• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

Free episodes:

Please, pay attention. You've been shown chapter and verse the answer to all your questions. All you do is close your ears, say, "la, la la I don't hear anything" and repeat your mantra.

It's time you step up and read and respond to what's been posted, or I'll remove you from this thread. Make a decision!


If you remove me from this thread my case will be proven. And by removing me from this thread you will be exposed for your censorship.

I don't have to respond to any of this. I'm not the one making a claim. The pro-AGW basic claim is that CO2 causes global warming. I've posted an article showing that this is not the case, that temperatures rise first and only then does CO2 levels rise. It doesn't matter how much other stuff they post. Their basic premise, the foundation of their theory, is wrong. There is no escaping this.
 
Because all you are doing is making a claim.

Not so. It is you who are making the claims.

If you can't provide a figure then there's no way to either prove it or debunk it.

A figure has been provided. You just can't recognize it when it is stated baldly out-loud to your face.

Until you provide a figure then your claim is unfalsifiable. As I stated before, in science if a claim is unfalsifiable it's to be outright rejected.

Based upon the evidence of your 'debate' on this thread, you are no one to instruct about science. Mike's figures can be debated - you just don't understand - either how to do that - or the science underlying his arguments.

If overpopulation is correct, then you should be able to come up with a figure of the number of people the planet can safely support. This would also imply that to go over that figure would mean the world is overpopulated.

Shoulds and woulds and musts - doesn't work that way. You have to defend your stance - not pontificate.

Mike has given you a figure. At this point, I am pretty well convinced that you are confronted with a task beyond your ability to deal with. That's okay - if you could admit that. Instead you stall on a narrowly defined element - that is bogus to begin with.
 
Not so. It is you who are making the claims.



A figure has been provided. You just can't recognize it when it is stated baldly out-loud to your face.



Based upon the evidence of your 'debate' on this thread, you are no one to instruct about science. Mike's figures can be debated - you just don't understand - either how to do that - or the science underlying his arguments.



Shoulds and woulds and musts - doesn't work that way. You have to defend your stance - not pontificate.

Mike has given you a figure. At this point, I am pretty well convinced that you are confronted with a task beyond your ability to deal with. That's okay - if you could admit that. Instead you stall on a narrowly defined element - that is bogus to begin with.


Mike didn't give me a figure. Instead, he went on and on about resources. That's not giving a figure. You should have no problem providing a figure representing the number of people the earth can safely support. Until you do so then you are simply making a proclamation, as in, "because you say so."
 
If you remove me from this thread my case will be proven. And by removing me from this thread you will be exposed for your censorship.

I don't have to respond to any of this. I'm not the one making a claim. The pro-AGW basic claim is that CO2 causes global warming. I've posted an article showing that this is not the case, that temperatures rise first and only then does CO2 levels rise. It doesn't matter how much other stuff they post. Their basic premise, the foundation of their theory, is wrong. There is no escaping this.
If I remove you from the thread, it'll be for trolling and not because you believe you've proven something or other.
 
OmiGosh - follow the breadcrumbs. The article you have linked to is from 2004 -

Global Warming Bombshell: A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. By Richard Muller on October 15, 2004

This article is from 2009 -

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist
Yep, when they cherry pick evidence, you have to teach them a little context and how to do REAL research.
 
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.



MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.



MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.



MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.039% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.


MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.


MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.


MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.


FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.


MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.


FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

Friends of Science | The Myths and Facts of Global Warming
 
The pro-AGW basic claim is that CO2 causes global warming. I've posted an article showing that this is not the case, that temperatures rise first and only then does CO2 levels rise. It doesn't matter how much other stuff they post. Their basic premise, the foundation of their theory, is wrong. There is no escaping this.

From this article: Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.

This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.

See also:

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag

Why Temperature Lags Behind C02 - another "global warming myth" explained | DeSmogBlog
 

You have linked to a site that is written by Professor de Freitas from New Zealand. Please read this link regarding the shenanigans that Professor de Freitas has been up to within his own discipline. LINK: Put it there pal: the real story of Chris de Freitas and Climate Research

The abstract on his cited research paper (within the link you supply) is addressing policy more than science and was published at the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. LINK: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/deFreitas.pdf


 
From this article: Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.

This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.

See also:

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag

Why Temperature Lags Behind C02 - another "global warming myth" explained | DeSmogBlog


Trystero, I've already addressed this. I told you they are trying to come up with all manner of excuses to explain why temperature rises first. They are trying to attack mostly on two levels, saying that air bubbles in ice cores are fooling scientists into thinking that temperatures rose first as well as trying to say that "something else" warmed the planet after the last ice age but that this "something else" isn't at play now in warming the earth. It must have run a way or was kidnapped or something. One theory they've used is that a small increase in CO2 led to a temperature rise and then this led to outgassing of CO2 from the ocean which led to further warming. The problem with this is that the initial CO2 rise would have been recorded in the ice core and it's not there.

If you haven't figured it out yet, pro-AGW people have no unambiguous proof of anything. At best their evidence is ambiguous. At worst it's non-existent or is the opposite of what they claim.
 
You have linked to a site that is written by Professor de Freitas from New Zealand. Please read this link regarding the shenanigans that Professor de Freitas has been up to within his own discipline. LINK: Put it there pal: the real story of Chris de Freitas and Climate Research

The abstract on his cited research paper (within the link you supply) is addressing policy more than science and was published at the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. LINK: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/deFreitas.pdf

In science we don't address people, we address information. Whatever he is doing in his life is of no concern to me unless it can be demonstrated that he has falsified data or is being deceptive. We do have evidence that climate scientists have been deceptive. Everyone forgets about Climategate and now there are articles written by pro-AGW people claiming that Climategate never even happened.
 
In science we don't address people, we address information. Whatever he is doing in his life is of no concern to me unless it can be demonstrated that he has falsified data or is being deceptive. We do have evidence that climate scientists have been deceptive. Everyone forgets about Climategate and now there are articles written by pro-AGW people claiming that Climategate never even happened.

What he has been doing is deceptive. He's been stacking the deck, in a sense.

Oh well, this has ceased to be any sort of 'fun' since links are not read, and intelligent rebuttal is not formulated. It's like talking to a wall. New information does not have an impact - old canards are repeated endlessly. I'm done for the day.
 
What he has been doing is deceptive. He's been stacking the deck, in a sense.

Oh well, this has ceased to be any sort of 'fun' since links are not read, and intelligent rebuttal is not formulated. It's like talking to a wall. New information does not have an impact - old canards are repeated endlessly. I'm done for the day.

I read the link you provided. So the accusation against him is for showing favor to skeptics of AGW? Forgive me if I'm not shocked. You will need to explain why you believe this somehow proves the information I posted is wrong and also explain why in the pro-AGW field this should be accepted. Because you can't have your cake and eat it too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
Last edited:
In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that [Friends of Science] had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation.

In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science "had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change"


Friends of Science - SourceWatch

Seems legit.
 
In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that [Friends of Science] had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation.

In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science "had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change"


Friends of Science - SourceWatch

Seems legit.

For the sake of argument, l'll accept this is true, that he is funded by the oil industry. So we should reject what he says.

However, since what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, we should also reject every single scientist who receives government grants for pro-AGW research because the U.S. government is not giving grants to scientists who are skeptical or who oppose AGW. In fact, the oil industry can't even compete with the billions the U.S. government is giving out ONLY to pro-AGW scientists.
 
What does the US government stand to gain from supporting these "pro-AGW" scientists? I have a fairly good idea of why an oil company might find it in their best interest to channel funds secretly to a shady group calling itself "Friends of Science".

For more on where all those billions and billions from Uncle Sam go:

But maybe that money is somehow being directed in a biased manner, distributed in a way that ensures the current consensus is supported. "Where is the Department of Solar Influence or the Institute of Natural Climate Change?" Nova asks, elsewhere claiming, "Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite."

This displays an almost incomprehensible misunderstanding of how science research works. Thereare institutes that are dedicated to studying the Sun—the Naval Research Laboratory has one, asdoes NASA. But those institutes are focused on learning about what the Sun actually does, not squeezing what we learn into some preconceived agenda. For decades, solar activity has been trending downwards, even as temperatures have continued to rise. It's not that the researchers are being induced or compelled to some sort of biased interpretation of the data. Reality just happens to have a bias.



Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done | Ars Technica
 
Back
Top