Chapter 4 of my book, titled, "An Inconvenient Hoax," systematically exposes and confronts all the most current science fiction being shoved down our throats by the Luddite absolutists and pseudo-intellectual scam artists of the left. It is devastating.
Unsurprisingly, there is a flurry of new data pouring in even further confirming how utterly baseless this invented Green Scare really is, now even from Obama's own people. Much like the Swine Flu and about a gazillion other contrived alarmist fantasies from decades past (breast implants, Alar, the Millenium bug, DDT, etc.), public faith in the environmentalist religion is consequently fading, and fast. As Investor's Business Daily put it:
Nearly half (48%) believe the cause is naturally occurring planetary trends. Just a year ago, only 34% said warming was a natural phenomenon, while 47% said human activity was placing the planet at risk of disastrous climate change. That's a huge shift.
Interestingly, a growing number of Americans (58%) say we need to build more nuclear power plants, with 63% saying that finding additional sources of energy is more important than reducing the amount of energy Americans currently consume. They recognize that a growing economy requires more energy, not less, and that nukes are a pollution-free way of getting it.
Even countries utterly saturated with the left's absurd scare-mongering on this, like Australia, are producing loud voices of reason in an ocean of bogus, hysterical environmental propaganda.
As Andrew Bolt, of The Herald Sun put it (on 4/29/09):
Global warming alarmists must be feeling a chill as new facts overwhelm their fiction. It's snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever. And that's just the news of the past week.
Bolt then issued a challenge...
Here's a test: Name just three clear signs the planet is warming...Just three. Chances are your "proofs" are in fact on my list of 10 Top Myths about global warming. And if your "proofs" indeed turn out to be false, don't get angry with me.
Just ask yourself: Why do you still believe that man is heating the planet to hell? What evidence do you have? So let's see if facts matter more to you than faith, and observations more than predictions.
The List...
MYTH 1: THE WORLD IS WARMING
Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week "temperatures have dropped...both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites." In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain's Hadley Centre, NASA's Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)
Some experts, such as Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again. Others, such as Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man's rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster.
But that's all theory. The question I've asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted?
MYTH 2: THE POLAR CAPS ARE MELTING
Wrong. The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last week confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years. Long-term monitoring by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the same: southern hemisphere ice has been expanding for decades.
As for the Arctic, wrong again. The Arctic ice cap shrank badly two summers ago after years of steady decline, but has since largely recovered. Satellite data from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn't had this much April ice for at least seven years.
Norway's Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007.
MYTH 3: [AUSTRALIA HAS] NEVER HAD SUCH A BAD DROUGHT
Wrong. A study released this month by the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre confirms not only that we've had worse droughts, but this Big Dry is not caused by "global warming," whether man-made or not.
As the university's press release says: "The causes of southeastern Australia's longest, most severe and damaging droughts have been discovered, with the surprise finding that they originate far away in the Indian Ocean...A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole (a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water), dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia."
MYTH 4: [AUSTRALIA'S] CITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN HOTTER
Wrong. The alleged "record" temperature Melbourne set in January (46.4 degrees) was in fact topped by the 47.2 degrees the city recorded in 1851. (See the Argus newspaper of February 8, 1851.)
And here's another curious thing: Despite all this warming we're alleged to have caused, Victoria's highest temperature on record remains the 50.7 degrees that hit Mildura 103 years ago. South Australia's hottest day is still the 50.7 degrees Oodnadatta suffered 37 years ago. NSW's high is still the 50 degrees recorded 70 years ago. What's more, not one of the world's seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe's high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago, before the invention of the first true car.
MYTH 5: THE SEAS ARE GETTING HOTTER
Wrong. If anything, the seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries. Warming believer Josh Willis, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reluctantly concluded: "There has been a very slight cooling..."
MYTH 6: THE SEAS ARE RISING
Wrong. For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado. That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon. But there is little sign of any accelerated rises, even off Tuvalu or the Maldives, islands often said to be most threatened with drowning.
Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world's most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years. Venice is still above water.
MYTH 7: [HURRICANES] ARE GETTING WORSE
Wrong. Ryan Maue of Florida State University recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index. His findings? The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.
The World Meteorological Organization, in its latest statement on [hurricanes], said it was impossible to say if they were affected by man's gases: "Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
MYTH 8: THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS DYING
Wrong. Yes, in 1999, Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, our leading reef alarmist and administrator of more than $30 million in warming grants, did claim the reef was threatened by warming, and much had turned white. But he then had to admit it had made a "surprising" recovery.
Yes, in 2006 he again warned high temperatures meant "between 30 and 40% of coral on Queensland's Great Barrier Reef could die within a month." But he later admitted this bleaching had "minimal impact".
Yes, in 2007 he again warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were bleaching the reef. But this month fellow Queensland University researchers admitted in a study that reef coral had once more made a "spectacular recovery," with "abundant corals re-established in a single year." The reef is blooming.
MYTH 9: OUR SNOW SEASONS ARE SHORTER
Wrong. Poor snow falls in 2003 set off a rash of headlines predicting warming doom. The CSIRO typically fed the hysteria by claiming global warming would strip resorts of up to a quarter of their snow by 2018. Yet the past two years have been bumper seasons for Victoria's snow resorts, and this year could be just as good, with snow already falling in NSW and Victoria this past week.
MYTH 10: TSUNAMIS AND OTHER DISASTERS ARE GETTING WORSE
Are you insane? Tsunamis are in fact caused by earthquakes. Yet there [were the alarmists] last week, claiming that Asia was a "region, thanks to climate change, that has far more cyclones, tsunamis, droughts." Wrong, wrong and wrong...
Bolt wasn't finished...
[Every] disaster is now blamed on man-made warming the way they once were on Satan. See for yourself on www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm the full list, including kidney stones, volcanic eruptions, lousy wine, insomnia, bad tempers, Vampire moths and bubonic plagues. Nothing is too far-fetched to be seized upon by carpetbaggers and wild preachers as signs of a warming we can't actually see.
Not for nothing are polar bears--the perfect symbol of this faith, bears said to be threatened by warming, when their numbers have in fact increased. Bottom line: fewer people now die from extreme weather events, whether cyclones, floods or blinding heatwaves.
Read that in a study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."
So stop this crazy panic.
First step: check again your list of the signs you thought you saw of global warming. How many are true? What do you think, and why do you think it? Yes, the world may resume warming in one year or 100. But it hasn't been warming as the alarmists said it must if man were to blame, and certainly not as the media breathlessly keeps claiming.
Best we all just settle down, then, and wait for the proof -- the real proof. After all, panicking over invisible things is so undignified, don't you think?
The evidence is overwhelming. Astrologers are more scientific than liberals. This anti-science crusade is about nothing more than Democrat power and control, as with everything the left does.
Comments
Robert,
Just because you don't like the public opinions, should you censor them? Nothing like people disagreeing with you to bring out your inner demons, eh?
Let the scientists talk. You guys don't know shit!
Another very good and concise article from a realistic, skeptical and intelligent viewpoint. I think it's sad that alarmist commenters such as Earl_E have yet to grasp the meaning of the facts, but I am definitely starting to see more and more mainstream articles presenting well constructed skeptical arguments that are providing a healthy basis for genuine debate. Without inquiry and examination, this website would not be what it is. Keep it up.
we are enjoying the second coldest july on record in st louis missouri! this is the mildest summer i can remember. of course i am one who realizes that the site my home occupies was once coverd by a mile thick sheet of ice, brrrr. a little warming is not a bad thing, so if it happens again, so what.
Our recent protest in front of Washington's puppet, US Rep Joe Sestak (Dem District 7- PA),was against the government selling "the
right to pollute" to companies. We never
mentioned a word about "global warming". The
liberal Delaware County Daily Times wrote an
article about our protest that had a subtitle saying "Protestors say global
warming is a farce". We never said that.
It was as if the author himself knew it
all along. He planted the seed for us and
now it's finally out there loud and clear.
Shows these liberals subconsciencely know
we are right but are too afraid to say it
themselves. (They are afraud they will lose their Starbucks
fakey acquaintances that'll drop 'em in
a minute once they don't agree).
Your article was found and "relayed" in a couple of internationally regarded websites:
www.icecap.us
www.freerepublic.com
Earl E: Your comment above isn't clear. Why - with the liberal extremists in ABCNNBCBS streaming hogwash exaggeration and propaganda about global warming since 1994 - with no rebuttal even allowed by calmly stating simple facts and actual temperature trends, much less disputing theory or showing that the liberals' multiple lies about their so-called global warming are actually false - why do you claim he (Robert) is calling for censorship? It is the realists who ARE being subjected to censorship!
Earl, can you give us an example from the article where the author is calling for censoring?
Talk about projection...
Robert Moon,
This is a great article! Your book should be quoted as a counter citing each and every time one of the lefty greenies in the media proclaims global warming is caused by mankind. These same lefty greenies always want equal time for their ignorant (unlearned) theories and have tried to shut down talk radio entities who don't profess their same greenieness. Kudos, Robert Moon! Keep up the scientific-based debate!
Check out my first and recently released novel, Long Journey to Rneadal. This exciting tale is a romantic action adventure in space and is more about the characters than the technology.
Hey Earl E, this has nothing to do with opinions, it has to do with facts. You can believe that Global Warming, Bigfoot and Elvis all live on the moon for all I care, but you won't be legislating MY belief in it without a fight. Sorry you can't read an article and get its meaning. Come to think of it, this is probably why you and most others believe it this claptrap in the first place. It's a simple lack of intelligence, made clearer by your reference to censorship. What or who is being censored by the author? I'm at a loss. In fact it would seem to me the only thing close to censorship is the government blatantly denying the hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide, some on their own payroll, believe Global Warming to be a complete fabrication. Not flawed science but A FABRICATION.
If I felt you had the brainpower to formulate a rational response to these facts I'd ask for one. But the fact is I don't. Good luck in life. You'll need it...
The "myth" of shrinking polar and glacial ice puts Mr. Moon squarely in the crackpot corner. Just the other day satellite photos were declassified showing what Bush was trying to hide (ex. striking lack of sea ice off Barrow Alaska).
Science has a funny way of only being "junk" when it questions gluttonous lifestyles or religious dogma, which tend to go hand-in-hand.
If AGW deniers would admit that they simply don't respect nature, and think we can pillage it because Jesus is coming, this phony debate wouldn't be necessary.
Footnote: the more someone uses the term "liberal" in a disparaging way, the less they tend to be educated, especially in the natural sciences.
Mr. Moon is a classic far-right propagandist and probably a Creatard. He cites "myth" after "myth" by twisting context and omitting other relevant data. It's a common tactic of the anti-knowledge crowd. The only thing Moon is right about is that Argo data do show the oceans have cooled a little since 2003, which is an anomaly in need of understanding, but nothing close to a debunking of AGW.
Ice in polar and glacial reasons is most definitely shrinking, as proved by countless photos and observations. There are several websites dedicated to tracking ice coverage, and at least 80% of trends show retreat.
A few anomalous glaciers don't respond to AGW and have expanded due to local conditions (e.g. Mt. Shasta, CA) but this is well known by scientists. It's used out of context by wingnuts to "prove" a false trend, as are most of the cites in Mr. Moon's "myth" list.
Mr. Moon is NOT a scientist and definitely not a climatologist. He's just taking cues from the Rush Limbaugh playbook.
-Tell that to David Evans, who developed the UN models and then, after years of tracking the data, confirmed that they "show no hot spot whatsoever" (which they would have found about six miles up in the earth's atmosphere over the Tropics).
Evens confirmed, "...an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming."
-Only 45% of Climate Scientists Accept 'Global Warming Consensus.
-One of the biggest periods of temperature increase in the Earth's history happened during the time of the dinosaurs, before humans were even here.
-As noted by the journal Nature, Peter Doran (U of I) proved that temps in Antarctica have actually been decreasing over the last 30 yrs.
-The intensity of the Sun's light significantly impacts the Earth's temperature.
-In January 2002, the journal Science reported the findings of NASA's Ian Joughin and University of California's Slawek Tulaczyk confirming that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is actually growing.
As usual, the conservative has facts, evidence, and reason, and the liberal has emotional smears, personal attacks, and Kindergarten misinformation.
Try again.
I find it interesting that the two rebuttles (so far) have not relied on science, but on name calling with a decidedly anti-Christian flavor.
Such "intelligent" tactics are one of the things that caused me to question AGW in the first place. That the anti-global warmers actually used facts cinched my choice.
One other thing.
As far as censorship is concerned, I am reminded of James Hansen saying that AGW deniers deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity, and Al Gore saying that the debate is over. These are the censors to any who would upset their apple cart.
Well of course. Liberals are ALWAYS the ones looking to SILENCE the debate, with invented partisan scandals (Tom Delay, Lewis Libby, Alberto Gonzales, Bush-coke, Bush-National Guard, etc.), with laws ('Fairness' Doctrine, Card Check), by getting un-elected, unaccountable activist judges to illegally overturn the will of the people, by corrupting the Census Bureau for partisan gain, and on, and on...and on.
It's never about truth, just power and control. That's why they never have an actual counterpoint beyond, "you're mean" or "you're stupid"...well, that and the fact that they are simple-minded followers.
I am a AGW skeptic.
That notwithstanding, liberals are just as bad as conservatives when it comes to twisting facts to fit their ideological agenda.
People lose their principles when their reputation and/or livliehood is on the line and they will justify whatever they have championed no matter have disproven it becomes.
The vaccine to all this posturing?
To recognize that the first principle in belief is to accept that you may be wrong, believe truly, and state it publically.
That insulates you from your own folly as well as the public's discreditation of you, as you have shown yourself to be beholden to the truth above all petty motivations.
Gary said, "... liberals are just as bad as conservatives when it comes to twisting facts to fit their ideological agenda."
This is undoubtably true. People with an agenda have used every philosophy, religion, politics, pyschology, and everything else that is perceived as good, twisting the facts to force others to do as they want.
In this particular case, someone wrote an excellent article about the falseness of AGW, and the only rebuttle was name calling, anti-christian bigotry, and a false accusation of censorship. As I also pointed out, two of the biggest names in AGW have used these tactics instead of the truth.
Let us not forget someone pushing a 1400 page bill through the House of Reps so fast that no one had a chance to read it (Cap and Trade).
Now, in this case, who is using facts and truth, and who is using dishonest tactics?
Yes, another excellent article pointing out the ongoing desire for us to have 'disasters' we have to overcome.
Assuming there is climate change occurring, and I have no doubts there is, by what arrogant, ignorant stance could anyone possibly believe that there is only a single cause and that "we can fix it"? How stupid is that? Just look at the equation used to calculate and project the 'warming' trend. High School math should have taught you that you cannot solve any equation with more than one variable unless you know all but one of the values for the other variables. Not a range of values but fixed values. The climatologists have no fixed values for any of their variables and therefore the equation cannot be solved.
Science is not about 'consensus', it is about fact, repeatable, verifiable fact. Consensus is what you get when you bully people by threatening to take away their funding if they don't agree with you.
Human caused climate change is bunk and a fraud.
Brent sed:
"Science is not about 'consensus', it is about fact, repeatable, verifiable fact. Consensus is what you get when you bully people by threatening to take away their funding if they don't agree with you."
And this is often true, but "consensus" in scientific opinion is ancillary to Science and truth.
Consensus doesn't make a natural fact true or untrue, it is an independent phenomenon, that sometimes flows from a truth.
Often, it is coincident with a scientific truth, but certainly is not a proof for the truth.
I have also heard the opposite opined, that consensus is antagonistic to the truth, that is not true either. Something can be true, and many people can believe in it, or many people can believe in something, and it is not true, often coincident, but not prerequisite.
Gary...
It's a shame that logic so unmistakably correct and obvious should need spelled out...but liberals regularly demonstrate that it does.
According to Wikipedia;
"Consensus in the English language is defined firstly as unanimous or general agreement; and secondly group solidarity of belief or sentiment."
So, the point about the AGW Consenus is that there has not been one favoring AGW. This was a lie spread by a certain group of individuals to promote their social agenda.
Just wanted to make certain there is a note added since the original posting. A "clarification" is now provided on the University's webpage that attempts to link recent high temperatures to an exacerbation of what is otherwise termed an historic lack of a negative IOD phase. In this case, records go back to the late 19th Century (if memory serves correctly), so it is hard to understand -- without reading the full paper, which does not appear to be made available -- how anything else might have bearing on an unprecedented historical aberration (the longest "dry spell" in the IOD cycles [pun intended]). So, it seems a fact-based study showing an unusual occurrence is alleged to actually not be as bad as other historic events, due to a concurrent association with or coincidental occurrence of higher atmospheric temperatures over Australia. I suggest the researchers need to put their facts on the table to illustrate clearly why this extreme event is not responsible on its own. Cheers!
I hope you're making enough money on this to salve your conscience when your kids/grandkids inherit a planet with a climate made hostile to human life by human action. Why not publish your "findings", Moon, in a credible scientific journal, say Science or Nature, and by disproving global warming put yourself on the short list for the Nobel Prize. Whoever's reading your blather should know that every scientific institute on Earth--NASA, the Royal Society, the academies of every major nation, all of them--accepts the reality of manmade global warming, every national academy of science and the international professional societies of every scientific discipline. You're a filthy lying, greedy hack, and if you and your stinking denialist ilk help cause delay on climate change much longer, you and they will probably be brought up on charges before the International Court in the Hague. If civilization survives that is. Tell me, do you get the money right from Exxon, or is it filtered thru CEI?
Seventh Day Adventists kept predicting the day of the Rapture; they KNEW it was going to come, and when it didn't, well a new date was selected.
Y2K came and went, as will the Mayan end of the universe/world in 2012.
The hysterical bleatings of overpopulation didn't quite pan out, fewer people are starving today w/6B on the planet. That Ozone Hole keeps oscillating even w/o flourochlorocarbons, and no terminal sunburn yet.
It truly amazes me that people still leverage a doomsday scenario in the never ending future to scare people into doing what they want today.
Still works for just about every fatalist religion as well.
Mass psychosis is probably genetic. We only have our intellect to fight it.
Jeeez, I though people were stupid and gullible down here in Mississippi, but you scientifically-illiterate, knuckle-dragging conservative cranks from . . , where is it? Dover County Delaware? Y'all really deserve your own special prize. Isn't the University of Delaware there? For what you're proposing to be true--that global warming is some sort of liberal hoax--would mean that almost every legitimate scientist on Earth, would have to be in on the scam. Not only they, but the editorial boards of every scientific journal, and the leaders of every single scientific association and foundation from the American Association for the Advancement of Science to the American Meterological Society to the Australian Coral Reef Society. All of them, thousands and thousands of prominent-in-their-fields scientists and their institutes and academies. How bloody likely is that? Only a raving paranoid would believe is such a thing. Geeeez, what bunch of smug stinking cretins you folks are . . .
Look, you Doverites are in need of a reality check about not just global warming, but science generally. Let me break this down, OK? The only real "debate" in science is carried out between scientists who publish what is called a "peer reviewed" account of their findings. "Peer review" is what it's called when a panel of experts reviews your findings, sifts for methodological soundness, mathematical accuracy, accurate understanding of the existing literature on a topic, etc. If this peer panel finds these things to be sound, they publish the article in their journal, with their imprimatur on it, verifying its scientific rigor. Mr. Moon's "book" was not peer reviewed by scientists. If his "interpretations" of known research were plausible, and if Mr Moon were an actual climate scientist or similar, he would submit his findings to the scrutiny of scientific peer review. IF his specific findings were correct, they would overturn 100 years of peer reviewed climate research.
Blackbear Bill...
Funny you should mention scientific journals...my findings are BASED on them. For example, in January 2002, the journal Science reported the findings of NASA's Ian Joughin and University of California's Slawek Tulaczyk confirming that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is actually growing.
If you would make an attempt at literacy and actually comprehend the facts and evidence posted before throwing such narrow-minded anti-science PMS tantrums, you would notice that in fact there is an increasing consensus AGAINST your embarrassingly simple-minded climate scam.
I've posted evidence, you've posted a littany of insults and a fraudulent, illogical claim that people agree with you, therefore you must be right.
This is why you people are losing the debate.
BlackBearBill...
All you've done with your second post here is repeat the same "you disagree with me, therefore you are a villain" smearfest, along with your typically illiterate liberal inability to comprehend that "Macon County Examiner" is not the same as "Dover County Delaware."
Top to bottom, left to right. It's called "reading."
And repeating your blatant partisan misinformation about anything even vaguely approaching a consensus of experts in favor of the left's war on science will only continue to highlight that you cannot defend your BS with actual facts and logic.
See the next post for a specific example of how utterly wrong and brainwashed you are.
Guess you missed every last development like this (that's what happens when you get your news CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, ABC and the papers):
A former global warming alarmist and creator of the model that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol says that while global warming is real, there is no evidence that the main cause is carbon emissions. David Evans says that C02 emissions play — at most — a minor role.
Evans writes in The Australian newspaper that if global warming was caused by C02, scientists would have found hot spots about six miles up in the earth's atmosphere over the Tropics. Evans describes those hot spots as the signature of the greenhouse effect. He says scientists have been trying to locate them for years using thermometers attached to weather balloons.
But he says years of research "show no hot spot — whatsoever" adding that "an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming."
Ah, you want to talk peer-review and scholarly research? According to the left's own methodology for establishing a "consensus," only 7% of research papers actually support the global warming fraud...and only 45% even TOLERATE the theory.
Look up, "Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory" sometime. Getting multiple sides of the story might actually crack open that programmed, simplistic brain long enough to familiarize you with actual science.
BlackBearBill;
Your post actually touches several areas that have caused me to be a AGW skeptic. The first is the relying on what the "experts" say, even when it goes against simple scientific fact. As an example;
The small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It only makes up .0385% of the total content of the atmoshpere. That is less than 4 one hundredths of 1%. That might not mean much, so visualize it this way. If you take a 100 foot column of air, separate it into it's different gases, the amount of CO2 would only make up less than 1/2 of 1 inch of this 100 foot column. Very negligible.
Then there is the draconian "science" you mention. You actually called for trials for crimes against humanity for those who question what the so called experts say. Some of these experts have also said this. What truths are you guys so afraid of that you wont even allow us to question your conclusions? This is not science, it is politics.
Just 2 reasons I am a skeptic.
>This is not science, it is politics.
>Just 2 reasons I am a skeptic.
You are too generous. Its not even politics, it is religion.
All religions cannot tolerate questioning their conclusions.
To BlackbearBill;
Another thing I have already mentioned is the propensity of AGW Proponents to use name calling instead of facts to further your claims. This does not demonstrate superior science, but does demonstrate a fear of ones ideas being challenged.
Yet, when skeptics do use science, they are attacked with epithets, like you have done here.
So, again, I ask, "What are you guys so afraid of that you can't use intelligent debate to make your point?"
This tactic is not science, but it is trying to force an agenda on the rest of us.
Just another reason, among many, why I am a skeptic.
One last point why I am a skeptic;
Exagerated demonstrations of science. One popular demonstration of the power of CO2 to warm the atmosphere is to take 2 bottles, fill one with air, and the other with CO2, then leave them in the sun. Sure enough, the one with the CO2 gets warmer (about 6 degrees). This is then used as evidence that CO2 will warm the atmosphere.
What is wrong with this is that it does not mirror what the atmosphere is really like. It is not full of CO2 (like the one bottle), but is only .0385% of the atmosphere like in the other bottle. To go from .0385% to 100% CO2 proves nothing about how the atmosphere really works, but this is used to "Prove AGW". It is just another way of twisting the facts to prove an questionalbe point.
I am sick and tired of those who use these illegitimate tactics to prove AGW, and then denigrate those who use real science to call them into account.
Mr. Moon (and Co.) When your findings show up in topflight peer reviewed journals, like Nature, or Science, and overturn 100 years of AGW theory and the millions of data, change the dominant paradigm of atmospheric science, and show the most thoroughly researched theory in the history to be flawed . . . then I, like everyone else who follows AGW will breath a sigh of relief for the human race.
The reason I found Mr. Moon's feeble screed is BECAUSE I look for news on AGW. As much as anything else, this is because the networks and MSM generally say so little about it. You tinfoil hat types are "winning the debate" in that sense. CNN has even laid off its entire science division. I found your mendacious prevarications through one of my favorite denialist sources. Todd Schnitt's (a rightwing shcok jock) "Schnitt Show" global warming files. Of course I also visit realclimate.org, ClimateProgress (Joe Romm's blog), Deltoid, ScienceBlogs, Climate Change News Digest and a couple of other site where the real news on AGW is available for anyone who cares to look.
Of course only "7% of published papers" support AGW theory you scam artist! That's because there are thousands of scientific papers every year on topics like biology, paleontology, chemistry, geology--look these up--that have to do with things other than global warming. Hey, why not claim that less than 2% of papers published in medical journals accept the theory of global warming? That would be about as credible.
Mr. Rooker: that supposed "demonstration" of CO2's warming propensities--the one that just convinced you to be a "skeptic" . . . where's you get that? It sounds like a 3rd grade science fair project that was flunked out before the fair by a kind teacher who wanted to spare the poor kid the embarassment of being revealed as a dolt. Good heavens. Talk about setting up a straw man!
Finally, I didn't say that AGW skeptics SHOULD be tried before the ICJ in the Hague. That's your strawman. What I said was that after the climate holocaust (that's right you heard me, "holocaust")that's almost certainly coming, the shattered fragments of humankind will probably want some sort of closure, as we did after WWII, at Nuremberg. Then, in 50-75 years, there will be trials of such as yourself.
BlackbearBill;
I said that this demonstration was one of many things that led me to be a skeptic. And I agree with you that it is a very poor experiment. However, I have seen it several times in the popular media.
However it was one of the main proponents of AGW that said that the earth could get to be like Venus if we continue on our current path. Which is absolute nonsense for the reasons I gave in the post on the demonstration. Just bigger bottles.
Venus gives off more heat than it absorbs from the sun.
Are the warmists actually saying that once global warming hits the runaway stage, the Earth will generate more heat than it receives from the Sun also?
If so, I have a couple perpetual motion machines I would like to sell them . . .
OK, Mr. Rooker, first, where was this totally stupid experiment demonstrated? It's possible, I guess. Heaven knows that the amount of scientific illiteracy out there is staggering, right up to an including the GOP leadership in both houses of Congress. But the other thing you cite, about the atmposphere of Venus is, in fact, quite plausible. CO2 traps heat in the atmposphere on Venus and on Earth. The more CO2, and CH4, methane, which is a worse greenhouse gas ,the hotter it gets.
You miss the point. As the demonstration showed, yes the CO2 heated up more than the normal atmosphere. However, the atmosphere of Venus is 95% CO2 at a pressure 90 times that of earth. The earth's atmosphere has only .0385% CO2, and is much less dense. It is nothing like the earths atmosphere, so we could not become like Venus by this method, just as the jar of pure CO2 is nothing like the earths atmosphere.
I think you also missed the point that the demonstration I mentioned was done by AGW proponents, and stated as proof that AGW was a fact. It was scientifically illiteracy. And it is such illiteracy that has made me a skeptic.
Not only do you keep making my point to try and counter me, but you also call those you disagree with names to make your point. Something that the AGW proponents do all of the time. Just shows a weak argument to those who can think for themselves.
I was wrong to dismiss Mr. Moon's claim that "half of all published scientists endorse global warming" in such a cavalier fashion. I suspected a semantic trick and responded accordingly. A substantial demolishing of Karl-Martin Schulte's 2007 paper in "Energy and Environment" a journal well-known for AGW denialism, can be found at SkepticalScience.com; and, in fact, Naomi Oreskes whose work Schulte attacked, has responded directly to his cliams. Simply google Oreskes responds Schulte.
Mr. Rooker: whether pure CO2 heats up faster than "air" is not really germane to AGW theory. What is is that CO2 in Earth's atmosphere traps solar energy in the atmosphere, causing said atmosphere to warm. One of the scariest things about this is that planetary warming tends to cause the release of more CO2, and CH4, from organic sources, in what is called a "positive feedback". The Venus scenario is one possible endpoint of out of control positive feedback.
Mr. Moon mentioned Tulaczyk and Joughlin's 2002 study of W. Anatarctic ice as evidence that polar ice is growing. Here's what Joughlin said of th study in "GeoTimes" in February 2002: "our results do not indicate that the whole Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing, merely that 5-6 percent of the ice sheet is currently thickening, and there is no direct causal link between these ice sheets thickening and temperature increase or decrease."
When you cite David Evans' opinion piece in an Australian newspaper--not a peer reviewed scientific journal--as evidence that CO2 is not driving global warming you. really tip your hand, Mr. Moon. Nobody who's following this faux "debate" has any excuse to fail to recognize the vast difference between an op-ed in a newspaper and piece of peer-reviewed scientific research. Mr. Evans doesn't even nappear to have published any real climate research. Keep the phony evidence coming, Mr. Moon. I'm learning a lot.
BlackBearBill...
Hilarious. So to "refute" the article in "Energy and Environment," a journal known for putting actual science before bogus "consensus" logic...you cite a left-wing blog known for peddling this religion's alarmist propaganda.
Davastating. I stand corrected.
And no, impotently trying to spin the fact that applying the left's very own criteria for this anti-science climate scam to more current data produces just as many papers REFUTING it as supporting it to look like some dirty trick...in no way constitutes a "substantial demolishing" of anything...other than your own credibility.
BlackBearBilll...
According to YOUR own source, there were three contradicting conclusions from the West Antarctic ice sheet research...one saying the ice sheet is growing, one saying it is shrinking, and one saying it is "thickening."
THIS is your big evidence that the ice sheet isn't actually growing...a fact that flatly debunks the left's claim that the "shrinking" ice sheets are somehow proof that global warming is man-made and perilous?
On what planet is this Kindergarten, fallacy-riddled astrology-like reasoning "science?"
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!