New Anti-global warming debate?

[bobheck]

The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's working

Well, at least you admit you are losing this debate. That is a start. When you realize that it is not a "dupe" but the truth that is winning, then the rainbow appears.

 

[Roro]

Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence that could possibly be disputed – the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents – the evidence for man-made global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.

So, if I'm following the logic, if temperatures change, if glaciers shrink, or sea ice thins, the only logical explanation is human activity. And if humans are the only logical explanation behind changes since 1850 then human activity must be responsible for all the weather changes in the Earth's history. And since humans have always produced CO2, it has to be the CO2 that drives all weather. I'm starting to see the ironclad science behind AGW. I always thought the sun might have something to do with the earth's weather, or even things like vulcanic activity. Silly me.

 

[Schuyler]

Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence that could possibly be disputed – the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents – the evidence for man-made global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.

Actually, this brings up an important point. Both sea level risings and glacier shrinkage have been happening at a steady level since prior to 1850--1800, I think. But even if you use 1850, that's OK. The point is, it's a steady-state change, at the same rate. Yet CO2 emissions were not really appreciable until after WWII, when the rate skyrocketed with a booming economy. So what you have postulate here is that something other than CO2 'caused' the glaciers to shrink in the 1800s, then in the 1900s CO2 took over and 'caused' glaciers to shrink at the EXACT SAME RATE from then until now. I have a graph of this that I have been unable to extract from a PDF file which shows this precise occurrence from a paper by Oerlemans, 2005. If I can manage to get that into presentable form I will edit and add.

​

Does that sound like a reasonable conclusion? I don't think so either.

Maybe it is the ending of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s that has something to do with it. But regardless of what actually causes glaciers to shrink, it's not CO2 and we can show definitively that it isn't.

And here's an article that shows the glaciers are NOT all retreating, among a good discussion of the broader issues:

It’s time to stop worshipping the false gods behind global warming | Irish Examiner

 

[bobheck]

And here's an article that shows the glaciers are NOT all retreating, among a good discussion of the broader issues: It’s time to stop worshipping the false gods behind global warming | Irish Examiner

Schuyler, thank you for that article. Two passages from that article say it all...

The new data, released in recent weeks, indicates that 30 of the 96 glaciers in the Himalayas actually increased in mass during 2007-2008. Glaciers are also expanding in the Antarctic, New Zealand, and Norway.

Scientists who have been questioning the whole global warming hysteria have been largely ignored because what they have been saying does not suit what is essentially a political agenda.

The warmest year in the 20th century was 1934 and it was followed by five of the coldest years in the century. While 1998 was the second warmest year of the century, temperatures have flattened since then. The hysteria is as unconvincing as the science behind it.

In 1975, climatologists were warning that the earth was entering a new ice age. Some desperate solutions were advocated, such as coating the North Pole with soot to absorb solar energy to prevent the anticipated global cooling.

​

 

[Schuyler]

Wow! This just in. As you may know, the sheer volume of Climategate emails is horrendous. The typical email back and forth with embedded quotes within embedded quotes make them even more difficult to decipher. I downloaded them all and attempted to make sense of them, but I admit to frustration in making any significant headway. Well, now it's been done.

The attached PDF is an analysis of the Climategate emails. The alarmists like to say that the emails were no big deal, that they just showed normal talk and disagreement about certain details, but there is no evidence of fraud, etc. If you take a few minutes to read even a part of this document (written by a PhD in Physics) I think you cannot come away from it without admitting the collusion and deception practiced by this group of scientists. This document is a serious blow to the alarmists.

 

[bobheck]

With all Jonah's babbling about "Big Oil" and insinuations of corporations paying to fuel the "skeptics", in truth, the global warming cult is the one looking after their own self-interest first with a higher priority on funding (from Big Oil, mind you) than being factual in their statements.

From page 19 of the pdf Schuyler posted:

July 5, 2000: email 0962818260

Mike Kelly, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, writes to Mike Hulme and Tim O’Riordan:

Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner, and will contribute to a studentship fund, though under certain conditions.
​

And they accuse skeptics of “being in the pockets” of Big Oil?
​

I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team, but this approach will do equally for the new Foundation, as it’s only one step or so off Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Foundation and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s within the remit.
​

Sounds lucrative. Buildings don’t come cheap.


​

Jonah, by your rules, the global warming cult is accepting money from "Big Oil" so they should be deemed untrustworthy just for that fact alone right?

 

[Schuyler]

I just have to post these because they are so damned funny, from Indian TV:


and here's another one:


Like I said. You just can't make this stuff up.

 

[bobheck]

Official Global Warming Alarmist garb

 

[Jonah]

With all Jonah's babbling about "Big Oil" and insinuations of corporations paying to fuel the "skeptics", in truth, the global warming cult is the one looking after their own self-interest first with a higher priority on funding (from Big Oil, mind you) than being factual in their statements.

From page 19 of the pdf Schuyler posted:

July 5, 2000: email 0962818260

Mike Kelly, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, writes to Mike Hulme and Tim O’Riordan:

Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner, and will contribute to a studentship fund, though under certain conditions.
​

And they accuse skeptics of “being in the pockets” of Big Oil?
​

I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team, but this approach will do equally for the new Foundation, as it’s only one step or so off Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Foundation and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s within the remit.
​

Sounds lucrative. Buildings don’t come cheap.

Jonah, by your rules, the global warming cult is accepting money from "Big Oil" so they should be deemed untrustworthy just for that fact alone right?​

Big Oil is not neccesarily -all- oil Bob, nor is Shell a part of the American Petroleum Lobby. And as you think about which nation Shell does claim as home, maybe you can figure out why they might not support/finance AGW denialism ala Exxon. As a matter of fact, the answer may tell you why they've chosen to support the research. Can you figure it out Bob?

It's also apparent that since the science doesn't support the denialist claim, they resort to posting funny pictures and videos in attempts to marginalize and ridicule.

"Second, denialism isn't about name-calling or the psychological coping mechanism of denial. The first reaction of any denialist to being labeled such is to merely reply, "you're the denialist" or to redefine the terms so that it excludes them (usually comparing themselves to Galileo in the process). However, denialism is about tactics that are used to frustrate legitimate discussion, it is not about simply name-calling. It's about how you engage in a debate when you have no data few more common defenses that we'll discuss in time.

So while the denialists will inevitably show up and suggest my belief in the validity of carbon dating shows I'm a Bible denialist, or my inability to recognize the wisdom of some HIV/AIDS crank shows I don't understand biology, we won't tend to engage them. They're cranks and we aim to show how you can instantly recognize and dismiss crank arguments.

Finally, just because some people believe in stupid things, doesn't make them denialists. A lot of people get suckered in by denialist arguments and benefit from having the record corrected or being shown how to recognize good scientific debate versus unsound denialist debates. We aren't suggesting everybody who has a few wacky ideas is a crank, part of the reason denialists abound and are often successful in bringing the masses over to their side is that their arguments don't necessarily sound insane to the uninitiated. Denialist arguments are emotionally appealing and work on a lot of people. We're trying to inform people about denialism and how to recognize denialist arguments so that ultimately they will be less effective in swaying those that may not be fully informed about science. Hopefully, by creating awareness of the ground rules of legitimate scientific debate, citizens, policy makers, and the media may better distinguish between sound and unsound scientific debate."

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

 

[bobheck]

It's also apparent that since the science doesn't support the denialist claim, they resort to posting funny pictures and videos in attempts to marginalize and ridicule.

That is patently ridiculous. There is plenty of scientific research posted already in this forum that shows whatever warming is occurring is within normal patterns and nothing to be alarmed about. You just refuse to acknowledge it and keep posting the same old pre-Climategate lies and half-truths -- that doesn't work anymore. You need new data. Start gathering unadulterated data now and come see us again in 50 years. The earth can wait 50 years, that is nothing to it. That is a sensible thing to do.

And, take a look back in the thread and see who was the first one to post a funny picture, Jonah. I was following your lead.

 

[Schuyler]

Interesting stuff on Climategate today. First, India is threatening to pull out of IPCC entirely because IPCC cannot be relied upon. When the Indian government called into question the Himalayan Glacier fiasco, the head of IPCC, Pachauri , called it 'voodoo science.' Now that it has been proven that Glaciergate was yet another IPCC fraud AND that Pachauri knew all about it ahead of time, his own country's government is throwing him under the bus. Note: Even the head of Greenpeace, UK, says Pachauri has got to go.

India to 'pull out of IPCC' - Telegraph

Next, a great article in the Spectator about what has happened recently in the blog world to turn Climategate around:

The global warming guerrillas | The Spectator

And then, the International Pack of Climate Crooks, a comprehensive article that delves into the history an motivations of the alarmist movement:

American Thinker: IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks

And yes, Bob, there is plenty of data that has been posted in this thread alone, including comprehensive ice core data, that proves the alarmists completely wrong. It's just that they skip right over it and pretend it isn't there.

 

[Plant Life]

Uhhh....The Spectator? No thanks. I was browsing around their site and also found articles in defense of Tony Blair and his participation in the Iraq war fiasco, how insidious environmentalists are, how people with drug convictions should be in jail, pro Israel articles, and other short sighted right- wing reactionary shit. Like FOX news here in the states.

I guess we can all breathe easy now that we KNOW whole environmental crisis was just a devious liberal plot to make you pay more taxes. Glad that's over, I was worried for a minute that we might be polluting the land and water but nope! Everything's cool! Global warming is a hoax! What's on tv ?
(Yep I'm being hyperbolic , but seriously what the fuck are you people on if you think all this Climategate shit isn't just more propaganda from the deniers camp? )

 

[Drew UK]

Actually, this brings up an important point. Both sea level risings and glacier shrinkage have been happening at a steady level since prior to 1850--1800, I think. But even if you use 1850, that's OK. The point is, it's a steady-state change, at the same rate. Yet CO2 emissions were not really appreciable until after WWII, when the rate skyrocketed with a booming economy. So what you have postulate here is that something other than CO2 'caused' the glaciers to shrink in the 1800s, then in the 1900s CO2 took over and 'caused' glaciers to shrink at the EXACT SAME RATE from then until now. I have a graph of this that I have been unable to extract from a PDF file which shows this precise occurrence from a paper by Oerlemans, 2005. If I can manage to get that into presentable form I will edit and add.

​

I don't understand how this graph reinforces the argument - the gradient "rate of change" is advancing throughout the 1800's - it is not linear? Draw a tangent to the line at 1850 and 1950 - there is a difference, is there not?

Beware of promoting CO2 as a sole paramater for climate change in these arguments - models like these are rarely accurate given the complexity of the dynamic we are studying - have we introduced levels of deforestation, water withdrawls, increased nitrogen releases and general world population into the argument?

It seems pointless debating this subject, since no comprehensive models are yet available - however, it would be insane to err on the side of hope.

I am on the side of a need to control human influences on climate change (whether it is substantiated or not) - but unconventionally I do not believe targeting solely the carbon resources - what about the nitrogen cycle that we have resource abused through fertilization, over farming - food stocks, over consumption of water - this is a grander problem than most of us realise - I propose controlled limits and withdrawls to world population size - unfortunately this will not be recognized in the current economic growth model of most nations.

 

[bobheck]

I was worried for a minute that we might be polluting the land and water but nope!

Here we go again. Just because someone does not think that we are artificially heating the planet, we are automatically against pollution controls for all other reasons. Geezus, it never ends.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------

how people with drug convictions should be in jail

You disagree?

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

but seriously what the fuck are you people on if you think all this Climategate shit isn't just more propaganda from the deniers camp? )

Because it is backed with pure, realistic, peer-reviewed science, and not manipulated data presented by people with a now-exposed agenda.

 

[Plant Life]

Here we go again. Just because someone does not think that we are artificially heating the planet, we are automatically against pollution controls for all other reasons. Geezus, it never ends.

No it doesn't because anyone can find articles to back up their opinion on this subject. No one can really prove anything.



You disagree?

Absolutely I disagree. It's a matter of personal freedom first of all, plus incarcerating people for non violent crimes of this sort is immoral and impractical.


Because it is backed with pure, realistic, peer-reviewed science, and not manipulated data presented by people with a now-exposed agenda.

That same argument goes for the opposite side. You think the "deniers" have no agenda? They have a far larger motive in fact. From an strictly unbiased view of this whole thing the "deniers" ( corporations , industry etc.) obviously have a massive motive to counteract environmentalism.


Sorry I cant get this quoting thing down on this site.

 

[pixelsmith]

Here we go again. Just because someone does not think that we are artificially heating the planet, we are automatically against pollution controls for all other reasons. Geezus, it never ends.

No it doesn't because anyone can find articles to back up their opinion on this subject. No one can really prove anything.



You disagree?

Absolutely I disagree. It's a matter of personal freedom first of all, plus incarcerating people for non violent crimes of this sort is immoral and impractical.


Because it is backed with pure, realistic, peer-reviewed science, and not manipulated data presented by people with a now-exposed agenda.

That same argument goes for the opposite side. You think the "deniers" have no agenda? They have a far larger motive in fact. From an strictly unbiased view of this whole thing the "deniers" ( corporations , industry etc.) obviously have a massive motive to counteract environmentalism.


Sorry I cant get this quoting thing down on this site.

Articles do not prove anything. Actual science does. We have shown the science, have you? NO.

I tend to agree with your second statement.

I guess I am a denier. Although I prefer to label your camp as the true deniers. You are denying actual observed data and scientific methods in favor of a belief system. IF AGW was factual then your camp wouldnt be falsifying data, controlling the peer review process, manipulating temperature records and actually LOSING the data to support your beliefs.

BTW - Plant Life LOVES CO2.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Hi,

Yes there is hard evidence of G W just live in Australia the problem is too much SWAMPGAS from institutions with a motive
and a Tax grab!

Peace,
blowfish

 

[Plant Life]

No, no....I'm not in a camp. It's not black and white. I'm not locked in a belief system. I'm always open to whatever has good evidence behind it . I see dirty tricks coming from all sides of this issue.
But I am a humanist and believe in being responsible, so I'll leave it at that. Plant Life!

 

[Schuyler]

One of the problems as I see it is that we have a bunch of our fellow citizens worldwide that have been scared shitless by Al Gore & Co.'s falsehood. Gore's movie is so bad that in the UK it cannot be shown in schools without an extensive 'second opinion' piece that points out his many errors. But it's unfair to just blame Gore. A small cadre of scientists via the IPCC has relentlessly filled the airwaves with tales of doom & gloom. Although they claim that the 'science is settled' and that 'thousands of scientists agree, there are no more than a handful that have done the major work and controlled the data. There are only four datasets and two of them rely on the other two.

The problem is that the alarmist movement acts like a religion. There's really very little difference. Their belief system is basically that "The Globe is Warming. This is bad and it is our fault." Since the alarmists believe this is a life or death situation, they insist that we all join their religion or at least be subject to its belief system. If someone wants to believe in this religion, I say fine. they are welcome to it. If people are worried that their 'carbon footprint' is too high, then I welcome them to become vegans, refuse to fly in jetliners or own a car, or ride bicycles--not too fast, though, because you'll be emitting more CO2 from your heavy breathing, and that, as we all know, is a poisonous gas (except to plants, which seem to like it a lot. They grow faster and taller, yield more fruit and grain, that sort of thing.)

But even if you are a believer, you have to realize that the edifice of global warming alarmism has developed a few cracks here lately that are kind of difficult to explain away. It turns out the 'settled science' of the IPCC has relied on some very faulty foundations. Glaciergate is just one of many cracks, but I think it is a perfect example of the problem. The IPCC reported that glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2035. It was discovered this was nonsense, whether a typo or intentional, it was still nonsense. But the interesting and important thing here is that the head of the IPCC, Pachauri, when confronted with the fact of this error, called it "Voodoo science." And now we know that when he said that he already knew the truth of the matter, yet he decided to denigrate the report and lash out at all 'those deniers.'

Even if you are a believer, this has to make you pause and wonder. Here the head of the IPCC, this prestigious scientific institution that assures us global warming is real, has been caught with his pants down lying to the world about global warming. And he did it in a way to influence the Copenhagen Conference. He knew about the issue prior, lied about it when it was pointed out to him by his own government, and kept quiet about it until AFTER the conference was over. It seems obvious that had this come out prior to the conference, it would have been a major discussion point, which Pachauri did not want to have happen.

If this were just one thing, you might be able to pass it off as an aberration, a 'mistake,' and a fellow who unfortunately brought discredit upon himself and his institution, but overall no big deal.

But it isn't just one thing. Just with IPCCv4 data alone we have multiple instances of citing unpublished masters theses, articles from popular magazines, articles written by the WWF and Greenpeace, both greenie activist organizations with an agenda, an article on how the rain forest is disappearing written by a freelance green activist journalist, and even an article on how to clean your boots before walking on Antarctic ice. None of these are peer reviewed (which has its own issues), but remember that the IPCC has insisted they ONLY use 'peer reviewed' data. Well, no, they don't.

Here's what Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Fourth Assessment report (AR4:WG2) had to say in 1989:

To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.

Notice how he says this. You can 'be effective' OR you can be 'honest.'

Now when you look at what the IPCC has been telling us you see how they have distorted the real situation. They said the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 (Not true.) They said the Amazon Rain Forest was going to decrease by 40% (Not true. In fact, it is growing.) They said the hottest decade was the 1990s (Not true. It was COOLER than the previous decade. The hottest year on record remains 1935.) They said there was no such thing as the Medieval Warm Period. (when it was hotter than today) And they conveniently ignore the Little Ice Age when it was notably colder than previous or since. They also conveniently ignore the fact that the glaciers have been receding since 1800 at the exact same rate through the 20th century (and some are expanding). They fail to say that sea levels have been rising at the exact same rate for the same period. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. This thread is FULL of data that shows the many deceptions, the many assumptions, and the shaky state of the data.

The bottom line here is that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. The data used to 'prove' global warming is shaky at best and intentionally deceptive at worst. No scientist anywhere has been able to conclusively show that the globe is warming more than about a degree Celsius per 100 years and no scientist has been able to prove that a 'positive feedback loop' will result in runaway warming. And no scientist has been able to prove that warming is a bad thing.

I quite realize that some people have worked themselves into a froth about this thing. But that is no reason that everyone has to join in this hysteria or join this religion.

 

[Plant Life]

Schuyler,
Then we need to separate this issue form the real environmental crises that are happening. Because I can see corporations and other exploiters spinning this as "proof" that their other actions aren't damaging the world..and the gullible public believing it. That would be dangerous.