June 20th episode - Stan Friedman & Kathleen Marden

[Paul Kimball]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

LMAO... Stephen H. Schneider as a credible expert?!? The Billy of CAGW? The Kal of Klimate Change? Tell me you are joking? This paper is junk science in itself. This paper failed miserably and is a laughing stock among scientists in both camps. LMAO!!! Good one jkoci! Stephen H. Schneider was a global cooling alarmist in 1971 then a warming alarmist in 1976, and is famous for his statement: "We need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Certainly you are joking... right?

Actually, you must be the one who is joking. I suggest that before you start tossing quotes around based on what you've read somewhere (Alex Jones, perhaps?), you might want to get your facts straight. That would help with your credibility.

The statement you quote from Schneider is taken out of context (after it was first put out totally incorrectly, i.e. it was false), as Schneider makes abundantly clear on p. 5 at: http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf

Check it out. You might learn something. Meanwhile, Julian Simon is exactly the kind of person the authors of Merchants of Doubt are talking about... and you're exactly the kind of person they look for.

 

[pixelsmith]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

Actually, you must be the one who is joking. I suggest that before you start tossing quotes around based on what you've read somewhere (Alex Jones, perhaps?), you might want to get your facts straight. That would help with your credibility.

The statement you quote from Schneider is taken out of context, as Schneider makes abundantly clear on p. 5 at: http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf

Check it out. You might learn something.

Fine. scratch it. does not matter.

The paper cited by jkoci is full of errors and downright lies. The book you cite is full of conjecture, personal opinion, lacks any evidence, logic or science, I read part of it over my lunch at a local book store and refuse to buy crap like that. I will however go back and read the rest... it is quite funny. Thanks! Interesting that they go after dead guys, they know they will have their asses handed to them if they debate anyone living. LMAO! Thanks again Paul, that is some funny stuff there.

 

[Paul Kimball]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

Fine. scratch it. does not matter.

The paper cited by jkoci is full of errors and downright lies. The book you cite is full of conjecture, personal opinion, lacks any evidence, logic or science, I read part of it over my lunch at a local book store and refuse to buy crap like that. I will however go back and read the rest... it is quite funny. Thanks! Interesting that they go after dead guys, they know they will have their asses handed to them if they debate anyone living. LMAO! Thanks again Paul, that is some funny stuff there.

So your modus operandi, when shown to be 100% wrong, is to simply brush it aside with, "fine, scratch it, does not matter." Of course it matters, because it shows us all how you think, and what you're about.

And the book - which you obviously haven't read, nor, I suspect, will you ever read - does not just go after "dead guys."

You make a wonderful poster-child for the disingenuous nature of the anti-global warming luddites. Fortunately, our planet's future is in the hands of more rational people than you and your fellow travelers on the far right / corporatist fringe.

 

[pixelsmith]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

So your modus operandi, when shown to be 100% wrong, is to simply brush it aside with, "fine, scratch it, does not matter." Of course it matters, because it shows us all how you think, and what you're about.

And the book - which you obviously haven't read, nor, I suspect, will you ever read - does not just go after "dead guys."

You make a wonderful poster-child for the rank stupidity and disingenuous nature of the anti-global warming luddites.

What do you want me to do? Post everything in its entirety? Remember that when you post a piece of something.

So you do what all anti anti-global warming people do when backed into a corner... call people names instead of simply pointing to some valid science that backs up your position. LMAO.. nice.

 

[trainedobserver]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

Human CO2 is of course harmful to the Planet. ... We as a species are alive today because this planet is an Oxygen planet.

Well actually it is not. Just where does the Oxygen come from? It comes from plants of course. What happens is humans breath in oxygen and breath out CO2. Plants take the CO2 and put out Oxygen. More CO2 (it doesn't matter where it comes from) means more plant life, more plant life means more Oxygen. That's just how it works. The bad stuff is Carbon Monoxide or CO which is created by the partial oxidation of carbon compounds which is related to human built machines like automobiles.

 

[pixelsmith]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

Well actually it is not. Just where does the Oxygen come from? It comes from plants of course. What happens is humans breath in oxygen and breath out CO2. Plants take the CO2 and put out Oxygen. More CO2 (it doesn't matter where it comes from) means more plant life, more plant life means more Oxygen. That's just how it works. The bad stuff is Carbon Monoxide or CO which is created by the partial oxidation of carbon compounds which is related to human built machines like automobiles.

LOL... good luck explaining simple science to these guys.

 

[Paul Kimball]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

What do you want me to do? Post everything in its entirety? Remember that when you post a piece of something.

So you do what all anti anti-global warming people do when backed into a corner... call people names instead of simply pointing to some valid science that backs up your position. LMAO.. nice.

First, you could take responsibility for your patently false statement you posted and admit that you hadn't done any research into it at all, but rather had simply repeated something that you had heard or read without any further research (and by the way, it took me less than a minute of a general Googel search to find that article). That would be nice. And no, you don't have to post everything in its entirety. You just have to post it accurately, and in context. To do otherwise is to lie.

But that's not how you roll, is it? As others have pointed out - and as Merchants of Doubt shows - the professional doubters (and even amateur ones like you) use one tactic, and one tactic only - they throw so much garbage up that they hope people will just get frustrated and walk away from the debate. They don't try to convince, because they can't - the evidence isn't on their side. Instead, the try to delay, confuse, obsfucate... anything to prevent action.

And as for name-calling, I've never noticed you to be shy about that, so spare me the boo-hoo-hoo routine there. Besides, all I did was call you out on your b.s.

Again.

 

[Kieran]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. There is not enough of it to cause anything on a cataclysmic scale. If anything, our planet is CO2 starved. If you knew squat about natural CO2 contributors we wouldn't be having this conversation. ie: Swamps and wetlands alone contribute far more CO2 than humans.

Pixel I honestly do wonder about you. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This means in simple plain language without all the technical jargon thrown in. There is normal CO2 in the Air and there is Human activity C02. Our planet's atmosphere is receiving Extra Co2 every day. The effect?...Extra concentration of Greenhouse Gases like Nitrous Oxide and Carbon Dioxide, will trap more heat in the atmosphere" It's called the Greenhouse effect. So if we as a species are producing these extra Greenhouse gases at alarming rates. The results, the climate will experience negative effects over time!!!.

That is why you see strange weather patterns like extreme flooding for example. Melting of the ice caps is a clear sign of Global warming. Then you have a rise in sea levels leading on from that. It has been proven. Sea levels have risen since 1990..4 to ten inches a clear sign Global warming is real.

So all you have to remember is Pixel.

Extra CO2 in our atmosphere from Human activity ( is not a good thing) Whatever you've read online or elsewhere is worthless information. Extra CO2 traps more heat inside this little tiny bowl, we all like to call, planet Earth. And that is a fact. Anyway this all, i have to say. I have no interest in long drawn out climate debate that leads to no resolution or conclusion.

 

[pixelsmith]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

First, you could take responsibility for your patently false statement you posted and admit that you hadn't done any research into it at all, but rather had simply repeated something that you had heard or read without any further research (and by the way, it took me less than a minute of a general Googel search to find that article). That would be nice. And no, you don't have to post everything in its entirety. You just have to post it accurately, and in context. To do otherwise is to lie.

But that's not how you roll, is it? As others have pointed out - and as Merchants of Doubt shows - the professional doubters (and even amateur ones like you) use one tactic, and one tactic only - they throw so much garbage up that they hope people will just get frustrated and walk away from the debate. They don't try to convince, because they can't - the evidence isn't on their side. Instead, the try to delay, confuse, obsfucate... anything to prevent action.

And as for name-calling, I've never noticed you to be shy about that, so spare me the boo-hoo-hoo routine there. Besides, all I did was call you out on your b.s.

Again.

Ok then, I know nothing, fine... no problem.

Now, show me the science that proves adding more CO2 into the atmosphere will cause catastrophic global warming or climate change to the point that we need global policies made, carbon credits exchanged and taxes levied. Your "camp" has the burden of proof and no one has proved anything.

---------- Post added at 10:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------

funny video of Paul et al playing the part of Greenpeace Lady.

 

[Paul Kimball]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

no one has proved anything.

Of course they have, which is why the overwhleming majority of scientists accept the reality of man-made climate change. You just refuse to accept that, but between you and a minority of corporate shills on the one hand, and the NRC et al on the other, I know who I'm going with.

And instead of your ridiculous little video, which contributes nothing to the conversation, how about watching something serious for a change?

[video=google;2226061573523196174]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2226061573523196174#[/video]

 

[pixelsmith]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

Pixel I honestly do wonder about you. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This means in simple plain language without all the technical jargon thrown in. There is normal CO2 in the Air and there is Human activity C02. Our planet's atmosphere is receiving Extra Co2 every day. The effect?...Extra concentration of Greenhouse Gases like Nitrous Oxide and Carbon Dioxide, will trap more heat in the atmosphere" It's called the Greenhouse effect. So if we as a species are producing these extra Greenhouse gases at alarming rates. The results, the climate will experience negative effects over time!!!.

That is why you see strange weather patterns like extreme flooding for example. Melting of the ice caps is a clear sign of Global warming. Then you have a rise in sea levels leading on from that. It has been proven. Sea levels have risen since 1990..4 to ten inches a clear sign Global warming is real.

So all you have to remember is Pixel.

Extra CO2 in our atmosphere from Human activity ( is not a good thing) Whatever you've read online or elsewhere is worthless information. Extra CO2 traps more heat inside this little tiny bowl, we all like to call, planet Earth. And that is a fact. Anyway this all, i have to say. I have no interest in long drawn out climate debate that leads to no resolution or conclusion.

Wow you are far more ignorant than I thought. Nothing traps heat. Better get some education on this subject before you say too much more. And in typical pro CAGW fashion you flee from a debate. Why is it you guys never debate OR provide any sound science?

---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 PM ----------

Do not believe Paul about CO2. This planet is nearly CO2 starved. Plants start to die off at 200 ppm CO2. We are at 388 ppm today.

 

[Paul Kimball]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

Do not believe Paul about CO2. This planet is nearly CO2 starved. Plants start to die off at 200 ppm CO2. We are at 388 ppm today.

Believe Paul? What the hell are you talking about?

As for science, try watching the lecture I posted, and then try refuting the points they make and the evidence they present (which is, after all, what you asked for).

Good luck.

 

[pixelsmith]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

This planet is not a closed system like a greenhouse. Wow... Paul seriously get some education on this stuff.

Thanks for the video. I will watch it now.

Barely even started and he is using temperature data that has been proven false... but i will continue watching.
30% more CO2? LMAO... There has been 20 times more CO2 on Earth in the past. Kilimanjaro ice cap melting has been proven to be the result of natural climate variations... again Paul, please do a bit of your own research. 5 minutes into the video and it is not looking good for your side. So far this is pretty silly stuff and easily debunked and I am now at 6:14 into the video. This is some funny stuff... 13 minutes now and it is still a bunch of BS... I have to come back to this funny video tomorrow... I am going out for some awesome blues music...

 

[jkoci]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

Certainly you are joking... right?

Just putting the article up for debate. I didn't say I totally agree with it. I'm not sure that you remember my views on the matter from past threads. Look them up if you forgot. I'm not up for being drawn into this one. Paul is doing a good job so far. BTW - If Schuyler and Jonah are still out there they should chime in too.

 

[Paul Kimball]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

Wow... Paul seriously get some education on this stuff.

Coming from you, that's hilarious. :

Let's get serious, and put up or shut up. My challenge to you: Find and post ten articles or studies from peer reviewed scientific journals that support your position that climate change is not being caused by humans. Just ten... that's all you have to find.

 

[Kieran]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

Wow you are far more ignorant than I thought. Nothing traps heat. Better get some education on this subject before you say too much more. And in typical pro CAGW fashion you flee from a debate. Why is it you guys never debate OR provide any sound science?

---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 PM ----------

Do not believe Paul about CO2. This planet is nearly CO2 starved. Plants start to die off at 200 ppm CO2. We are at 388 ppm today.

Pixel. This IS my last post to this thread. And i was thinking to myself should i bother!!. Every extra molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere, extra heat is then reflected down towards the Earth. This "MEANS" that some heat that otherwise would have been lost from the atmosphere (space) is trapped!! Given there is extra quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere, the amount of trapped heat will cause a rise in the surface temperature. A lesson you might not have learned about in School it is called the Green house effect.

 

[davide]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

I will have to check it out...

Personally, I hate cold weather and would rather we be sitting at 85-90 million miles from the sun, but that's the luck of the draw. And I think the climate change promoters would have been better served to define the argument in terms of pollution -- everybody wants a clean environment. They also want jobs -- that's where the need for balance comes in.

Unfortunately, this is such a controversial subject it's going to be difficult to find an unbiased treatment of it. This book comes from a left point of view. Everyone wants clean air, but this is an important agenda for the left because it offers an opportunity to do what is fundamental to their core -- redistribute wealth and exercise even more control over the population. That's why the left and the right are butting heads so much on this. Libertarians and the right tend to be just as distrustful of large bureaucracies and the ultimate power of large central governments as does the left regarding big business.

I've done a fair amount of reading on the subject and have heard of (but not read) this book. It's crafted to play to the global warming base and there are other, not so glowing, reviews:

“Although cloaked in the appearance of scholarly work, the book constitutes an effort to discredit and undermine the reputations of three deceased scientists who contributed greatly to our nation. These men were accomplished scientists, leaders of universities and major research organizations, advisers to government, and the founders of the George C. Marshall Institute. This book questions their integrity, impugns their character, and questions their judgment on the basis of little more than faulty logic and preconceived opinion.”
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/894.pdf

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/cover-up_by_the_economist_all.php

http://nierenbergobservations.blogspot.com/2010/06/merchants-of-doubt-and-conspiracy.html

 

[pixelsmith]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

Coming from you, that's hilarious. :

Let's get serious, and put up or shut up. My challenge to you: Find and post ten articles or studies from peer reviewed scientific journals that support your position that climate change is not being caused by humans. Just ten... that's all you have to find.

Paul, you have the burden of proof.

 

[trainedobserver]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

There is normal CO2 in the Air and there is Human activity C02.

How can you or plant life tell the difference?

It's called the Greenhouse effect.

I thought ice core samples dating back over many thousands of years show CO2 levels move up and down after the temperature has, therefore making it appear to be a result rather than a cause. There are other things that indicate the same but ...what does it matter anyway? Besides I was responding to your "We as a species are alive today because this planet is an Oxygen planet." statement. We're alive because of the presence of both Oxygen and CO2.

There is undeniable evidence that the planet has a natural cycle of ice ages and Interglacial periods. From what I understand it has more to do with the sun than anything else. We're a fly fart in a hurricane compared to mother nature my man. I guess ones opinion of this sort of thing is based on many different things and I wouldn't try to claim to be an expert.

 

[NTS]

June 20th: A plea to Gene and Paul

"That's why the left and the right are butting heads so much on this [climate change]"

davide, I agree with you that the "controversy" is ultimately political, although you misstate the motives of the people who drummed it up, which include enabling a small number of neo-aristocrats to accumulate riches far out of proportion to their actual contribution while impoverishing everyone else. Thanks for the support anyway.