Global warming: truth or propaganda?

[steveandersen]

…continued

Anyone interested in science would enjoy reading the work of Dobson and Gribble. Readers may be surprised at what these two men accomplished, sometimes in the face of great controversy. Gribble’s work contradicted everything that was understood at the time it was accepted and settled that there were no naturally-occurring sources of organohalogens … but Gribble has so far found several THOUSAND! ] Dobson’s work was so advanced that after his death, the unit of measure of stratospheric ozone was named after him … the DU … Dobson Unit. Dobson invented and built the measuring instruments and deployed them all over the world.

All of science is done on the shoulders of giants.
Sure Dobson and Gribble did interesting work. That doesn’t mean that they are the last word on any subject.
Such notables as Kepler, Darwin, and Einstein all have had parts of their work built upon and possibly contradicted by subsequent work. That takes nothing away from them nor does it make the more current work wrong of fraudulent.

As for mentioning the DU, what is that supposed to imply? The Volt and the Ampere and the Faraday were named after early movers and shakers in the field but that doesn’t mean that later work in electro-magnetism is somehow of a lesser quality.

Although Dobson’s book is a little older, it is so well written and so comprehensive and so understandable that anyone looking for a quick way to learn about the atmosphere should purchase a copy. Also, visit Google Scholar scholar.google.com/ ]and type in “G.M.B. Dobson”. With all of my reading, I still have not found any work as comprehensive as his. In addition, the graphs showing the variations of stratospheric ozone by latitude and by season have not appeared anywhere else.

They don’t have to he already published it.
Naturally occurring seasonal and regional ozone variations are part of the current model.

The regular Google seems to produce “the best” results for Gordon Gribble. (Using Google Scholar produces mostly very detailed work and he is listed as an author on a LOT of papers, probably collaborations with students).

Although some of the terminology may be intimidating, once you get into it, you can get totally absorbed. You may ask “why this” or “why that”… and in chasing down the answers to those specifici questions, a lot of other bits of knowledge start to “lock together”.

Amazing and fun stuff.

Agreed but I still question your contention in post #55 that the ““evidence” for man-made global warming is fake.”

Rolling out 40 year old books on ozone as an example?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Here is the problem: every time a proponent of the AGW … anthropogenic “man made”] global warming … concept is defeated, they spin the words and slide off or segue into some other issue … they change the subject … “yeah, but what about …”]

There are plenty of books on the subject. two of them: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” by Christopher Horner; and “Unstoppable Global Warming” by Singer & Avery. There are plenty of papers on the subject also. The debate gets complicated so some resources are needed; one page is insufficient.

Interested folks should sign up for www.climatechangedebate.org and read the back comments…

Here is the main thing:
The ENTIRE AGW controversy is based on computer models … simulations. That is all. Video games. Nothing more. BUT THEN, they shift to and use tons of anecdotes, most of which are one time events (which nature is full of) and which are totally invalid for scientific evidence purposes. And the computer models change CONSTANTLY, so how valid are they when the conclusions change constantly. With computer models, if you don’t like the output, you change either or both of the data or the structure of the model.

When skeptics of man-made global warming raise anecdotes that contradict the AGW theories, they are accused of using anecdotes that are invalid for science, but then the AGW proponents go ahead and use THEIR anecdotes, which are utterly invalid for proving a scientific theory.

Actually, according to the scientific method, ANY anecdote that contradicts a scientific theory automatically invalidates that theory.

There is NO EVIDENCE that changes in global temperature or climate are caused by human activity. NONE.

And then they say there are thousands of scientists who have signed on to the AGW campaign … but the actual number is around six … and they are people who are employed by organizations to make those statements.

The sea level is rising, which is false because it turns out that the people pushing that false notion are using ONE measuring location, at Hong Kong … where the land is sinking. Claims that rising sealevels at islands in the Pacific Ocean are turning out to be false.

And it goes on and on. Every time you pin these people down, they segue off into some other issue.

 

[steveandersen]

Here is the problem: every time a proponent of the AGW … anthropogenic “man made”] global warming … concept

kinda high handed of you to assume I’m a propoent since I’ve said nothing to that end

is defeated,

Defeated Gracie?

they spin the words and slide off or segue into some other issue … they change the subject … “yeah, but what about …”]

Al, I have made 2 posts and in each one I addressed what you said point by point
How that is in anyway a segue, I don’t know.

You on the other hand have responded with completely new posts both times, ignoring what I wrote, and referring to me in the third person plural.
So if one of us is trying to change the subject I don’t think that I’m the one.

There are plenty of books on the subject. two of them: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” by Christopher Horner; and “Unstoppable Global Warming” by Singer & Avery. There are plenty of papers on the subject also. The debate gets complicated so some resources are needed; one page is insufficient.

Yes I know it is complicated.
But I know a little about P-chem. and thermo and I can do an energy balance. So I’m pretty comfortable coming to my own conclusions rather than what some guy in a book tells me.

Especially if it is a book for popular consumption.

Interested folks should sign up for www.climatechangedebate.org and read the back comments…

Internet debates are really not a good forum for topics like these.
Things often degrade to shouting matches or folks just preach to the choir.
You were the one accusing others of fraud; pointing to someone else’s book or web site doesn’t appear to be a vigorous defense of your claim.

Here is the main thing:
The ENTIRE AGW controversy is based on computer models … simulations.

As is the design of jet liners, skyscrapers, bridges, pharmaceuticals, etc
I use hydraulic and hydrodynamic models all the time; nothing wrong with that.

Besides a blanket statement that the “ENTIRE” thing is about X? You know that it is more complex than that.

continued…

 

[steveandersen]

…continued

That is all. Video games. Nothing more.

Hardly.
While there are obviously some similarities to say there is no different indicates that you may not understand what models are.

Models must be calibrated against a real data set.

BUT THEN, they shift to and use tons of anecdotes, most of which are one time events (which nature is full of) and which are totally invalid for scientific evidence purposes.

So make up your mind. Is the “ENTIRE” controversy about models or about the data that goes into them?

And the computer models change CONSTANTLY, so how valid are they when the conclusions change constantly. With computer models, if you don’t like the output, you change either or both of the data or the structure of the model.

Ah but models must be calibrated. They can’t just be changed willy-nilly to suit your purposes unless you’re scenario building. (Once again I use them all the time for work)
If you don’t understand the calibration process and the reason why models “change CONSTANTLY” then you really should read up on it.

When skeptics of man-made global warming raise anecdotes that contradict the AGW theories, they are accused of using anecdotes that are invalid for science, but then the AGW proponents go ahead and use THEIR anecdotes, which are utterly invalid for proving a scientific theory.

That is why no one should use anecdotes for scientific work
Or more correctly you could use them in some cases if you’re willing to put up with what it does to your confidence intervals.
Not all data is created equal.

They can also be useful in “what if” scenarios but not a baseline.

Actually, according to the scientific method, ANY anecdote that contradicts a scientific theory automatically invalidates that theory.

Nonsense! Scientific theories have to conform with the preponderance of the data not each and every data point.
Outliers can occur for a variety of reasons as you yourself pointed out in post #59

One contrary data point (especially an anecdotal one) does not break a theory.
And generally theories aren’t invalidated, they are modified to accommodate additional or new data. Like you said models “change CONSTATLY”

There is NO EVIDENCE that changes in global temperature or climate are caused by human activity. NONE.

There is a proposed mechanism and link that is supported by the data set.
You can type in caps all you want that there isn’t but that won’t change it and it doesn’t explain why the USEPA makes the link with a certainty of >90%.
And this is in an administration that for years had been taking it on the chin for being soft on environmental issues and/or in the pocket of some big oil boogeyman.
The fact that they concur with other groups on the subject kinda sorta makes you think

There is of course data that may not support it too.
Based on what I know that case is not as strong.

And then they say there are thousands of scientists who have signed on to the AGW campaign … but the actual number is around six … and they are people who are employed by organizations to make those statements.

Six?
While yes there may be special advocate organizations with small staffs are you seriously suggesting that there are six people in a room making this all up?
USEPA, NOAA, and others have scores of scientists on staff.

The sea level is rising, which is false because it turns out that the people pushing that false notion are using ONE measuring location, at Hong Kong … where the land is sinking. Claims that rising sealevels at islands in the Pacific Ocean are turning out to be false.

Do you seriously think that there is one measuring point for sea level?
You can go to NOAA or the USGC and get elevation and tide data for scores of places.
Try it yourself

In the grand scheme of things the earth is relevantly cooler and the ocean has been higher than it currently is. So saying that it will eventually get warmer and deeper around here is not really going out on a limb. The debate is about the rate.

Since humans and the plants and animals we eat were for the most part not here when it was warmer and deeper it is important to pay attention.

And it goes on and on. Every time you pin these people down, they segue off into some other issue.

You must be confusing me with someone else.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I encourage people to log into www.climatechangedebate.org

because all sorts of interesting tidbits are posted by a variety of folk who do some research.

If you have not been reading www.climatechangedebate.org ,

here is one of the recent posts you will have missed:

"It’s not me that says the climate models are massively serial and that parallel processing is no particular help. It’s the guy I drink with who writes the software. While he refuses to disclose what is and what is not in models, we have gained some knowledge of these things, both from the literature and elsewhere.

Clouds are not modelled. They are parameterised which is not the same thing. Cloud formation over the sea is part of a biological feedback that’s not calculated, because it’s not well understood. Stratospheric CCNs are bacteria. There’s no known mechanism for them to get there from the Earth’s surface.
Solar influences are not modelled. Joan Feynman (NASAA/GISS) has just completed a several century study of the remarkable correlation between Aurora and Nile flooding events. Nile flooding is a proxy not just for African climate, but also ENSO.

Air temperature is assumed to correlate with SST. Most parts of the world it doesn’t.

Land-use changes are not modelled.

Unknown future energy technologies are not in the models (by definition). What impact would a cheap fuel-cell, or fusion have?

I’m not anyone’s “side". This is not a war, or a game of my willy’s bigger than your willy. I’m interested in science, mostly its history and the philosophy behind it. Most climatologists are less interested in forecasting than you think. The purpose of much of the modelling is to understand how past climate worked. Then we can move onto forecasting — maybe. For some reason the phrase “irreducible complexity” keeps cropping up. Even if we could (name removed by moderator)ut data for every single cubic metre of the atmosphere and ocean, this wouldn’t necessarily lead to any better forecasts.

I also note that progress in climatology is unnecessarily slow because of the excessive secretiveness of its researchers. Most of the work you are praising has never been validated. It can’t be validated when the methodology is a secret. This demeans all of science, not just climatology. It’s a shame."

There is more …

Buy the books; read the articles; log into www.climatechangedebate.org and just read.

 

[Al_Masetti]

A litany of former “warmer” believers who have converted to scepticism: [Readers are encouraged to research each of these prominent scientists.]

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists

Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming

• Now Skeptics

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

May 15, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET

Following the U.S. Senate’s vote today on a global warming measure (see today’s AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles

and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown” and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena.

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta

recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”

 

[Al_Masetti]

More warmers who have converted to sceptics:

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists,

recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government,

recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker – better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote.

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada,

also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife,

recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears “poppycock.” According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added.

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.,

also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added.

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences,

was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms “sky is falling” man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

 

[Al_Masetti]

And a few more:

log in to www.climatechangedebate.org and while you’re at it, visit www.sepp.org and also email info@sepp.org and request being placed on the email newsletter list ]

---

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm

started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer **** Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society.

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles.

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa,

reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.”

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa,

converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added.

 

[Al_Masetti]

From another friend on www.climatechangedebate.org

Sign up!

"That 2,500 scientists endorse the IPCC summary position is one of my favorite AGW hoaxes. As Larry points out this is the number of reviewers and I have been one, as have many skeptics. Our review comments are ignored and we certainly do not endorse the scare summary. If we can ever get the IPCC to publish the comments it will go a long way toward putting this consensus myth to rest.

More narrowly there are around 2-300 authors of the main WG1 science report. They do not see the summary nor endorse it either. In fact the main report often contains material that contradicts the summary. (Note that the main WG1 report is still not out yet.) They do tend to be AGW advocates, but they are also just a small fraction of the scientific community.

The Summary is writen by about 30 people, all very hard line AGW advocates. That is the IPCC scientific consensus and it is very real, but very small."

 

[Crow]

Is it a coincidence that the language spoken is that of a religious nature? People don’t change their minds over climate change, they ‘convert’.

 

[steveandersen]

From another friend on www.climatechangedebate.org

Sign up!

…there are around 2-300 authors of the main WG1 science report. …

The Summary is writen by about 30 people, all very hard line AGW advocates. That is the IPCC scientific consensus and it is very real, but very small."

(a) In post #62 you said that there were only 6 scientists but now you’re saying that there are hundreds with a few dozen lead ones. Which is it? (That of course is the number that participated in the study. Just because someone didn’t participate doesn’t guarantee their position on the matter one way or another.)
(b) How many atmospheric scientists specialists do you think there are in the world? What exactly is the size of the “scientific community” who should be included?
It is not surprising that a specialist field is narrow and in technical matters not everyone’s opinion is equal. You look to those who study the matter in depth.
(c) How many does it take to write a paper?

Do you have any substantive comments on the proposed mechanisms?

You also claimed in post #62 that there was “NO EVIDENCE”. What would you consider acceptable evidence?

 

[steveandersen]

Is it a coincidence that the language spoken is that of a religious nature? People don’t change their minds over climate change, they ‘convert’.

It is kinda silly isn’t it?

Sometimes you see similar language in anti-evolution writings
I’m not sure why it shows up in these fields; they are they only ones that seem to attract the attention of non-scientists

You never hear anyone “converting” to gravity or quantum mechanics.

 

[emily47017]

It is kinda silly isn’t it?

Sometimes you see similar language in anti-evolution writings
I’m not sure why it shows up in these fields; they are they only ones that seem to attract the attention of non-scientists

You never hear anyone “converting” to gravity or quantum mechanics.

there is, of course, “intelligent gravitation”

 

[Al_Masetti]

What evidence would I require in order to be convinced to convert from Catholicism to Communism? or to militant atheism? or to Islam?

It is the obligation of the adherents to Communism or militant atheism or Islam to provide arguments sufficient to persuade me. It’s not for me to do their homework for them.

Likewise … with trying to figure out what would persuade me to subscribe to the theory of manmade global warming.

Anyone who does currently believe in AGW … should visit www.climatechangedebate.org and sign up to read the various discussion points. The ones I provided were from only a couple of days of discussion in late May/early June.

And also send an email to info@sepp.org and request being placed on Dr. Singer’s e-newsletter and also visit www.sepp.org to read the archives.

And also visit www.junkscience.com good stuff there also.

And buy the books I mentioned:

Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming

Global Warming happens every 1500 years (author is Singer)

[sorry i don’t have the exact titles in front of me; I gave them to a friend]

Other authors of useful books include Lomborg, Michaels, Pielou, and Fagan. There are tons of books and papers out there that serve to collectively and individually discredit the AGW theory.

Also consider visiting google and type in “ddp oism” and that will take you to the seminar in California in early August by DDP; you can attend and meet a lot of the “anti-AGW” folks … previous attendees have included the Robinsons, Singer, Soon, and a whole bunch of others who write extensively.

 

[sneakers]

I’ve been semi-following this debate.

I just wanted to know if you have seen “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. It is a very well done British documentary that was aired in Gr. Britain in March. I guess it’s going to be shown in Australia, if it hasn’t been already. I was lucky enough to download it when it was up on YouTube several months ago. It’s very compelling. One of the scientists you cited - Dr. Singer - is on it. I hope they show it on US TV sometime soon. Anyway, from indications I’m getting, it seems the manmade-global warming issue is losing steam and more scientists believe that global warming is part of the earths normal warming/cooking cycle.

sneakers

 

[sneakers]

What evidence would I require in order to be convinced to convert from Catholicism to Communism? or to militant atheism? or to Islam?

It is the obligation of the adherents to Communism or militant atheism or Islam to provide arguments sufficient to persuade me. It’s not for me to do their homework for them.

Likewise … with trying to figure out what would persuade me to subscribe to the theory of manmade global warming.

Anyone who does currently believe in AGW … should visit www.climatechangedebate.org and sign up to read the various discussion points. The ones I provided were from only a couple of days of discussion in late May/early June.

And also send an email to info@sepp.org and request being placed on Dr. Singer’s e-newsletter and also visit www.sepp.org to read the archives.

And also visit www.junkscience.com good stuff there also.

And buy the books I mentioned:

Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming

Global Warming happens every 1500 years (author is Singer)

[sorry i don’t have the exact titles in front of me; I gave them to a friend]

Other authors of useful books include Lomborg, Michaels, Pielou, and Fagan. There are tons of books and papers out there that serve to collectively and individually discredit the AGW theory.

Also consider visiting google and type in “ddp oism” and that will take you to the seminar in California in early August by DDP; you can attend and meet a lot of the “anti-AGW” folks … previous attendees have included the Robinsons, Singer, Soon, and a whole bunch of others who write extensively.

Hi Al:

I’ve been semi-following this debate.

I just wanted to know if you have seen “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. It is a very well done British documentary that was aired in Gr. Britain in March. I guess it’s going to be shown in Australia, if it hasn’t been already. I was lucky enough to download it when it was up on YouTube several months ago. It’s very compelling. One of the scientists you cited - Dr. Singer - is on it. I hope they show it on US TV sometime soon. Anyway, from indications I’m getting, it seems the manmade-global warming issue is losing steam and more scientists believe that global warming is part of the earths normal warming/cooking cycle.

sneakers

 

[Al_Masetti]

Have not seen the movie(s). Neither one. Not the polar bear one (forgot the latin name for polar bear, but polar bears swim).

Nor the other one.

As I got older, I lost patience with movies. Started watching them without the sound … they all become comedies … try it. You can spot the splice marks and bloopers.

I just now finished watching a DVR of two BookTV programs … one was on Politially Incorrect Guide to Science (tom Bethell) and the other was on Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (christopher horner{?}).

Anyway, both authors were fabulous.

I encourage all to buy both books and read them.

the more you read and study, the more holes you can poke in the arguments for AGW.

See if you can find the BookTV interviews. Phyllis Schlafly was the moderator, so one of her organizations may be able to provide tapes of the inteviews for cheap.

Hi Al:

I’ve been semi-following this debate.

I just wanted to know if you have seen “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. It is a very well done British documentary that was aired in Gr. Britain in March. I guess it’s going to be shown in Australia, if it hasn’t been already. I was lucky enough to download it when it was up on YouTube several months ago. It’s very compelling. One of the scientists you cited - Dr. Singer - is on it. I hope they show it on US TV sometime soon. Anyway, from indications I’m getting, it seems the manmade-global warming issue is losing steam and more scientists believe that global warming is part of the earths normal warming/cooking cycle.

sneakers

 

[steveandersen]

What evidence would I require in order to be convinced to convert from Catholicism to Communism? or to militant atheism? or to Islam?

Considering what you said in post #62 about segues and changing the subject this particular passage is just amazing.

What does religion or political philosophies have to do with the subject at hand?
They are based upon leaps of faith or opinion.
Science is based upon data sets, is non-normative, and is of course subject to change and revision

It is the obligation of the adherents to Communism or militant atheism or Islam to provide arguments sufficient to persuade me. It’s not for me to do their homework for them.

well
(a) We’re not talking of Communism or militant atheism here.
(b) it is the obligation of the person challenging the consensus to provide explicit, detailed reasons why.

Likewise … with trying to figure out what would persuade me to subscribe to the theory of manmade global warming.

well if I don’t know your particular objections are, then how am I to comment upon them?

Anyone who does currently believe in AGW … should visit www.climatechangedebate.org and sign up to read the various discussion points. The ones I provided were from only a couple of days of discussion in late May/early June.

(a) It is not a matter of “belief”
(b) If you have particular arguments you should present them yourself rather than pointing to a web page (see what you said above about asking others to do your homework for you)
(c) You have referenced that site many times and have quoted extensively from it. If that material is representative of the whole site then you have demonstrated that it is really not worth the time. Would you like me to go back and answer those posts point by point?

And also send an email to info@sepp.org and request being placed on Dr. Singer’s e-newsletter and also visit www.sepp.org to read the archives.

And also visit www.junkscience.com good stuff there also.

Yes, yes. As you’ve said before. But what do you think?

And buy the books I mentioned:

Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming

Global Warming happens every 1500 years (author is Singer)

[sorry i don’t have the exact titles in front of me; I gave them to a friend]

So you want me to do your work for you AND spend my money to do it?

Other authors of useful books include Lomborg, Michaels, Pielou, and Fagan. There are tons of books and papers out there that serve to collectively and individually discredit the AGW theory.

I don’t know the others but I do know Lomborg.
His work is interesting and I like his stance against alarmist doom and gloomers. BUT
(a) The skeptical environmentalist is now close to 10 years out of date
(b) He is an economist and not a climate scientist. So while I can trust his economic analysis I’m not sure what he can add to a climate study.

Also consider visiting google and type in “ddp oism” and that will take you to the seminar in California in early August by DDP; you can attend and meet a lot of the “anti-AGW” folks … previous attendees have included the Robinsons, Singer, Soon, and a whole bunch of others who write extensively.

and who earn a living selling “anti-AGW” books
I’d rather stick to textbooks or publicly available data from science organizations and government bodies.

As I said before, I’m an educated man. I understand heat transport and energy balances. I know the uses and limits of models. I don’t feel a need to have others make up my mind for me.
I am of course willing to listen to any reasoned argument.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Science is NEVER determined by consensus.

Never.

NEVER.

NOT EVER.

NEVER

N-E-V-E-R.

 

[steveandersen]

Science is NEVER determined by consensus.

Never.

NEVER.

NOT EVER.

NEVER

N-E-V-E-R.

Of course it is

Not the general consensus as in any guy on a bar stool can add his $0.02 and gets to vote on the speed of light or the mechanical equivalent of heat. Scince isn’t democratic
But people in the field through conferences, and the peer review process determine what the consensus is.

How do you think theories develop?