Award for it! And for a large part, these are the people who actually control the information in the U.S. — the main-stream media, HollyWeird, et al. Most people don’t read and research. They believe what’s being told to them and follow like blind sheep.

          And there’s another reason, other than the ones I’ve stated above and in other messages, for my extreme skepticism (but something I’ve said before). It’s the whole crowd advancing the notion. I never have, and I never will trust either their word or their motives. They’re the same crowd that, in essence, tells people they’re too stupid or helpless to take responsibility for and control of their own lives. They’re the same crowd that uses class-envy, race-baiting, anti-business, anti-everything to pit one group of people against another. They’re the pro-union people, the pro-collectivist people, the pro-tax people, the [i]what’s yours in mine to give away[/i] people. They’re the people who try to get others’ emotions to trump their reason. They’re the scare-mongering people, regardless of the issue. They’re the demagogues of today. These people have been using environmentalism to advance their extreme and leftist political causes for my entire adult life. I’ve seen them operate for decades, I know who they are, and I know what they’re all about. Why in the world would I (or should I) believe a damn thing they say? And why in the hell would I want to join their camp? Especially when there are reputable people like Professor Gray (and scores of others) who cast doubt on the basis of their whole argument?

          And IF they really believed what they say, the issue would be solved by now because they would have advanced the cause by devoting their time, effort, and money actually DOING what they “claim” they want others to do — what they try to FORCE others to do. They’re hypocrites of the worst kind. They’re demagogues of the worst kind. They’re about the worst mean-spirited bunch I’ve ever seen. And for some reason, you want to join hands with them.

          Here are some of your bedfellows:

          http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/070406-murdock-comment.html

          One day you’ll look to see I’ve gone
          For tomorrow may rain,
          so I’ll follow the sun

        • #2540405

          “to join hands with them”

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Gore’s Documentary and Channel Four’s documentary

          Your post rather stops the discussion.

          Because I have personally put a lot of time and effort into checking over some of the claims made on the side of the pro and the anti and have come to the conclusion that there is a changing climate and that we are probably contributing to the rapidity and increasing the scope of that change I am, it appears, aligned with Satan.

          Ah, well. I’m outa here…

        • #2540392

          Oh come on, Neil. You’re not Satan!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Gore’s Documentary and Channel Four’s documentary

          But you do, for better or worse, find yourself, as you said, aligned with him/them (figuratively speaking, of course).

          But you have to admit, these are the people I SEE advancing the cause. I DO NOT see scores of scientists taking great pains to warn the public of the impending doom. I hear activists always speaking for scientists, or quoting them, or misquoting them, but the real “scientists” are conspicuously absent from the public view. Sure, they’ll write articles and such, but they have to have something to show for the funding they’ve been receiving. Can you imagine your boss paying you to study something, but not expecting some sort of report? If all the scientific doom and gloom was truly widely believed, we’d see a scientific march on Washington demanding action. This alone tells me there’s no “consensus”.

          You may have the education and training to make some sense out of all the facts and figures, but most of us don’t. Most of us have to choose to either believe one way or the other. On what should we base that decision? I’d really like to hear your answer to that question. Should the one with the worst prediction get my vote? I don’t think so.

          I base mine on how I see things:

          1. The power and dynamics of the earth and sun, as described in my earlier message, seems like a more plausible explanation for any earthly change than anything mankind is doing.

          2. The claims being made are really no different than the way the earth has been behaving for hundreds of thousands of years. Climate has always been a changing dynamic. What else is new? Wasn’t the Sahara Desert once a fertile and wet grassland? Did “man-caused global warming” create the Sahara Desert? I think not. So why should today be any different? The earth changes; climates change; that what the earth does. Instead of trying to place blame for the changes and implement some lame cures to stop it, perhaps we should just do what hundreds of generations before us did — deal with it and adapt.

          3. The “common sense” factor, such as [i]something people exhale is destroying the planet[/i]. Oh come on, give me a break! We exhale something that’s destroying the planet? Yea, right.

          4. Just like some people have a distrust of the “religious right” in America, I have an extreme distrust of the “religious left” (THEIR version of religion, that is). And like I said, these are about the only people I see advancing the silly notion.

          5. Okay, I DID consider the possibility, but entering into my research with open-mindedness (okay, stop laughing!), I find qualified people — all of whom are a heck of a lot smarter than I — who actually disagree among themselves. If they even disagree among themselves, then obviously we need a lot more time before we implement a lot of knee-jerk solutions to solve a problem that might not even be real in the first place. In every other aspect of life, that’s about the dumbest thing a person can do.

          6. I want to see all of those who believe it to actually walk their own talk. If I truly believed that something I was doing was actually destroying my environment, I’d quit doing it — regardless of how anyone else behaved. For example, I both teach and practice the [i]Leave No Trace[/i] principle — even if others don’t. And if the hundreds of millions of “believers” don’t even live their own cure, why should I believe they’re sincere?

          7. Geesh, already! I get SO TIRED of some people and how they ALWAYS blame every problem on other people. Is this just another one of those times? Some people just need to get a grip.

          8. I could go on…..

          In short, Neil, I have absolutely no reason to actually believe it, but I have quite a number of reasons to disbelieve it. So I honestly ask. On what should I base my decision to believe or not believe?

        • #2540386

          Neil runs…again

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Gore’s Documentary and Channel Four’s documentary

          neil wrote, “Ah, well. I’m outa here… ”

          And so he runs away again. I am beginning to see a pattern here.

        • #2540369

          sn3

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Gore’s Documentary and Channel Four’s documentary

          I believe that I have simply investigated the science that has been available to the best of my ability and have come to the conclusion that these is significant truth in what I have read that we should at least make some attempt to reduce the the carbon emissions that result from our lifestyle.

          Well, I find myself in the position of being allied with Satan and His Cohorts for my simple beliefs in anthropogenic climate change. It would seem that, as Charles Manson and Peter Sutcliffe both believe in climate change then I, by association as a posessor of like beliefs, am a mass murderer.

          Even if I ignore that particular issue and concentrate simply on the science I have nowhere to go. If I critque or criticise the scientific statements from anti-GW people then I am accused of character assassination (which would seem to be a characteristic of “my sort”.

          Do I care to continue a discussion on those terms? No.

          Am I running away (as also seems to me characteristic of “my sort”)? No.

          Am I bovvered? Am I bovvered, though? Do I look bovvered? Am I bovvered, though, Look at my face, does it look bovvered, though? Look at my face. Look at my face. Look at my face, though. Does any part of it look bovvered? Am I bovvered? Ask me if I’m bovvered. Go on, ask me if I’m bovvered. Ask me. Ask me if I’m bovvered. No, I ain’t even bovvered. I ain’t bovvered. Face. Bovvered. Look. Face. Bovvered. Look. Face. Bovvered? Look. Bovvered? I ain’t bovvered.

          Neil

        • #2540329

          Neil, one more question

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Gore’s Documentary and Channel Four’s documentary

          (Even though you didn’t even attempt to answer the first one.)

          Do I or do I not make a good case for not believing?

        • #2540322

          Maxwell: NO

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Gore’s Documentary and Channel Four’s documentary

          The best that you can do is to make a case for not doing anything about it.

          1. Whilst I agree with what you wrote, we can have BOTH. The planet is rebounding after the Ice age and we’re giving it a push.

          2. See 1, above

          3. We BURN something that may destroy the planet. What we exhale is in equilibrium with the plants and what goes around, comes around. What carbon we burn would not, without our help, have ever seen the light of day.

          4. Irrelevant to the science.

          5. If the scientists disagree then seek out WHY they disagree and allow yourself to be convinced by the one with the best science. Ignore the politics to the best of your ability, find out what’s true and then see if you want to pay the price that may be asked. You’re also allowed to change your mind.

          6. In America? Be serious!

          7. In this case, “other people” is all of us.

          8. Oh, so could I…..

          Neil 😀

        • #2540316

          It is not about the science

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Gore’s Documentary and Channel Four’s documentary

          neil wrote, “I believe that I have simply investigated the science that has been available to the best of my ability and have come to the conclusion that these is significant truth in what I have read”

          When two things happen and can be correlated in some way does that prove cause and effect? The rooster crows. The sun comes up. Did the crowing rooster cause the sun to rise?

          Since the last ice age 13,000 years ago we have been in a warming cycle. In the last 100 years it has gotten about a degree warmer. The ocean levels have risen and fallen throughout the life of this very dynamic planet. Did Americans driving SUVs cause those things? Why did most of the warming that has been noted occur in the middle of the 100 year period, when America was far poorer than today? Why do we see evidence of global warming on other planets?

          There are facts. And there are political conclusions. Agreeing to one ought not to automatically have you agreeing to the other.

          Once freedoms have been lost it is very hard to get them back. Rome will have to fall again. We will have to experience dark ages before this grand experiment in self-government will have another chance to be run.

        • #2540193

          It is about how the science is used.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Gore’s Documentary and Channel Four’s documentary

          There are important, established correlations among individual liberties, prosperity and peace of nations. Would neilb agree to including those in a political debate on global warming, or would he insist that the data regarding humans’ direct impact [b]on one another[/b] is somehow “out of scope”?

        • #2612396

          maxwell: I can [i]imagine[/i] quite a lot!!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Gore’s Documentary and Channel Four’s documentary

          [i]Can you imagine your boss paying you to study something, but not expecting some sort of report?[/i]

          As a matter of fact, I know that executives expect that the reports they read are written by people who delegated the work, not people who performed it. “Therefore, what?”

          [i]If all the scientific doom and gloom was truly widely believed, we’d see a scientific march on Washington demanding action. This alone tells me there’s no “consensus”.[/i]

          If that alone tells you that there is [b]no[/b] consensus, whatsoever, you are attempting to extrapolate too broadly from the data you have cited in support of that conclusion.

      • #2538305

        ” This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Wag TV”

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to For pity’s sake stop posting this bollocks!

        http://preview.tinyurl.com/35yjh7

        http://tinyurl.com/35yjh7

        I guess I’ll just have to look for the source material cited in that documentary.

        • #2540416

          First impression of Friis-Christensen’s graph

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to ” This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Wag TV”

          The temperature and the sunspot activity look quite closely correlated to me.

          http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

        • #2540407

          I thought so, too. That’s why I kept digging

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to First impression of Friis-Christensen’s graph

          One of the key points in the C4 documentary was that graph. As it was first published in 1991 there has been plenty of time for other groups to repeat the findings.

          The most telling paper covering this and other material that was included in the C4 documentary was by Damon and Laut in 2004 although there have been others. Interestingly, though, the different graphs produced by D&L’s reinterpretation of the Friis-Christensen data seems to fit better with other researchers estimations of solar cycles.

          Here is the Damon and Laut paper. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

          Round and round and round it goes
          and where it stops, nobody knows.

          Neil 😀

          I’m a skeptic myself but I’m a skeptic on the side of “something seems to be happening”.

        • #2540372

          “Now the sensational agreement…has [i]totally[/i] disappeared.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I thought so, too. That’s why I kept digging

          “Now the sensational agreement with the recent global warming, which drew worldwide attention, has [b]totally disappeared[/b].”

          Not “totally”. For the vast majority of the period since 1860, even if I accept everything else (*) in that article, Friis-Christensen’s data is right on the money, except after 1970. In total, we still have over 100 years of close correlation to the solar activity model hypothesized by Friis-Christensen, et al, and less than 30 years of (disputed!) deviation from the solar activity hypothesis. Damon & Laut have a [b]lot[/b] more explaining to do.

          * I do not accept the rest of that article, either. After pointing out that 4 data points that could not be filtered at the time of the original publication now can be filtered, changing the numerical values, the authors went on to assert “trivial arithmetic errors” which they did not detail [b]nor cite[/b]. In the [i]next paragraph[/i] they do cite what they call “unacceptable data procedures”, but that sentence begins with the word “also”, implying that the claim of “unacceptable data procedures” is [b]separate from[/b] the preceding claim of “trivial arithmetic errors”. Please read the following very closely, and see if you agree that Damon & Laut have made the claim of “trivial arithmetic errors” without [b]any data, citation, or reference that could satisfy the requirement of “repeatability”[/b] to prove that the arithmetic to which they refer was performed erroneously.

          [i]The authors, too, have published an update of Figure 1a [Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 2000] using precisely the same data as are used in Figure 1c. However, because of some [b]trivial arithmetic errors[/b], they arrive at a different curve (Figure 1b), a curve that still exhibits some of the originally claimed agreement with the recent global warming. They draw special attention to this agreement, but actually the upward bend of their solar curve is only a consequence of their [b]arithmetic errors[/b].[/i] (Which ones? Where can I review their arithmetic, and see for myself that they committed errors? Why would that [b]smoking gun[/b] be omitted, other than on account of non-existence of any such smoking gun?)[i] A correct [/i](Excuse me, but if you wish to retain the title “scientists” you don’t just [b]claim[/b] that your calculations are correct and that the others’ aren’t, you [b]publish[/b] your calculations along with your claims, every time you directly dispute another scientist’s published work.) [i]calculation based upon their data leads to Figure 1c.

          Also, the article published in 1995 by Lassen and Friis-Christensen, investigating the possible correlation of solar activity and terrestrial temperatures over the extended period of four centuries, contains unacceptable data procedures [Laut, 2003].[/i]

          Merely publishing the words “trivial arithmetic errors” does not suffice. The [b]arithmetic[/b] must be published, and shown to be in error, [b]before[/b] the research and the researcher are considered “discredited”, in real research science. Of course, if this global warming debate is just a political shell game, then Damon & Laut’s smear job are probably good enough for government work.

          Now, I’m going to check for a publication of the source cited in the claim of “unacceptable data procedures”, and I promise you, I’ll be looking very carefully into that publication.

          [edits: my own spelling, spacing/formatting residue from .pdf source of quoted text, re-phrasing for clarity, and several instances of [b]added emphasis[/b]]

    • #2538025

      And away we gooo!!!!

      by mjd420nova ·

      In reply to Global Warming Heresy

      The technological advances of our society have revealed many things about our present environment, but to use present measurements and say the we are headed to hell in a handbasket if we don’t reverse certain trends is wacko. We don’t know or understand what our climate was really like in previous centuries to make any claims about C02 content or greenhouse gases being caused by us, animals or plantlife. Those preaching armegedon are only doing so to draw attention to themselves and bolster their own veiws of what is happening in our environment. Mother Nature is fickle and is not about to give up her secrets easily. So much about this planet is not understood and for anyone to claim that they can interpret certain scientific measurements and thereby claim that this and that is going to happen if we don’t stop doing this or start doing that. Humankinds existance on this planet is based upon our capablity to adapt to whatever is thrown at us. With continued advancement of technology I have no doubt that man will continue to exist for another billion years. The sun will be our guiding light, as it provides what we need to remain alive and short of that light going out anytime soon, we are subject to its changes. It is all just a cycle that this little island and its nearby planetary neighbors will endure for as long as the sun remains an active star at the center of our little corner of the cosmos.

      • #2540146

        I strongly dislike your assumption that the truth is not out there

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to And away we gooo!!!!

        or is unknowable, or is unprovable. I think a patient person with a decent knowledge of college statistics 101 can interpret a large proportion of the published data in the authoritative scientific journals. The only real challenge is sorting through the really specialized articles to find the ones that are more fundamental theoretical breakthroughs, or advances with important practical applications. But spending the time to sort through the scientific literature is a lot more rewarding than reading the summaries of the same stories as they’re presented in the mainstream press.

        “We don’t know or understand what our climate was really like in previous centuries … Mother Nature is fickle and is not about to give up her secrets easily. So much about this planet is not understood and for anyone to claim that they can interpret certain scientific measurements and thereby claim that this and that is going to happen if we don’t stop doing this or start doing that.”

        I very much enjoy your confidence in our species’ ability to adapt, but that ability is largely a result of the intelligence you dismiss above.

        “Humankinds existance on this planet is based upon our capablity to adapt to whatever is thrown at us. With continued advancement of technology I have no doubt that man will continue to exist for another billion years.”

        Some people are throwing pseudo-science at us. If we don’t throw back genuine science at them, and quickly, we will all be subjected to unfair, unwarranted taxes.

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=217739&messageID=2208150

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=217739&messageID=2208160

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=217739&messageID=2208499

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=217739&messageID=2208504

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=217739&messageID=2208555

        It IS possible to call their bluff and get them on the run. It takes some patience and precision, but it can be done.

        “It is all just a cycle that this little island and its nearby planetary neighbors will endure for as long as the sun remains an active star at the center of our little corner of the cosmos.”

        I think that facts can be proven, and should be proven whenever possible. You and I both know that global warming alarmists are just fearmongers, but a lot of voters will usurp our liberty unless they have [b]proof[/b] that CO2 is not the problem.

        • #2540138

          What a sad, sad person you are

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I strongly dislike your assumption that the truth is not out there

          This is Tech Republic, a site where techs come for information, to get questions answered and, some of us, to have a bit of debating fun.

          Note the closing word of the sentence? FUN. When it isn’t fun, I DON’T DO IT!

          You are far from fun. You’re rather too obsessively pedantic for my taste and, eventually, I just get fed up with arguing with you, agreeing with you or even reading your posts. This is not the first time that this has happened.

          I choose not to bother to answer you. If you want to believe that you “have me on the run” then please feel free to assert that to the point of orgasm.

          Oh. You are. 🙂

        • #2540088

          It’s easier to criticize than to be right

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What a sad, sad person you are

          or to remain in the arena when you’re wrong, isn’t it?

          [i]Note the closing word of the sentence? FUN. When it isn’t fun, I DON’T DO IT![/i]

          Suddenly the science isn’t important to you, unless it’s fun? Hypocrite!

        • #2540058

          Ad Hominem, sequitur, responsive

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to It’s easier to criticize than to be right

          (with apoogies to Deepsand)

          I’ll try to explain. I’ll keep it simple.

          Firstly, this isn’t an “arena”. It’s an IT technical site. Your choice of the word “arena” exactly nails what is wrong with you.

          The science is important and it is important to ME. It’s only important HERE as an exercise in debating. I reserve the right to answer you in my own time. I reserve the right to go fishing during the Easter break but you, it seems, were unable to wait for my reply. I reserve the right to tell you to fvck off. That is what I have done.

          Trust me in this, no-one else has bothered to read our exchanges on the publications of Danish climatologists.

          I’m not a hypocrite, I’m just fed up nit-picking with you. I have better things to do.

        • #2539969

          Yet, you keep replying.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Ad Hominem, sequitur, responsive

          “I have better things to do.”

          If so, you’d be doing them, not wasting time telling me about yourself. No, you just don’t have a counterpoint, so you attempt to change the subject.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=217739&messageID=2208555

          If you can locate the alleged “trivial arithmetic errors”, do so. Until then, you concede the point.

          Pucker up.

        • #2539000

          “FUN”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What a sad, sad person you are

          If you believe paying more than your fair share of taxes is “fun” I welcome you to contribute the remainder of your income to Greenpeace, the UN, or whoever you wish. It is more FUN to me to spend my money on myself than to spend it on your fairy tales.

        • #2522230

          Different interpretation.

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to I strongly dislike your assumption that the truth is not out there

          >I very much enjoy your confidence…
          >…result of the intelligence you dismiss…

          I’m not sure that is the inference. It sounds to me like he is pointing out that we have a rather limited subset of data, and that overgeneralizing based on that data (ie temp has gone up one degree in the last 100 years of earth’t thousands/millions/billions of years of existence, tehrefore we are all going to die) is irresponsible.

          That’s what I got anyway (and I know you were just dying to hear my interpretation 😉 ).

        • #2522629

          Not really.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Different interpretation.

          [i]That’s what I got anyway (and I know you were just dying to hear my interpretation)[/i]

          If I want clarification of mjd420nova’s intent I’ll address mjd420nova.

          Here are some things that he actually said in that post:

          [i]We don’t know or understand what our climate was really like in previous centuries to make any claims about C02 content or greenhouse gases being caused by us, animals or plantlife… Mother Nature is fickle and is not about to give up her secrets easily. So much about this planet is not understood and for anyone to claim that they can interpret certain scientific measurements and thereby claim that this and that is going to happen if we don’t stop doing this or start doing that.[/i]

          Those are clear and direct statements of his own inability to understand some scientific research, and extrapolation of his personal inability to all mankind. As for what your “inference” might be, “frankly, my dear, I just don’t give a d*mn.”

        • #2521645

          Okay Then

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Not really.

    • #2539003

      Why [i]Scientific Consensus[/i] is Absolutely Irrelevant

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to Global Warming Heresy

      Whenever a person or group stands to gain by lying it is folly to take them at face value.

      http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2209283

    • #2523512

      Re. “Contrary to environmentalists’ claims, …”

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to Global Warming Heresy

      “… the higher the carbon dioxide levels.”

      Not quite right.

      Read my posts of other related discussions here and you’ll see that it has been noted that such is part of a natural feedback loop, to which manmade CO2 is a contributing factor which only serves to further raise temperatures.

      Claiming that natural inputs to the levels of CO2 are the only ones that have any effect is shear nonsense; the physical systmes involved neither know nor care how or why the CO2 is present.

      • #2523729

        So the question becomes the quantity of CO2

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Re. “Contrary to environmentalists’ claims, …”

        Is or is not the quantity of CO2 emitted by humans’ vehicles and power plants significant? Prove it before raising my taxes, not after.

        • #2523668

          Did I make any mention re. taxes?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So the question becomes the quantity of CO2

          As elsewhere & repeatedly stated, I do not place policy before the facts. Accordingly, at no time have I advocated [i]any[/i] particular policy as re. this matter.

        • #2523639

          No. I did.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Did I make any mention re. taxes?

          [i]As elsewhere & repeatedly stated, I do not place policy before the facts. Accordingly, at no time have I advocated any particular policy as re. this matter.[/i]

          Taking you at face value, then, based on your belief that CO2 emissions are important, are there some special measures you take to reduce your own emissions?

        • #2521495

          Special measures? That depends on your definition of “special.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to No. I did.

          Owing to my interest in the sciences, and all things electrical/electronic and mechanical, from a very early age, I’ve always been quite concious of the concept of energy efficiency, and the real costs, both physical and financial, inherent in losses die to low efficiences.

          Additionally, having grown up in a blue-collar family of six, in an agrarian setting, amidst old fashioned German & Amish families, the concept and value of of good “husbandry,” in the broadest sense of the word, i.e. a careful management or conservation of resources, was eraly learned.

          Therefore, I have always been, to use the current venacular, I suppose that I’ve always been “green,” so that I do not consider any of my lifestyle choices to be “special.”

          This brings to mind a TV commercial, for a realitively cheap wine, that aired for quite some time many years ago. It ended with a young girl asking the wealthy drinker of said wine asking him why, with all his wealth, he chose to drink such a cheap wine; his response – “How do you think I got to be so rich?” In my Philadelphia Main Line in-laws, and their friends & neighbors, I observe the same frugality.

      • #2522274

        More immediate threat?

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to Re. “Contrary to environmentalists’ claims, …”

        from what I have seen of these various GW argumements, it seems that, while it is very likely that we are getting warmer, there is no solid evidence (yet) to prove or disprove significant human contribution. Assuming we are or aren’t contributing, How fast does it become a problem, and what kind of problem will that be? Less Land? Less winter for me, without moving south? New York gets renamed New Venice?

        On the other hand,I keep hearing plenty of casual warnings about limiting fish in the diet due to mercury levels, but nobody seems to be taking drastic measures to address the issue that a significant food supply is becoming unusable. Seems to me that one is more immediately concern-ful. Why doesn’t that get more attention?

        • #2522204

          It’s not a case of “either … or.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to More immediate threat?

          And, the 2 issues have greatly differing effects; one affects a single species, while the other the entire planet.

        • #2521641

          Agree

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to It’s not a case of “either … or.”

          It is prioritization that I am questioning (Actually, it is possible that fixing the one could improve the other).

          Yes, but since we are that one species impacted…

        • #2521508

          Since they are wholly independent with respect to needed inputs, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Agree

          such that they can be addressed simultaneously, prioritization is not required

        • #2518770

          Not necessarily

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Since they are wholly independent with respect to needed inputs, …

          Some actions may have a mutually positive impact. Not all. CF Bulbs for instance, which are being pushed as a global warming solution due to reduced power consumption – It appears that the manufacture and disposal of them introduces mercury into the environment.

        • #2518245

          The Law of Unintended Consequences in action.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Not necessarily

          Said law means that “[i]you can’t do [i]just[/i] one thing.[/i]”

          My point, however, was that the resolution of the 2 issues are [i]not mutually exclusive.[/i.”

        • #2521875

          They may not be mutually exclusive…

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Not necessarily

          but they may also not be commutative, hence my question of prioritization. If a man is standing naked in a field with the noon sun blazing down overhead, and you observe someone preparing to shoot at him. You need to yell “Duck!”, before you yell “Use sunblock!”

        • #2541149

          Invalid analogy.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Not necessarily

          Your analogy involves 2 actions which [u][b]cannot[/b] occur simultaneously[/u], unlike the issues at hand, which do allow of simultaneity.

        • #2541101

          The analogy…

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Not necessarily

          was not perfect, nor was it invalid. For the point I was makng, it served well enough.

        • #2540972

          Well, since I still do not understand your point, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Not necessarily

          not only is it invalid, but it also failed to serve its intended purpose.

        • #2524596

          Well, all I can suggest

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Not necessarily

          is that you try using both feet.

        • #2524370

          Translation?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Not necessarily

          .

Viewing 3 reply threads